ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0683/99

by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE) to the Commission

(26 March 1999)

Subject: 1999 tariff quotas for tuna loins

Due to the large number of jobs it provides and the revenue it generates, the tuna canning industry is the most important branch of the Community canning sector in economic and social terms. Will the Commission therefore clarify its reasons for suggesting new imports of a semi-processed product, i.e. tuna loins from South-East Asia, a move which also represents the first step towards liberalisation of the tuna canning sector?

Is the Commission aware that, given the market conditions in this area, this would mean the total distortion of the Community tuna processing industry, and that in order to avoid job losses in an uncompetitive firm, an infinitely higher number of jobs would be sacrificed in other areas of the European Union?

Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission

(3 May 1999)

As the Honourable Member himself pointed out in his question E-540/99(1), tuna loins have become a raw material in their own right in canned tuna production. In some Member States, tuna loins currently account for 60 % of raw materials used in preserve production.

The opening of a limited autonomous tariff quota is designed to facilitate raw material supplies to the Community canning industry. In no way does this measure constitute a step towards the liberalisation of the tuna canning sector. The Commission has made no such proposals, neither under its proposals on the opening of autonomous tariff quotas nor in the context of the reform of the common organisation of the markets in fishery and aquaculture products.

With regard to a possible destabilisation of the tuna canning industry, the Commission takes the view that current market conditions are unlikely to cause major difficulties arising from the opening of a quota equivalent to only 5 % of Community imports of this product. On the other hand, it is convinced that this quota will enable the industry to improve its competitiveness in relation to exports from third countries. Strengthening competitiveness is all the more necessary in view of the major job losses seen in some Member States, with some companies disappearing altogether.

(1) See page 55.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0690/99

by Esko Seppänen (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(26 March 1999)

Subject: Official use of language by the EU

In the answer to my written question P-0024/99(1), what do the letters "Sir" before Commissioner Leon Brittan's name mean? Are they part of the EU's official linguistic usage?

Answer given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission

(27 April 1999)

In matters of personal titles, the Commission follows the rules and customs of each Member State.

(1) OJ C 289, 11.10.1999, p. 135.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0121/99

by Patricia McKenna (V) to the Commission

(2 February 1999)

Subject: Combating the problem

Is the Commission not aware of the urgent need in the European Union for measures to be taken to combat the ever increasing problem of waste disposal?

Why has the Commission not yet come forward with a proposal for a directive on this subject, especially in regard to composting, biomethanization, electrical and electronic waste, and PVC?

Should not the "precautionary principle" and the ideas of "polluter pays" and "preventive action", as enshrined in Article 130r of the European Community Treaty, also be used to the fullest possible extent?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission

(25 March 1999)

The Commission agrees with the Honourable Member that waste prevention is of paramount importance in any waste management system as well as for waste legislation. The Commission tries to promote the principle of producer responsibility for waste management issues, which can be considered as a concrete way of supporting the polluter-pays principle.

The Commission is considering an initiative on composting as a logical follow-up to the Community discussion on landfills, where the proposed directive(1) seeks to reduce significantly the landfilling of biodegradable municipal waste in the years to come. Such waste could very usefully go to composting or to biomethanisation.

The Commission announced in its proposal on end-of-life vehicles(2) that it would look into the issue of polyvinyl chloride (PVC) in general and an examination is at present under way.

The Commission programme for 1998 announced a proposal for a directive on electrical and electronic waste. Work on this subject has been slightly delayed.

(1) COM(98) 189 final.

(2) OJ C 337, 7.1.1997.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1537/99

by Carmen Fraga Estévez (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(1 September 1999)

Subject: Compliance with Regulation (EC) 1239/98 outlawing fishing with driftnets

Regulation (EC) 1239/98 of 8 June 1998(1) amending Regulation (EC) 0894/97 laying down certain technical measures for the conservation of fishery resources outlaws the use of driftnets by Community vessels, as of 1 January 2002. Nonetheless, the Regulation authorises the phasing-out of driftnets as of 1998: Article 1(3) states that in 1998 the maximum number of vessels which may be authorised by a Member State to carry on board or fish with one or more driftnets shall not exceed 60 % of the number of vessels which used one or more driftnets over the period 1995-1997. The second fishing season for the longfinned tuna (Thunnus alalunga) since the Regulation came into force has already started.

In view of this, does the Commission consider the situation to be satisfactory as regards the two fishing seasons thus far? What is the Commission's evaluation of the degree of compliance with the Regulation by the fleets concerned?

