ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2817/97 by Helena Torres Marques (PSE) to the Commission (1 September 1997)

Subject: Management of the Socrates programme

There have been fairly worrying reports in the media about the future of the Socrates programme, and the universities belonging to the 'Coimbra Group' are apparently also alarmed.

According to my most recent information, this Community programme is teetering on the brink of a 'credibility crisis' because the funds allocated to projects are modest to the point of jeopardizing their implementation.

Programmes of this type are highly important and arouse considerable expectations. The fact that the sums earmarked for them are so paltry is bound to cause great disappointment and detract from the credibility of EU activities.

Will the Commission increase funding for projects of the type concerned and facilitate and expedite the payments which it promises to make, thereby encouraging scientific research, one of the EU's objectives?

Answer given by Mrs Cresson on behalf of the Commission (3 October 1997)

The Commission is aware of the criticism of the universities and consortia of universities such as the Coimbra group regarding the levels of funding available for the transnational cooperation activities under the Erasmus institutional contracts within the Socrates programme.

The budget for this action has in fact increased slightly in overall terms compared with the previous year. However, in the past the grants were disbursed through the coordinating university of each cooperation activity, which then had the responsibility of distributing them to the various partners. Consequently, only 300 coordinating establishments received Community aid which was destined for all the partner establishments. In 1997, for the first time, each of the nearly 1,500 universities participating in Erasmus is receiving an overall grant to contribute towards funding the whole range of its Erasmus activities. This has rendered the Community support much more visible for each institution. The institutional approach highlights the responsibility of each partner university to contribute to the success of the cooperation activities, using the grant it receives from Socrates-Erasmus to complement its own resources and other sources of funding.

Nevertheless, the average grants are indeed modest. The Commission is acutely aware of the inadequacy of funding for the Socrates programme as whole, for which it had proposed a budget far in excess of the figure finally adopted in accordance with the procedures agreed at that time. The Commission has proposed an increase to the financial framework, for the programme in 1998 and 1999 in order to reinforce the programme's capacity to meet its stated objectives. The Commission's proposal to increase the budget is currently under discussion in the Parliament and Council.

However, it should be noted that the Socrates programme is a programme for cooperation in education and not scientific research as suggested by the Honourable Member.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1487/97 by Tony Cunningham (PSE) to the Council (30 April 1997)

Subject: Assessment of the joint action to combat trafficking in human beings

What action does the Council propose to take in the short term to pursue the aims proposed in the joint action to combat trafficking in human beings and sexual exploitation of children, which came into force on 24 February 1997?

In the period prior to the official assessment of the results of the joint action at the end of 1999, how does the Council propose to monitor its effectiveness?

Answer (16 October 1997)

The Council attaches great importance to the questions raised by the Honourable Member of the European Parliament, and is actively pursuing the matter in relevant working groups of the Council, such as the Europol Working Group, the Mutual Assistance Working Group and the Drugs and Organized Crime Working Group.

These discussions aim at a better coordination of the efforts of the Member States and the international organisations working in this area, such as ICPO/Interpol, the Council of Europe, and to an increasing extent EDU/Europol. The discussions so far have emphasized the need to promote and facilitate the exchange of information between Member States, to give analytical support to international investigations, to develop the centres of excellence concept currently being created within EDU/Europol, and to include the subject in the annual situation report on organized crime in the EU.

The Dutch Presidency of the Council organized from 24 to 26 April 1997 a Ministerial Conference on trafficking in women in the Hague. The declaration adopted at the Conference has been made public.

The Council intends to commence the assessment of the implementation of the Joint Action in 1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2664/97 by Sérgio Ribeiro (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (25 July 1997)

Subject: Reform of the CAP and aid to arable crops

According to various reports, the Commission has estimated at ECU 8.5 million the overpayments made to the European Union's cereal sector in the context of compensatory aid based on the reform of the CAP.

Would the Commission clarify the matter by providing the following information:

1. the data used and calculations made to arrive at this figure;

2. the estimated overpayments:

- by Member State

- according to size and location of holdings.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (5 September 1997)

1. The Commission has forwarded to Parliament the working paper ((SEC(97) 1183. )) which estimates the over-compensation paid to cereal producers in relation to the targets of the July 1992 reform at approximately ECU 8 500 million. Since the Commission has opted for a global approach to the matter, this amount should be seen as an order of magnitude rather than a specific figure.

