ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1152/96 by Shaun Spiers (PSE) to the Commission (15 May 1996)

Subject: Pension levels and benefits for older people in the European Union

The European Year of Older People and Solidarity between Generations in 1993 helped significantly to bridge the gap between the European Union and its older citizens.

Among the most useful benefits of that year was the research comparing national policies affecting the situation of older people across Europe and, in particular, the figures which were produced showing relative pension levels and different benefits received by pensioners in each Member State.

Will the Commission undertake to update this work and publish a survey of relative pension levels and benefits for older people throughout the fifteen Member States of the European Union?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (7 June 1996)

Information on pension levels and the main benefits for older people throughout the Community is contained in the mutual information system on social protection in the Community (MISSOC) report which is updated and published annually by the Commission. The proposal for a Council decision on Community support for actions in favour of older people ((OJ C 115, 9.5.1995 )) envisages re-launching an observatory with the task of providing information on overall policy developments affecting the older population. The Council has not yet adopted this proposal.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0898/96 by Richard Howitt (PSE) to the Commission (11 April 1996)

Subject: Implementation of Konver II in the UK

Will the Commission undertake urgent discussions with the British Government concerning slippage in implementation of the Konver II programme, applications for which were promised in January but which are not yet available.

Will the Commission precisely state the undertaking the British Government gives on when guidelines and applications will be issued, when decisions on allocations will be made and when money will be transferred?

Will the Commission seek particular assurances with regard to this for the Eastern region of England?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (13 May 1996)

The Konver II United Kingdom programme was adopted by the Commission on 23 December 1995, and the Commission has made the initial advance payment to the national authorities.

Under the agreed implementation procedure, decisions on projects for inclusion in the programme are taken in regional working groups with regional and local participation. This procedure, which also applies to the Eastern region, has been launched and working group meetings are taking place to implement the programme and consider applications. It is now up to each working group and region to ensure smooth working of the system along with the British authorities.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0993/96 by Richard Howitt (PSE) to the Commission (26 April 1996)

Subject: Common Agricultural Policy

Why is it that the regulations covering the Integrated Administration and Control System (AICS) to implement the Common Agricultural Policy cover 79 pages in the UK but only 4 pages in France?

Do both comply equally with European Union Law?

If so, is this an example where the British Government is imposing a bureaucratic burden and yet seeking to blame it on Europe?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (20 May 1996)

Member States have the responsibility for drawing up application forms for aid schemes covered by the Integrated administration and control system, as well as for the presentation of information booklets and other documentation to assist farmers in completing their claims. Given the diversity between Member States, in particular as regards the identification of agricultural parcels, it is to be expected that claim forms and other documents may also differ whilst still complying equally with the provisions of the Community regulations.

The United Kingdom document of 79 pages to which the Honourable Member refers is in fact an information booklet which gives a detailed explanation of the schemes covered by the Integrated system. There are 16 pages of explanatory notes to producers in France concerning area aid. In Germany a 38 page booklet was published on this subject. It must be borne in mind that the presentation (size of paper, layout) can be quite different as can be the style (repetition of Community legislation, examples added, amount of detail). Furthermore, in some Member States other methods of informing producers were also put into place.

Rather than being considered a bureaucratic burden the United Kingdom booklet could be regarded as an attempt to inform producers in a complete and detailed way of the terms and conditions of the schemes concerned.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0844/96 by Jesús Cabezón Alonso (PSE) to the Commission (12 April 1996)

Subject: Moroccan exports of tinned goods to the European Union

In view of the likely increase on the European market of tinned sardines from Morocco at a lower price than that of European produce, has the Commission considered taking any action to ensure that European tinned sardine producers are able to compete with their Moroccan counterparts, in view of the difference in their market prices?

Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission (8 May 1996)

As a follow-up to the conclusions reached at the meeting of the Council (fisheries) on 26 October regarding the Commission's report on the sardine market, ((COM(95) 320. )) and to soften the impact of the Association Agreement between the Community and Morocco, a range of specific measures has been implemented to provide increased support for the Community sardine industry and the canning industry in particular.

One of these measures involves an increase in carry-over aid, including uprating of the sardine premium from 1996. This is intended to cover freezing and storage costs, for up to six months, in respect of stocks taken off the market when heavy landings drive prices down to withdrawal levels. With a cheaper raw material, the industry can spread its production over the year.