(1) OJ L 171, 17.6.1998, p. 1.

Joint answer to Written Questions P-1537/99 and E-1561/99 given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(8 October 1999)

The Member States concerned have sent the Commission the information referred to in Article 11a(4) of Regulation (EC) 0894/97 laying down certain technical measures for the conservation of fishery resources(1).

According to this information, the number of fishing vessels driftnetting for long finned tuna in the north-east Atlantic in the period from 1995 to 1997 and the number of vessels authorised to do so in 1998 and 1999 were as follows:

>TABLE>

The information provided by the Member States in question shows that the requirement laid down in Article 11a(3) of Regulation (EC) 0894/97 is being complied with. The Commission will verify the data provided by the Member States for the 1995-1997 period as part of the checks conducted under Article 29 of Council Regulation (EEC) 2847/93 establishing a control system applicable to the common fisheries policy(2).

(1) OJ L 132, 23.5.1997.

(2) OJ L 261, 20.10.1993.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1616/99

by Stanislaw Tillich (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(7 September 1999)

Subject: Commission staff

Can the Commission say how many auxiliary and local staff and special advisers in addition to the permanent and temporary posts arising from the EU budget it pays out of the budget and what amounts are involved?

Can it provide the same details on staff not governed by the Staff Regulations and employed, for example, at the European agencies, technical assistance offices (TAOs) and international organisations (e.g. for the Balkans)?

How many posts remain vacant in the end?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(6 October 1999)

On 31 August 1999, the Commission employed:

>TABLE>

Some local staff for technical assistance, assigned to the delegations and financed on the B7-5 chapter of the part B of the budget, are not included in the above mentioned human resources. Their number is approximately 150 person/year.

Agencies are given a large autonomy in relation to staff management. Their current statutory staff is approximately 1 200 persons. At present, the Commission does not have data concerning the number of non statutory personnel working in the agencies. This would need an ad hoc survey to each one of the 11 agencies. Meanwhile, in answer to the specific questions:

According to the results of the most recent survey on technical assistance, carried out in September/October 1998, the cost of technical assistance offices (TAOs) working for the Commission corresponds to approximately 200 million. The number of person/year working in TAOs listed by the Commission was approximately 1 000. However the number of indicated person/year does not systematically include the support staff (secretariat, for example) employed by TAOs. Moreover, when the product of TAOs is expressed in terms of delivery of a given service (output) and not of volume of human resources used

(input), the number of personnel employed by TAOs does not constitute a contractual criterion and is therefore not known by the Commission. A new report updating the data on TAOs is being finalised and will be submitted to the budgetary authority in the near future.

At present, the Community rebuilding effort in Kosovo is coordinated by a task force of the Commission, of approximately 35 persons, comprised mainly of officials of the Commission and local agents (statutory personnel). It will be replaced in the future by a Kosovo rebuilding agency.

Budgetary vacant posts at 31 August 1999, are as follows:

>TABLE>
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2139/99

by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(18 November 1999)

Subject: Possible legal fraud in implementing the running costs of secondary education establishments

On 14 December 1993, the Commission approved a running programme submitted by the Spanish Ministry of Labour and Social Security. The programme, to be implemented in Galicia, was designed for vocational training in education, training of researchers, in-service training for employees, 6vocational training for employment, and employment subsidies for the period 1994-1999. The total cost of the programme was ECU 238 707 302, 75 % of which was paid by the EC and 25 % by the Galician Government (ESF No 940129ES1).

Galician teachers, worried by the Galician Government's steady cutting back of the resources available for covering the running costs of public educational establishments, while steadily increasing resources available for private education, have discovered what appears, in principle, to be a fraudulent use of the European funding for the operational programme, particularly in the case of the vocational training for education activities which used up most of the funding in question in 1998-1999. The fraud consists of the partial or total failure to implement the 25 % supposed to be funded by the Galician Government. The normal running costs of the schools involved in the vocational training for education activities were charged on a disproportionate basis under that heading to the programmes co-funded by the European Social Fund, several times over, to the extent of charging four times as much as the real running costs (heating, electricity, water, etc.) per pupil. This not only constitutes fraud in terms of the undertakings given to the Commission, but also deprives the educational establishments of a significant part of the funding they require in order properly to discharge their educational tasks.

Does the Commission intend to investigate these irregularities and demand that the Galician Government meet all its obligations with regard to the funding of ESF programmes concerning vocational training in education?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(9 December 1999)

The most recent inspection by the Commission concerning the use of ESF funding in the Autonomous Community of Galicia was carried out in May to June 1996 i.e. prior to the period referred to by the Honourable Member (1998-1999) and did not reveal any evidence of such fraud.