2. The Commission has made an overall analysis for the Community as a whole rather than detailed analyses for the Member States or the different types of holdings.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2164/97 by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Council (25 June 1997)

Subject: Novel food regulation No 258/97- Demonstrability

1. Who will be responsible for establishing demonstration methods?

2. By which authorities and/or private institutions will the checks be carried out?

3. By what date is this to be done?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2160/97, E-2162/97, E-2164/97, E-2166/97, E-2176/97, E-2178/97, E-2180/97, E-2182/97 and E-2186/97 (28 October 1997)

As specified in Article 8(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 258/97 ((OJ L 43, 14.2.1997. )), an appropriate analysis should be able, if necessary, to demonstrate that certain characteristics of a novel food or food ingredient "are different in comparison with a conventional food or food ingredient, having regard to the accepted limits of natural variations for such characteristics¨. It should also be noted that any arrangements for applying Article 8 will be adopted in accordance with the (Committee) procedure provided for in Article 13.

The questions are worded in such a way that it is difficult to identify the checks or monitoring to which the Honourable Member refers. The general provisions of Community legislation on the monitoring of foodstuffs are in any event applicable.

Regarding the assessments to be carried out under Articles 4 and 6 of Regulation No 258/97, the detailed arrangements, and notable the role of the Member States as regards the assessment bodies, are laid down in Article 4(3) and Article 6(2) to (4), supplemented, where Commission will publish recommendations concerning the scientifc aspects of the preparation of the initial assessment reports. These provisions are supplemented, where appropriate, by the relevant provisions of Directive 90/220/EEC ((OJ L 117, 8.5.1990. )).

Regarding methods of analysis, it will be recalled that Article 4 of Directive 93/99/EEC ((OJ L 290, 24.11.1993. )) provides that Member States shall ensure that the validation of methods of analysis used within the context of official control of foodstuffs complies whenever possible with certain criteria laid down in Directive 85/591/EEC ((OJ L 372, 31.12.1985. )) concerning the introduction of Community methods of sampling and analysis for monitoring of foodstuffs intended for human consumption.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2200/97 by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Council (25 June 1997)

Subject: Novel food regulation No 258/97 - Access to data on novel food products

Will there be public access to these data banks, or will some data be subject to confidentiality?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2198/97, E-2200/97 and E-2202/97 (28 October 1997)

The detailed rules governing the protection of data provided by an applicant for a marketing authorization are adopted in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 13 of the Regulation referred to by the Honourable Member.

Regulation No 258/97 ((OJ L 43, 14.02.1997. )) makes no provision for the systematic publication of either the scientific data submitted or the evaluation of that data, nor does it make provision for the designation of authorities competent for recording data concerning the products approved or notidied in accordance with that Regulation.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2174/97 by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Council (25 June 1997)

Subject: Novel food regulation No 258/97 - Monitoring of products free of 'genetic engineering'

1. Will the research laboratories also be available to manufacturers not supplying products produced by genetic engineering processes and who wish to have this checked?

2. Will such research be free of charge, in order not to place the manufacturers in question at a disadvantage?

3. On the other hand, will the tests cover not only those foods which manufacturers declare not to have been produced by genetic engineering?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2168/97, E-2170/97, E-2172/97 and E-2174/97 (28 October 1997)

The Council has not received any information on Member States' arrangements regarding these points.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2777/97 by Raimo Ilaskivi (PPE) to the Commission (1 September 1997)

Subject: Report on the economic consequences of the ending of tax-free sales

In 1991 Parliament called on the Commission to report on the economic consequences that might ensue when tax-free sales were abolished. The Union's Ministers of Transport made a request to the same effect in July of this year. Appearing before the Committee on Economic Affairs on 7 July 1997, a Commission representative said that there was no need for a report.

According to my information, a report has been requested in several written questions to the Commission. I also find the matter disquieting as far as parliamentary prerogatives are concerned. Does the Commission consider the wishes of Parliament and the Member States' Ministers of Transport to be of no account, given that the report has not been drawn up and the reason for this inactivity has not been revealed? If the foregoing assumption is incorrect, when will the Commission produce the report that it was asked to submit in 1991?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (22 October 1997)

The Commission has already stated its position on the request for a report on the economic consequences of the ending of tax-free sales within the Community ((See, for example, the answers to parliamentary questions H-552/97 and H-21/97 by MrAndersson (Debates of the European Parliament - July and February 1997), H-409 by Mrs Banotti (Debates of the European Parliament - June 1997), E-1089/97 by Mr Mather (OJ C 367, 4.12.1997, p. 77), E-4116/96 by Mr Kaklamanis (OJ C 217, 17.7.1997, p. 66) and H-908/97 by Mrs Schörling (Debates of the European Parliament - December 1997). )).