Provision is also made for the reprogramming of the Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance to take account of the possible reorganization of production, processing and marketing in the sector in some major producer Member States.

Nevertheless, it should be borne in mind that competition with Moroccan produce concerns not just prices, but quality and presentation too. As regards the latter, the EU canneries still dominate the market and must ensure that they continue to do so. As for prices, the changes to the market brought about by the latest tariff reductions have no significant impact on the conditions of competition (a 2% price differential in the retail price is unlikely to change consumer habits).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1549/96 by Wolfgang Kreissl-Dörfler (V) to the Commission (17 June 1996)

Subject: Cost of beef storage

Can the Commission give the cost which arose due to irregularities in connection with the export of beef (fresh, frozen, livestock) between 1990 and 1995, broken down by year and the Member State? How much has already been paid and how much remains to be paid?

Answer given by Mrs Gradin on behalf of the Commission (8 July 1996)

The Commission is sending direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat a table containing the information requested.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1105/96 by Nikitas Kaklamanis (UPE) to the Commission (13 May 1996)

Subject: Operation of CEDEFOP in Thessaloniki

In October 1993, the European Council decided to transfer the European Centre for Vocational Training (CEDEFOP) from Berlin to Thessaloniki. Immediately after the decision was taken, some of the staff protested and refused to move to the new headquarters of CEDEFOP. The result of this was that the Centre did not start up until September 1995 and had only about half the number of staff it had employed in Berlin.

1. Does the Commission still support the decision referred to above?

2. What steps will it take to secure an adequate staffing level at CEDEFOP?

3. Will it propose to Parliament that the procedures be speeded up so that the visit by its delegation may take place as decided?

Answer given by Mrs Cresson on behalf of the Commission (4 June 1996)

1. The Commission noted the decision to transfer the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (CEDEFOP) to Thessaloniki, taking all the measures in its power to ensure that the transfer would be carried out in the most propitious conditions and within the time limits prescribed by the Management Board.

2. The Commission would draw the Honourable Member's attention to the fact that CEDEFOP is a decentralised Community body which enjoys independence of management from the Commission. CEDEFOP is run by a quadripartite Management Board (fifteen members representing Governments, fifteen representing employers' organisations, fifteen representing the trade unions and three members representing the Commission), which is responsible for the terms and conditions of employment of the staff. An establishment plan is approved every year by the budgetary authority and, upon the request of the members representing the Commission, the Management Board has just decided upon the recruitment procedures for vacancies.

In accordance with the social agreement approved by the Management Board as part of the decision to transfer to Thessaloniki, staff unable to move in the September 1995 transfer were made available to national bodies or seconded to the Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee or the Commission for a clearly defined period whilst continuing to work for CEDEFOP. At present, some of the staff are in the process of rejoining CEDEFOP in Thessaloniki, while the others have either changed jobs or resigned. The director will be recruiting new staff to fill the vacant posts. Following the Commission's advice, the director has also been recruiting seconded national experts under the statutory provisions.

3. The visit by the European Parliament delegation took place on 2 May. The Commission hopes that the information provided by CEDEFOP will be satisfactory so that Parliament can give the Centre's Management Board a discharge for the 1994 budget in full knowledge of the facts.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1059/96 by Carlos Robles Piquer (PPE) to the Commission (13 May 1996)

Subject: Cooperation between the European Union and UNESCO

On 27 February 1996 an agreement was apparently signed between the Vice-President of the Commission, Mr Marín, and the Director-General of UNESCO, Mr Mayor Zaragoza. Under the agreement the Commission is to subsidize measures carried out by UNESCO at the suggestion of its member states.

Assuming that this agreement may be useful for the EU, can the Commission supply information about its terms, the implications for the Community budget, the advantages for the Union, the background to the agreement, some of the projects envisaged in it and say what form of participation there will be for the European Parliament in the approval and monitoring of the agreement?

Answer given by Mr Marín on behalf of the Commission (12 June 1996)

The document signed in Brussels on 27 February 1996 entitled 'Provisions on cooperation between the Commission of the European Communities and Unesco, complementing the exchanges of letters between the two parties of 2 and 15 September 1964 and of 12 December 1972 and 14 February 1973' was based on Article 229 of the EC Treaty.