The Commission has not received any communication on this subject from the Spanish authorities on the basis of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1681/94 of 11 July 1994 concerning irregularities and the recovery of sums wrongly paid in connection with the financing of the structural policies and the organization of an information system in this field(1).

The Honourable Member should therefore submit the specific evidence in his possession regarding the alleged irregular use of ESF funds in the Autonomous Community concerned. Further inspections could be carried out following an examination of this evidence.

(1) OJ L 178, 12.7.1994.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2318/99

by Avril Doyle (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 November 1999)

Subject: Funding under the Leader + programme and adoption of Leader + final guidelines

While I appreciate the fact that the amount of Structural Funds available to Ireland for the period 2000-2006 is lower than for the previous period, can the Commission justify the severe cuts it has made in a model programme, such as Leader, which has proven its worth in fostering partnership, local ownership, professionalism, social inclusion and the creation of jobs and local economic growth throughout Ireland?

When will the guidelines for the Leader+ programme be adopted in their final form and published?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(6 December 1999)

The Commission agrees that under Leader I and II many rural communities have been given the opportunity to develop and put into practice integrated and innovative approaches to stimulate the development of the local rural economy, achieving very positive results. In the Commission's view many of

the experiences gained under Leader I and II are now ready to be passed into the mainstream rural development programmes currently being prepared by Member States. The new Initiative Leader + will help support excellence and innovation and will complement the mainstream programmes by promoting integrated plans conceived and implemented by active partnerships operating at local level. The combination between them can contribute to the creation of synergies, in an integrated approach for the development of the economy of Irish rural areas.

The Commission has communicated the draft Leader + guidelines to, amongst others, the STAR committee and the Parliament. The final version will be adopted on receipt of the opinion of the STAR committee and the views of the Parliament. This is likely to be early in the year 2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2450/99

by Mathieu Grosch (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(13 December 1999)

Subject: Community action programme for youth

On 28 August 1998, the Commission submitted a proposal (COM(1998) 331)(1) for a European Parliament and Council Decision establishing the Community action programme for youth for the period 2000-2004. After the second reading by the European Parliament on 28 October 1999, that Decision was submitted to the Council for second reading. If the negotiations fail to culminate in an acceptable compromise, the programme will not be able to begin, as provided for, on 1 January 2000.

1. Should the Council and the European Parliament fail to reach agreement, will a transitional programme be implemented in place of the real programme, or will the organisations and young people concerned be left in limbo?

2. If a transitional programme were to be implemented, would it follow the guidelines of the old action programme or of the new one?

(1) OJ C 311, 10.10.1998, p. 6.

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(17 December 1999)

At this stage, a final compromise has not yet been reached between the Council and Parliament concerning the Youth programme. It is planned to hold the first meeting of the Conciliation Committee on 13 January 2000, under the Portuguese Presidency. The Commission is confident that the new programme will be adopted. Insofar as the conciliation procedure will have to be concluded in the course of the first quarter of 2000, everything has been done to ensure continuity of the programme.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2424/99

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(13 December 1999)

Subject: Recognition of sport in the Treaty

The 1992 European Sports Charter recognised the social function of sport, while the declaration on sport attached to the Amsterdam Treaty emphasises the social significance of sport, in particular its role in forging identity and bringing people together. Because of its special characteristics, sport has a unique and specific value and cannot be treated in the same way as other economic activities, as it is under current legislation.

The Bosman ruling of 15 December 1995 by the European Court of Justice has made it possible for professional athletes to be transferred freely between the Member States with no restrictions on number, a situation which threatens to undermine national identification with sports teams and restrict the opportunities for the development of young athletes. In addition, by virtue of the subsidiarity principle, the autonomy of the sports bodies and national structures required to regulate the sector must be respected.

The European Council in Vienna on 11 and 12 December 1998 also recognised the social role of sport and asked the Commission to draw up a report for the European Council in Helsinki in preparation for the Intergovernmental Conference.