When, in 1991, the Council decided to maintain tax-free sales on a temporary basis in support of certain operations, the intention was that the sectors concerned should adapt to a new situation over a period of more than seven years, thereby taking into account the specific nature of each sector.

While the parties who benefited from this transitional period are now seeking a further period of exemption, the arguments they use are in fact no different from those put forward in 1991. The Council took those arguments into account in 1991, and there is no reason to reassess their importance or to re-open the debate on special arrangements which, as decided, are due to come to an end.

The Council confirmed its position on this matter at the Ecofin Council meeting on 11 November 1996; in particular, it rejected the need for a report of this kind. The Transport Council which met in July 1997 left the matter to be decided by the Ecofin Council.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2114/97 by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Council (24 June 1997)

Subject: Novel food regulation No 258/97 - Authorization through entry in the catalogue of species

In future will transgenic plants still require any authorization and approval before being entered in the common catalogue of species?

Answer (31 October 1997)

Regulation No 258/97 is aimed not at plants as such, whether or not transgenic, but at foods and food ingredients only, as specified in Article 1 thereof.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2420/97 by Laura De Esteban Martin (PPE) to the Council (18 July 1997)

Subject: Training courses for officials

Can the Council state how many training courses were held for officials under the third pillar during 1995, 1996 and 1997, giving details of the participation of the various Member States in each one?

Could the Council also state whether there are any statistics or whether any study has been carried out on the result(s) of these courses?

Answer (17 November 1997)

The Council has not organized any specific training courses in the field of Justice and Home Affairs.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2635/97 by Ursula Schleicher (PPE) to the Commission (1 September 1997)

Subject: Children at risk from alcoholic drinks such as alcopops and designer drinks

Designer drinks and alcopops are drinks containing between 4 and 21% alcohol. Marketing efforts, concentrated on children and young people, are increasing all the time in the European Union. These products are already sold in substantial quantities in Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Norway, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and Great Britain. They appear to be very popular with children and young people.

Does the Commission regard these products as 'soft drugs' leading to alcoholism?

As part of its efforts to curb the detrimental effects of excessive alcohol consumption, what scope does the Commission see for intervening and pointing out the dangers?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (16 October 1997)

The Commission is aware that the so-called alcopops may contribute to the problem of excessive alcohol consumption. They appeal to children, teenagers and young adults to start drinking alcohol or to drink more alcohol by the presentation of attractive packaging and the sweet taste.

At the European level, Council Directive 79/112/EEC ((OJ L 33, 8.2.1979. )) relating to labelling of foodstuffs imposes the indication of the alcoholic strength by volume for beverages containing more than 1.2% by volume of alcohol. The Commission will remind Member States of the existing legislation and will follow up its application.

Within the framework of the Community action programme on health promotion, information, education and training (Decision No 645/96/EC ((OJ L 95, 16.4.1996. ))) alcohol abuse has been identified as one of the priority issues to be tackled. It allows support for actions concerning measures to prevent alcohol abuse and the health and social consequences thereof.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2712/97 by Bárbara Dührkop Dührkop (PSE) to the Commission (28 July 1997)

Subject: Compliance with the fisheries Agreement with Morocco and boarding of vessels

Since the fisheries Agreement between the Community and Morocco was signed in May 1995, there have been 17 cases in which Spanish vessels operating in Moroccan fishing grounds have been boarded. Senior officials responsible for the Community fleet maintain that such boarding is, more often than not, the result of arbitrary action and that fishing is taking place in a situation of intolerable uncertainty as to the legal position.

When a vessel has been boarded, do the Moroccan authorities invariably inform the Commission within 48 hours, as they are required to do under the fisheries Agreement?

Does the list of vessels boarded held at the Spanish Consulate in Agadir ((El País, 23.7.1997, p. 48. )) tally with the information in the Commission's possession?

What does the Commission think of the monitoring and detection system used by Moroccan surveillance vessels? Does it offer technical guarantees? Does it conform to approved international standards?

To what extent does the Commission believe that the fisheries Agreement with Morocco is being observed?

Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission (22 September 1997)

Since the entry into force of the new fisheries Agreement between Morocco and the Community the Moroccan authorities generally inform the Commission Delegation in Rabat within 48 hours as required under Chapter VIII of Annex II to the Agreement.

The information held by the Spanish Consul in Agadir is not fully comprehensive and covers only events taking place in a part of Morocco's waters and cannot, therefore, be compared with that in the Commission's possession.