It does not provide for specific Community subsidies for measures undertaken by Unesco. It consists of two distinct parts: the first is political and reiterates the commitment to cooperation confirmed by the exchanges of letters; the second is in the form of a specimen financing agreement between the Commission and Unesco and includes the general provisions applicable henceforth to all financing agreements between the Community and Unesco.

The document does not, therefore, entail a specific financial obligation chargeable to the Community budget. It should, however, help facilitate future cooperation between the Community and Unesco by reducing considerably the time and energy devoted to the negotiation of financing agreements for specific projects financed by the Community budget and implemented by Unesco.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0480/96 by Per Gahrton (V) to the Commission (1 March 1996)

Subject: Implications of the Bosman case for international football

According to a newspaper article written by the chairman of the Swedish Football Association, Lars Åke Lagrell (Dagens Nyheter, 11 February 1996), while the Court of Justice's ruling in the Bosman case will benefit only commercial interests and a small number of superstars among the players, it represents a serious threat to football as a whole as a popular phenomenon, both to the finances of smaller clubs and to what many regard as the peak of footballing entertainment and tension, international matches. Lagrell maintains that the Bosman judgment is only part of a general campaign by the Commission to play down national identities and in consequence to replace international matches with club matches, the European and World Cup Championship competitions between national teams by the European Champions' League and other international club championships.

What steps does the Commission intend to take to remedy the negative impact of the Bosman judgment on both football as a popular phenomenon and on international matches?

Can the Commission give assurances that it is not seeking and will not seek to replace Member States' national identities in sport with some kind of European Union identity using the EU symbols etc.?

Answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission (10 April 1996)

The Commission does not share the opinions expressed by the Honourable Member in his question.

Firstly, the Court of Justice's ruling in the Bosman case does not pose a threat to the popularity of football. Secondly, the Commission is not conducting a general campaign in connection with that ruling aimed at playing down national identities and interfering in the organization of national or international football competitions.

The free movement of workers is one of the fundamental principles of the Community. The Bosman ruling is the logical consequence of applying that principle to footballers, who are workers within the meaning of Article 48 of the EC Treaty.

The Commission can reassure the Honourable Member that it does not intend to replace national identities in sport with some kind of European Union identity. The Bosman ruling does not pursue such an objective either. Each club remains free to sign as many national or non-national players as it wishes. Accordingly, it is for each club individually to pursue the best player-recruitment policy for maintaining the popularity of its team within the national context.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1136/96 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission (13 May 1996)

Subject: Worldwide harmonization of regulations on direct investment

International flows of direct foreign investment have grown from US$ 68 billion in 1960 to US$ 1650 billion in 1993, which corresponds to an average annual growth rate of 11 per cent.

UN and Eurostat statistics show that the rise in direct foreign investment at world level has been four times as fast as that of GDP and three times as great as that of trade.

Will the Commission press for the dispute settlement procedures to be made compatible with those of the WTO and with the instruments for settling disputes between investors and states; for the local and regional authorities of the contracting states to be included in the agreement so as to remove the current elements of uncertainty; for the principle of national preference to be upheld, subject to the proper exceptions, so as to avoid the discrimination against national undertakings which occurs, for example, in the free zones dedicated to exports; and for the use of tax and direct incentives to attract direct foreign investment to be regulated more tightly since it also has repercussions for the beneficiary states?

Answer given by Sir Leon Brittan on behalf of the Commission (20 June 1996)

The Commission agrees that multilateral rules on investment have to apply to all levels of government.

The Commission is aware of the need to ensure that dispute settlement rules are compatible with existing mechanisms. Concrete measures taken to ensure World trade organisation (WTO) compatibility include the participation of WTO experts in the ongoing discussions in the Organisation for economic cooperation and development (OECD) based negotiations on a multilateral agreement on investment (MAI). With regard to investment-to-state dispute settlement the International centre for the settlement of investment disputes (ICSID) will also contribute to this work.

The Commission agrees that 'reverse discrimination', i.e. better treatment given to foreign investors than to national operators, could create problems with regard to a level playing field for all operators. However, in the ongoing OECD negotiations this has so far not been a major issue (so-called export processing zones where such practices are widely used are not a common feature within OECD).

