ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0479/98 by Richard Howitt (PSE) to the Commission (27 February 1998)

Subject: Guidelines in structural fund programmes as agreed at the informal Council in Ireland on 14-15 November 1996

Does the Commission agree there may be a case for approving its guidelines for structural fund programmes, as agreed at the informal Council in Ireland on 14-15 November 1996, (or its counterpart in future) at the same time as final approval of the new Structural Fund regulations for 2000-2006, in order to avoid unnecessary effort in the Member States in preparing their submissions and the need for wasteful subsequent alterations?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (6 April 1998)

The new proposals for structural funds regulations contain specific provision for the Commission to establish Community guideline priorities for each of the objectives. Precisely in order to avoid unnecessary effort in the Member States and the need for subsequent alterations, the guidelines will be issued before the presentation of their plans. The aim is to agree the guidelines at the same time as final adoption of the new regulations or as soon as possible thereafter.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0603/98 by Bartho Pronk (PPE) to the Commission (4 March 1998)

Subject: Socio-political adult education and its role in the Commission's education policy

Does the Commission view socio-political adult education as the basis for cohesion in the EU and if so, how does it intend to realize this aim in its programme?

Is it true that there is no specific budget line for adult education?

Is it correct that the Commission only supports socio-political topics when they are immediately relevant to it (e.g. the euro) but offers NGOs no possibility of financing for topics chosen by them?

What financing is available for NGO-run educational programmes on ethical subjects and problems and the methodology of socio-political adult education?

Is the Commission prepared to recognize and promote socio-political adult education as an educational sector in its own right in addition to university, vocational and school education?

Answer given by Mrs Cresson on behalf of the Commission (8 April 1998)

The Commission attaches great importance to the development of adult education. The Socrates programme is concerned with improving cooperation between Member States in the field of adult education, so as to promote in adults the spirit of European citizenship, social inclusion and awareness of other Member States' cultures. There is no specific budget line for adult education; it comes under the budget for the Socrates programme (Action 3.5.A).

Each year the Commission indicates in the applicants' guide the priority activities that it intends to support in the field of adult education, and that also take into account equality of opportunity, access for the disabled, and preference for rural and disadvantaged regions. Most of the projects financed are initiated by associations and NGOs and relate in particular to the integration of disadvantaged groups (migrants, the disabled, the illiterate, the unemployed), European citizenship and cooperation in adult education (comparison of systems, exchanges of good practice).

The Commission is very aware that in a society undergoing rapid economic, social, cultural, scientific and technological change every citizen must have the opportunity for lifelong learning. This objective will be a priority in the next Socrates programme.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0540/98 by Mark Watts (PSE) to the Commission (4 March 1998)

Subject: Welfare of intensively farmed broiler chickens (chickens reared for meat)

4 025 million chickens were reared for meat in the EU in 1996. There is presently no EC Directive to protect the welfare of these birds.

The majority of the chickens are kept intensively in huge windowless sheds which, as the birds grow bigger, become severely overcrowded. The worst welfare problems stem from the fact that modern broiler chickens have been bred to reach their slaughter weight in around only six weeks. The bird's legs fail to keep pace with the rapid muscle growth and often cannot properly support the bird's over-developed body. As a result, each year tens of millions of broiler chickens in the EU suffer from painful leg disorders.

In light of this information what plans does the Commission have to ask the new Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare to produce a report on the welfare of intensively kept broiler chickens?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (27 March 1998)

As the Commission indicated in its replies to written questions No 1963/96 and 1964/96 there is currently no Community legislation on the welfare of poultry kept for meat production. The Commission accepts that the recommendations under the European convention for the protection of animals kept for farming purposes will need appropriate legislation at the Community level in order to facilitate the uniform enforcement within the Member States.

In this connection the Commission has presented a proposal for a Council directive concerning the protection of animals for farming purposes ((OJ C 156, 23.6.1992. )), which will provide the legal basis for future proposals to be submitted to the Council concerning farm animal welfare.

It is also the intention of the Commission to ask the scientific committee on animal health and animal welfare to prepare an opinion on the welfare of broiler chickens.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0465/98 by Allan Macartney (ARE) to the Commission (27 February 1998)

Subject: The failure of Member States to fulfil MAGP III targets for fishing fleets

With reference to its declaration at the meeting of the Council of Ministers in April 1997, what action does the Commission envisage taking against those Member States that have not respected the multiannual guidance programmes within the time period envisaged or have not established the means to monitor the programmes or the means to inform the Commission of the exact situation of their fishing fleets with respect to the objectives of the programmes?

Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission (16 April 1998)

The objectives of the multiannual guidance programmes (MAGP) for the period 1997-2001 were calculated by applying the appropriate reduction rates to the objectives for the end of 1996 that were fixed by the previous programmes. This means that those Member States that failed to respect the objectives for 1996 must make up the backlog as well as achieving any further reductions required during the period of the current programme.

This does not mean that the 1996 deadline for meeting the objectives of the previous programmes has been superseded. Indeed, the Commission has taken the first step that might lead to legal action against those Member States that have failed to meet their obligations. A number of letters informing them of the possibility of an infringement procedure have been sent, and concern either the failure to meet the objectives of the programmes or the failure to keep details of the fleets up to date in the Community fleet register or the failure to re-measure the tonnage of the fleets in units of gross tonnes.

The Commission is examining the responses of the Member States to these letters. A combined team of Community inspectors and officials has also begun a series of visits to all Member States in order to ensure that the necessary framework is in place to comply with the obligations of the MAGPs. If the Commission is not convinced that a genuine effort is being made to respect these obligations, it will not hesitate to take the necessary legal action against the Member States concerned. In the meantime, Community assistance has already been suspended for some Member States until the MAGP III objectives are achieved.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0164/98 by Anita Pollack (PSE) to the Commission (2 February 1998)

Subject: Consumers and timber products

Is the Commission committed to systems of forest certification, which enables consumers to make an informed choice about the purchase of environmentally friendly timber products?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (24 March 1998)

The Commission is not committed to any system of forest certification as a general policy element, but continues to stimulate and host formal and informal discussions on the issue through various fora, as well as to monitor the use of and results from forest certification initiatives and other mechanisms to promote sustainable forest management in the forest products markets. Additionally the Commission has supported, often through co-financing, a number of projects and other initiatives carried out in the specific context of the Regulation (EC) No 3062/95 on operations to promote tropical forests ((OJ L 327, 30.12 1995. )), Article 4(c), as well as under the forest protocol of the Lomé Convention.

The Commission is aware of an increasing and legitimate public demand for more assurance on sustainable forest management. Globally, certification can be considered as one tool among others which can help to improve the management of forests in those regions of the world where deforestation and large scale forest degradation due to inappropriate logging practices occur. In Europe forest certification is not likely to have any significant impact on forest management as this is already characterised by a high degree of sustainability. Its potential benefits, if any, will here be limited to possible market advantages and a better public information on the environmental advantages of wood and wood-based products when compared to non-renewable raw materials.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0365/98 by Georges Garot (PSE) to the Commission (24 February 1998)

Subject: Compensatory allowance for natural handicaps

I have recently been informed of a problem encountered by stock breeders raising donkeys in mountain areas who are not at present entitled to receive the allowance to compensate for natural handicaps.The relevant provisions of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2328/91 ((OJ L 218, 6.8.1991, p.1. )) cover only some equidae, namely breeding mares and fillies of heavy horse breeds. Presumably donkeys are excluded because of the small numbers involved. However, in view of the important role played by donkeys in grazing and thus helping to maintain mountain pastures, it would be desirable for these animals to qualify for the same support as all those which contribute to the conservation of such areas. Would the Commission consider extending the compensatory allowance for natural handicaps to donkey breeders?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (11 March 1998)

Compensatory allowances for natural handicaps are governed by a Community Regulation (Council Regulation (EC) No 950/97 on improving the efficiency of agricultural structures ((OJ L 142, 2.6.1997. )), Articles 17 to 19). This Regulation states that this support measure is not obligatory for the Member States, which 'may grant a ... compensatory allowance' (Article 17(2)), and that, if Member States apply the measure, they 'may lay down additional or limiting conditions for the grant of the compensatory allowance' (Article 18(2)).

France has in fact made use of precisely this possibility with regard to the raising of donkeys by not including this activity in the categories of eligible livestock farming. On the other hand, donkey raising may qualify for the 'grass premium', which is not restricted to less-favoured areas but is available to all holdings with surfaces to grass, whatever their location.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0765/98 by Nikitas Kaklamanis (UPE) to the Commission (18 March 1998)

Subject: Hazards associated with biological treatment of sewage at Psyttalia

The biological treatment of sewage from Attica at the plant on the island of Psyttalia is developing into a series of major environmental problems which may be summarized as follows:

1. the management of the 250 tonnes of sludge produced every day by the first stage of sewage treatment, which will increase to 800 tonnes daily when the second stage of treatment is completed in three years time;

2. the toxicity of the sludge, in which the average concentration of heavy metals (chromium, nickel, zinc, copper etc.) is far in excess of the concentrations laid down by Directive 86/278/EEC ((OJ L 181, 4.7.1986, p. 6. ));

3. the concentrations of heavy metals in the sewage, making biological treatment problematic;

4. the problems arising from the tolerance shown by EYDAP (the company responsible for water supplies and sewerage in Athens) towards industries using its network for the disposal of non-biologically treated waste.