In the light of the above:

1. Has the Commission set up working parties to draw up the report in question?

2. Is the Commission making progress with the report and will it complete its work in time for the Helsinki summit?

3. In the light of the forthcoming intergovernmental conference, does it think it would be appropriate to table a formal amendment to the Treaty, adding an article to Title XII (ex Title IX), as has already been done in the cultural sector, recognising the specific nature and special requirements of sport and stressing the need for the subsidiarity principle to govern Community action in this field?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(7 January 2000)

1. In preparing the report on sport for the Helsinki Council, the Commission adhered to the Amsterdam declaration's request that sports bodies should be consulted where important issues related to sport are concerned. To this end, the Commission published a discussion paper which received many responses and comments from the sports bodies. This document was used as a basis for the European Sports Conference, which was held in Olympia in May 1999. The Conference offered a special opportunity for all those involved in the world of sport federations, public authorities, other Community institutions, industry, the media to express their views on sport. Finally, the Commission also took into account the report by the Committee of the Regions on sport.

2. At its meeting of 1 December 1999, the Commission adopted the report(1) in order to allow the European Council in Helsinki to deal with this issue.

3. The Commission has already adopted its contribution(2) for the purposes of the intergovernmental conference. It was decided not to include an article on sport.

(1) COM(1999) 644 final.

(2) COM(1999) 592 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2179/99

by Per Stenmarck (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 November 1999)

Subject: Budget

The risk with the 2000 budget is that the European Parliament will denounce the financial perspective adopted less than six months ago. This would be extremely serious and could mean increased costs for all EU tax-payers. The Council is proposing a flat-rate cut of 10 % in Heading 4. This is a poor way of setting priorities and may have adverse consequences. The budgetary authorities must jointly establish the necessary priorities in such a way as to remain within the financial perspective.

Is the Commission prepared to produce the basis which the Council needs in order to establish the necessary priorities before the second reading of the budget?

Answer given by Ms Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(4 January 2000)

Like the Honourable Member, the Commission believes that reallocating appropriations within heading 4 of the financial perspective in line with established priorities is, in principle, preferable to an across-the-board reduction in expenditure and should be considered as an option for financing items such as aid for the reconstruction of Kosovo, the fisheries agreements with Morocco, the rehabilitation of East Timor and aid to Turkey before any decision is taken to exceed the financial perspective framework.

It was this idea in mind that the Commission drew up its proposal for Letter of Amendment No 4/2000. Compared with the initial preliminary draft budget, the redeployment of appropriations proposed in heading 4 is determined by current political priorities. For example, although the Commission is proposing to reduce the total allocation for cooperation with Mediterranean non-member countries by 3,5 % compared with the preliminary draft, the amount remaining is still higher than in the 1999 budget, precisely to allow for the priority given to support for the Community's neighbours, including Turkey. In general, the Letter of Amendment contains a list of proposed redeployment operations, accompanied by detailed grounds.

It is proposed that the Council set its priorities on this basis and on the basis of the figures for implementation of the 1999 budget. Letter of Amendment No 4/2000 also contains financing proposals which exceed the ceiling of heading 4 and entail use of the flexibility instrument, as the Commission feels that the new requirements for external action cannot be financed solely by redeployment without harming programmes already adopted.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2448/99

by Ilkka Suominen (PPE-DE) to the Council

(13 December 1999)

Subject: Future of the EU's Youth programme and of the Council of Youth Ministers

Putting the EU's youth programme into practice has been one of the Finnish Presidency's major objectives. However, it now appears that the implementation of the youth programme, which was intended to be launched at the beginning of next year, may be postponed owing to intervention by some Member States in the programme's budget.

In his report, the Secretary-General of the Council proposes the holding of Council meetings on an irregular basis and the abolition of the Council of Youth Ministers. This formation of the Council has brought about significant programmes which have noticeably improved the freedom of movement of young people in Europe, and this in turn has actively helped ensure that closeness to the citizen has found a place on the European Union's agenda.

What measures does the Council propose to take to guarantee the implementation of the EU's youth programme according to the planned timetable?

Does the Council propose to ensure that the Council of Youth Ministers can continue its work?

Reply

(31 January 2000)

Regarding the future Youth programme the honourable member will be aware that according to the Treaty (Article 251 codecision procedure) the Council has three months in which to approve or not approve the European Parliament's second reading amendments, and thereafter, in the case of non-approval, six weeks within which to convene the conciliation committee. It must, however, be stressed that it is very much the Council's wish that this programme be adopted as soon as possible in the new year.

As far as the future of the Youth Council is concerned, it should be pointed out that the general question of the future organisation of the Council's work was on the agenda of the Helsinki European Council, and that though the European Council decided to reduce to a maximum of fifteen the number of Council formation's, no firm decisions have yet been made as to which compositions of the Council will or will not continue to meet. Nonetheless, it should be made very clear that initiatives concerning the youth sector at European level will continue to be given their due place on the agenda of the Council, irrespective of the composition of the Council concerned.