This issue will, however, have to be addressed in future discussions and negotiations on multilateral investment rules in the WTO.

The Commission agrees that disciplines on investment incentives should be part of future multilateral investment rules. The state aid policy of the Community has already led to significant limits on investment incentives within the Community. This subject has already been taken up in the ongoing OECD-based negotiations.

The guidelines for the participation of the Community and its Member States in the OECD based negotiations reflect to a large extent the answers given above.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0734/96 by Reimer Böge (PPE) to the Commission (26 March 1996)

Subject: Possible effects of rBST on human health

It has been proved that treatment with rBST (recombined bovine somatotropin) can produce serious side-effects in animals. Among other effects, cows treated with rBST are significantly more susceptible to disease. Scientists disagree as to the possible effects of rBST on humans.

In 1994 Professor Samuel Epstein, President of the American association for the prevention of cancer, drew attention to studies showing a significant increase in the concentration of Insulin-like Growth Factor (IGF-1) in the milk of cows treated with rBST. rBST could have an indirect effect on human health via such IGF-1. Various research studies indicate, inter alia, an increased risk of breast cancer in women and a link between IGF-1 and malignancy, increase and invasive growth of existing breast cancers. In January of this year Professor Epstein submitted a new study. The professor of medicine at the university of Chicago backed up and strengthened his earlier assertions in the light of new research ('Unlabelled Milk from Cows Treated with Biosynthetic Growth Hormones: A Case of Regulatory Abdication', International Journal of Health Services, Vol.26 No 1, 1996).

What information does the Commission have concerning the possible effects of higher concentrations of IGF-1 in the milk of cows treated with rBST?

What were the findings on this subject of the EU-funded study presented on 30 January 1996 at the workshop in the Hague on 'Socio-Economic aspects of modern biotechnology in the EU:the case of BST'?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (13 May 1996)

Member States have to ban, until 31 December 1999, the placing on the market of bovine somatatrophin (BST) and its administration to dairy cows ((Council Decision 94/936/EC of 20.12.1994, OJ L 366, 31.12.1994. )).

The committee for veterinary medicinal products which studied the scientific data on the products concerned, including that available in relation to insulin-like growth factor (14 F-1) did not find evidence of danger to human health. It did, however, recommend that Member States carry out larger-scale studies for a period of two years, under veterinary control, in order to determine the effects of BST on cases of mastitis and associated metabolic disorders in normal use. These tests were considered necessary in order to arrive at a definitive decision. To date no Member State has formally indicated to the Commission its wish to do this. When data is available the Commission will entrust a working party of independent scientists, in collaboration with the Member States, with the task of assessing the effects of using BST.

The Commission has not appraised the 1996 study mentioned by the Honourable Member. The report of the workshop on 'socio-economic aspects of biotechnology in the Community' cited by the Honourable Member will be available later this year. The Commission will study it carefully and draw the appropriate conclusions.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1146/96 by Stephen Hughes (PSE) to the Commission (15 May 1996)

Subject: Leonardo Programme

The European Commission has recently issued a call for proposals for 1996 under the Leonardo Vocational Training Programme - the second since the programme started last year.

After its first call for proposals, it financed 749 projects worth ECU 89.7 m. Which projects were financed in the United Kingdom, where were they based and how many individuals benefitted?

Answer given by Mrs Cresson on behalf of the Commission (10 June 1996)

A total of 98 projects in the United Kingdom (involving 1 692 partners in the United Kingdom and in other participating Member States) received support under the 1995 Leonardo da Vinci call for proposals, totalling 11.69 MECU out of the 89.65 MECU devoted to supporting pilot projects, certain placement and exchange activities, and surveys and analyses. The regional spread of these projects is as follows:

>TABLE>

While it is difficult to estimate how many individuals benefitted in total from this type of support for transnational projects, approximately 1400 students benefitted from transnational placement actions in the context of university-enterprise cooperation.

In addition the United Kingdom received in 1995 a further 4.23 MECU as a block grant to support the transnational placement and exchange of young people in initial training, young workers and trainers (representing 14.86% of the 28.5 MECU devoted to this activity in 1995), and it is anticipated that approximately 2800 individuals will benefit from this Community support.

A more detailed breakdown of support for United Kingdom based projects is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to the Parliament's secretariat.