The Commission has at all times demanded that the Moroccan authorities comply fully with the requirements applicable under the Agreement as regards the boarding of Community fishing vessels authorized to operate in Morocco's fishing zone, the aim being to ensure that owners of Community fishing vessels are able to exercise their rights.

In the light of the recent boardings, however, the Commission has asked that the Joint Committee provided for in the Agreement should meet not in December, as was originally planned, but at the end of September, looking into possible ways of improving procedures where a vessel is boarded and ensuring the utmost transparency and flow of information.

The Commission regards the implementation of the fisheries Agreement with Morocco as satisfactory. The utilization of fishing opportunities between December 1995 and June 1997 was very high for most types of fishing and the Commission remains committed to improving administrative cooperation between both parties to the Agreement.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2516/97 by Gerhard Schmid (PSE) to the Commission (22 July 1997)

Subject: Cyberlaundering and Fraud - support by the EU

Did the Commission provide financial support for the 'Cyberlaundering and Fraud' event organized by the Instituto Nacional de Engenharia e Technologia on 3 and 4 June 1997 in Lisbon?

If so, how much?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (24 September 1997)

The Commission provided no financial support to the event mentioned by the Honourable Member.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2614/97 by Marjo Matikainen-Kallström (PPE) to the Commission (1 September 1997)

Subject: Wood chippings as biofuel

In Finland a comparative study has been carried out on the relative prices of biofuels and heavy fuel oil and the regional economic effects of their use. The study arose in connection with the planned construction of a 5 MW district heating plant in which heat would be produced using forest wood chippings instead of heavy heating oil.

According to the study, the arguments in favour of the use of wood chippings as biofuel are its environmental compatibility and its local provenance. The production of wood chippings employs local people not only directly but also indirectly through transport and other services.

In the light of the experience gained in Finland, what kinds of programmes does the EU have to support the construction of heating plants of this kind burning biofuel, and what additional measures does the Commission propose to take to support job-creating and environmentally acceptable projects in this field?

Answer given by Mr Papoutsis on behalf of the Commission (14 October 1997)

A distinction may be drawn between various types of support for facilities using biomass (including wood chippings) as their raw material.

Specific programmes within the 4th Framework Programme on research and development (R& D) and demonstration covering 1994-98 (Parliament and Council Decision 1110/94/EC) ((OJ L 126, 18.5.1994. )) could provide funds for innovative projects. This applies in particular to the JOULE, Thermie and FAIR programmes.

In addition, if the project is located within a region that is eligible under objective 5b or objective 6, it could possibly receive a subsidy granted under the Structural Funds (Regulation 2052/88 ((OJ L 185, 15.7.1988. )), as last amended by the act relating to the conditions of accession of the Kingdom of Norway, the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland, and the Kingdom of Sweden ((OJ L 241, 29.8.1994. )) - Council Decision 95/1/EC, Euratom/ECSC ((OJ L 1, 1.1.1995. )).

The Commission is currently mapping out a strategy for the future development of renewable energy sources, including an action plan on this subject. The White Paper will be the outcome of a broad consultation initiated by the Green Paper on 'Energy for the future: renewable energy sources' ((Doc. COM(96) 576. )). The Commission has received the reactions of more than 80 operators involved in such 'renewables'. Owing to its importance, biomass, including the specific technology referred to by the Honourable Member, will occupy an important place in this action plan.

Finally, it should be pointed out that the proposal for a Council Decision on a multiannual programme promoting renewable energy sources within the Community (Altener II ((Doc. COM(97) 87. ))) provides for action that is likely to prompt investment in renewables (Article 2(2)).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3349/97 by Helena Torres Marques (PSE) to the Commission (22 October 1997)

Subject: Combating fraud

Will the Commission say which Member States of the European Union have already ratified the Convention on the Protection of the Financial Interests of the EU?

Answer given by Mrs Gradin on behalf of the Commission (20 November 1997)

Up to now, none of the Member States have ratified the Convention on the protection of the financial interests of the Community.

The Commission would point out that the target date of mid- 1998 was introduced for the ratification of this Convention in the action plan to combat organized crime ((OJ C 251, 15.8.1997. )) adopted by the Justice and Home Affairs Council on 28 April 1997. This action plan was subsequently approved by the European Council of Amsterdam.

Moreover, the Commission would observe that it is of the utmost importance to recommend Member States not only to ratify the Convention (as well as the protocols to this Convention and the Convention on the fight against corruption involving officials of the Community or officials of Member States) but also to take the necessary measures for their transposition into national law.