What does the Commission intend to do to save the Saronic Gulf in view of the fact that the Psyttalia biological treatment plant is funded by the European Union?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (28 April 1998)

The toxicity of the sludge produced by waste water treatment on the island of Psyttalia appears to be due to the discharge of industrial waste water into the collecting systems and urban waste water treatment plants.

Under Article 11 of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment ((OJ L 135, 30.5.1991. )), Member States must ensure that discharge of industrial waste water is subject to prior regulations or specific authorisations by the competent authority or appropriate body. In particular, industrial waste water must undergo such pre-treatment as is required in order to ensure that the operation of the waste water treatment plant and the treatment of sludge are not impeded and that sludge can be disposed of safely in an environmentally acceptable manner.

The use of sludge in agriculture must conform with the provisions of Council Directive 86/278/EEC of 12 June 1986 on the protection of the environment, and in particular of the soil, when sewage sludge is used in agriculture.

In its capacity as guardian of the Treaties, the Commission will verify that the Greek authorities are observing the provisions and will investigate the case if necessary under the procedure laid down in Article 169 of the EC Treaty.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0665/98 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (10 March 1998)

Subject: Employment of teachers in extra tuition programme for Greek lower secondary schools

The resolution of the Amsterdam European Council ((OJ C 236, 2.8.1997, p. 3. )) on growth and employment begins: 'It is imperative to give a new impulse for keeping employment at the top of the political agenda of the European Union.' The chapter on the organization of working time of Parliament's proposal to the extraordinary meeting of the European Council on employment states that where overtime is structural in nature, firms, unions and employers should reduce it and create additional jobs.

In Greece, extra tuition has been introduced as part of the package of measures designed to support the comprehensive secondary school system, which is funded through the Community Support Framework. Tuition is to be provided mainly by teachers who already hold posts working overtime, whereas there are thousands of teachers unemployed.

What measures will the Commission take to fill these new posts, which are being financed through the Community Support framework, with unemployed teachers?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (16 April 1998)

The extra tuition courses to which the Honourable Member refers are for pupils in upper secondary education, in particular in the recently established integrated (or unified) lyceum. The aim of these courses, organised at this first transitional phase, is to help students adapt to the new requirements of the integrated lyceum (new courses, new curricula, new didactic approach). Their nature is temporary rather than structural and they will be given up to the end of the current Community support framework (CSF).

In addition, in the technical sheet of the action, the Greek authorities which implement the operation, explain that 'the teachers for the extra tuition courses are to be chosen by the teachers' association, in co-operation with school counsellors ... from neighbouring school units, or from among highly qualified teachers still without a post ...'. Moreover 'the teachers of a particular extra tuition section must not be those who give the corresponding regular classes to the pupils in question'.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0146/98 by Brian Simpson (PSE) to the Commission (2 February 1998)

Subject: Dresser-Rand

Is the Commission aware that the Dresser-Rand Company based in Wythenshawe, United Kingdom, is to transfer its production to Le Havre in France with the loss of 300 jobs from an ERDF Objective 2 area?

Can the Commission investigate whether this move resulted from illegal subsidies or sweeteners paid to the company by the French authorities?

Supplementary answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission (16 April 1998)

After being contacted by the Commission, the French authorities assured it that they were so far unaware of any plans to grant aid for the transfer by Dresser-Rand of its reciprocating compressor production activities from Wythenshawe to Le Havre, where production is already carried out.

Moreover, if any aid were envisaged, the French authorities have undertaken to inform the Commission of the details.

The Commission would then be sure to ascertain whether the Community rules on state aid were being complied with and to inform the Honourable Member of its conclusions.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0217/98 by Gianni Tamino (V) to the Commission (11 February 1998)

Subject: Derogations granted by Italy for slaughterhouses

In its answer to my previous question (E-3274/97) ((OJ C 158, 25.5.1998, p. 75. )), the Commission stated that it would 'contact the Italian authorities with a request for further information on the subject'.

Article 56 of the law linked to the 1998 budget, containing 'measures to stabilize public finances', which was finally adopted by the Italian parliament on 23 December 1997, has further extended the deadline (the previous deadline having been laid down in Law No 228/1997 on 'urgent provisions for preventing and tackling forest fires in Italy, and measures in the spheres of civil protection, the environment and agriculture') to 31 December 1998 for slaughterhouses, which have already been granted an extension of more than three years beyond the deadline laid down in Community law.

Is the Commission aware of this latest decision and does it consider that it complies with the relevant Directives?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (2 April 1998)

The Commission has contacted the Italian authorities and has requested further information concerning the facts mentioned in the written question. The answer has not yet been received.

The Commission will now request the information once again.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1314/98 by José García-Margallo y Marfil (PPE) to the Commission (29 April 1998)

Subject: EURO 1999

As a result of the Pact for Stability and Growth adopted by the Amsterdam European Council in June 1997, the Member States' medium-term budgetary objective will be to achieve 'positions close to balance or in surplus'. If the Member States continue their budgetary adjustments in subsequent years, their public finances will be in the best position to tackle the budgetary consequences of a possible downturn in the economy.

But what does the Commission think would be the current situation in Finland if the Stability Pact had been applied during the period 1992-1997?

Answer given by Mr de Silguy on behalf of the Commission (2 June 1998)

The stability and growth pact is constituted by a resolution of the European Council of 7 June 1997 ((OJ C 236, 2.8.1997. )) and by Council Regulation (EC) No 1466/97 of 7 July 1997 on the strengthening of the surveillance of budgetary positions and the surveillance and coordination of economic policies ((OJ L 209, 2.8.1997. )), and Council Regulation (EC) No 1467 of 7 July 1997 on speeding up and clarifying the implementation of the excessive deficit procedure (2). The pact aims at fiscal discipline in the economic and monetary union (EMU) thus creating the appropriate stability conditions for sustained growth. It provides a powerful system of incentives for a Member State not to incur an excessive deficit and to correct it rapidly if such a situation should occur.

In 1992, Finland had a government deficit equal to 5.9% of gross domestic product (GDP). After Finland's accession to the Community in January 1995, the Council decided, 10 July 1995, that an excessive deficit existed in Finland (Article 104c(6) of the EC Treaty). The decision was abrogated in June 1997. In the period covered by the Honourables Member's question, i.e. 1992 to 1997, Finland budgetary policy was mainly geared towards convergence, i.e. to correct the excessive deficit situation and thus to meet the convergence criteria on the budgetary position. Moreover, paragraphs 9 and 11 of Article 104c, which deal with sanctions, did not apply during stage two of EMU.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0924/98 by Nikitas Kaklamanis (UPE) to the Commission (26 March 1998)

Subject: Full details of funding to Israel and Palestine

Will the responsible Commission departments provide me with tables detailing all funding hitherto (starting from the period of the first agreements with the Community (1977), if that information is available) to Israel and Palestine?

The information should cover all funding by country and from all possible sources (Community budget, horizontal measures, bilateral agreements and financial protocols, European Investment Bank and any other Community initiative.

Answer given by Mr Marin on behalf of the Commission (7 May 1998)

The Commission is sending direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat a table containing the information requested.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1311/98 by José García-Margallo y Marfil (PPE) to the Commission (29 April 1998)

Subject: EURO 1999

As a result of the Pact for Stability and Growth adopted by the Amsterdam European Council in June 1997, the Member States' medium-term budgetary objective will be to achieve 'positions close to balance or in surplus'. If the Member States continue their budgetary adjustments in subsequent years, their public finances will be in the best position to tackle the budgetary consequences of a possible downturn in the economy.

But what does the Commission think would be the current situation in Austria if the Stability Pact had been applied during the period 1992-1997?

Answer given by Mr de Silguy on behalf of the Commission (2 June 1998)

The stability and growth pact is constituted by a resolution of the European Council of 7 June 1997 ((OJ C 236, 2.8.1997. )), Council Regulation (EC) No 1466/97 of 7 July 1997 on the strengthening of the surveillance of budgetary positions and the surveillance and coordination of economic policies ((OJ L 209, 2.8.1997. )), and Council Regulation (EC) No 1467 of 7 July 1997 on speeding up and clarifying the implementation of the excessive deficit procedure (2). The pact aims at fiscal discipline in the economic and monetary union (EMU) thus creating the appropriate stability conditions for sustained growth. It provides a powerful system of incentives for a Member State not to incur an excessive deficit and to correct it rapidly if such a situation should occur.

In 1992, Austria had a government deficit equal to 2% of gross domestic product (GDP), and in 1993 the deficit was 4.2% of GDP. After Austria's accession to the Community in January 1995, the Council decided 10 July 1995 that an excessive deficit existed in Austria (Article 104c(6) of the EC Treaty). In the period covered by the Honourable Member's question, i.e. 1992 to 1997, Austria budgetary policy was mainly geared towards convergence, i.e. to correct the excessive deficit situation and thus to meet the convergence criteria on the budgetary position. Moreover, paragraphs 9 and 11 of Article 104c, which deal with sanctions, did not apply during stage two of EMU.