ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1122/96 by Bárbara Dührkop Dührkop (PSE) to the Commission (13 May 1996)

Subject: Pilot projects under Chapter III, point 1 of the 'Socrates' Community action programme

The Commission published the call for proposals relating to the implementation of Chapter III, action 3, point 1 (questions of mutual interest concerning educational policy) of the 'Socrates' Community action programme in OJ C 90 of 27 March 1996.

It is specified in the second paragraph of point 4 that the implementation of pilot projects will remain excluded from the provision of financial support in the 1996 financial year. How does the Commission justify this decision?

Does the Commission not agree that pilot projects are one means of optimizing actions under the Socrates programme?

Answer given by Ms Cresson on behalf of the Commission (18 June 1996)

The quality of teaching is a major political issue in all the Member States. It is also central to Article 126 of the EC Treaty, which stipulates that the Community must contribute to the development of a quality education system by encouraging cooperation between the Member States.

On many occasions the Ministers for Education have emphasised their interest in broadening mutual knowledge on this subject at a European level by calling on the Community to look into this crucial question. The pilot projects carried out by the Commission in 1995 on further education have already shown the significant potential in cooperation on the quality appraisal front.

Socrates action III.3.1 requires the Commission to initiate an exchange of information and experience amongst participating Member States in priority areas such as evaluating the quality of school education. To prepare the ground for the planned pilot projects, the Commission put in a great deal of work in 1995 and will make a further effort in 1996. These preliminary activities relate in particular to the preparation of studies and analyses, but also to activities of an operational nature such as study visits, exchanges of experts, seminars and workshops. The two meetings of the senior education officials organised by the French and Spanish presidencies on the theme of evaluation also likewise served to prepare the ground for the pilot projects.

The Commission therefore intends to launch pilot projects from the beginning of 1997 based on the new knowledge and experience acquired from the various aforementioned preparatory activities. This intention was confirmed by the Education Council on 6 May 1996 and was endorsed in a Commission memo. This document has been forwarded directly to the Honourable Member and to the General Secretariat of the European Parliament.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0683/96 by Jesús Cabezón Alonso (PSE) and Juan Colino Salamanca (PSE) to the Commission (26 March 1996)

Subject: Aid to bovine animals

In the context of a possible revision of the aids to bovine animals, what are the Commission's reasons for endeavouring to abolish such aid in the case in the case of fighting bulls?

Are these animals not a source of beef for the consumer?

Which Member States would be affected by the Commission's proposal?

Is the Commission aware of how many head of cattle with these characteristics have benefited from this aid?

Is the Commission aware of the nature of this type of extensive cattle-raising, and is it aware that not all the bovine animals of this type are raised for bullfighting?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (12 April 1996)

The special premium for beef producers was a measure intended to compensate producers for the fall in institutional prices in 1987 (year of introduction of the premium). In the case of bullfighting, although the animals are subsequently a source of beef for the consumer, they are obviously raised primarily for fighting rather than for beef. In response to criticism that beef production aid was being channelled to help finance the production of fighting bulls, the Commission has decided that the measure whereby animals may qualify for the special premium after they have been selected for bullfighting is anomalous and must be discontinued.

The Member State most affected by the proposal concerning allocation of the premium for fighting animals is Spain. Since the broad aim of the proposal is to deter production of a type of animal not in market demand but to encourage the production of lighter animals, the focus of the proposal is on a type of production and not on particular Member States.

Given that the current beef premium arrangements make no distinction between the different destinations of animals in receipt of the premium, the Member States in question have no information on the headage of cattle for which Community aid has been granted and the Commission is not able therefore to give a precise answer to this question.

The Commission is quite well aware of the extensive production in which producers of bullfighting animals are engaged and that most of the animals raised by such producers do not take part in bullfights. This is why this proposal relates wholly to the animals rather than the systems of production by which they have been raised.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0963/96 by Christine Oddy (PSE) to the Commission (26 April 1996)

Subject: Rights of children

Is the Commission aware of the European Forum for Child Welfare and its document 'Revision of the Maastricht Treaty' adopted in December 1995.

What action will the Commission take in ensuring the rights of children?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (26 June 1996)

The Commission is well aware of the existence of the European formum for child welfare and subsidizes its activities through the budget line B3-4100. The conference in Luxembourg 'The rights of the child in Europe - make them known - make them happen', where the document 'Revision of the Maastricht Treaty' was actually drafted, was also co-financed by the Commission in 1995. However the document is still at the production stage and has not yet been submitted to the Commission.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0849/96 by Iñigo Méndez de Vigo (PPE) to the Commission (12 April 1996)

Subject: Transposition of Community law on the recognition of diplomas

The Commission has initiated proceedings against Belgium and Greece for their failure to incorporate into national law the Community legislation on the recognition of higher-education diplomas by all the Member States (Directives 89/48 ((OJ L 19, 24.1.1989, p. 16 ))and 92/51 ((OJ L 209, 24.7.1992, p. 25 ))).

What stage have the proceedings reached and when may the Court of Justice judgment be expected?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (21 May 1996)

Council Directive 89/48/EEC of 21 December 1988 established a general system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least three years. This Directive had to be incorporated into national law by every Member State by 4 January 1991. The Commission, which had received several complaints in this connection, noted that the Directive had not been incorporated into national law in Greece or Belgium. Accordingly, it brought an action before the Court of Justice to have the infringement censured. The Court delivered rulings in March 1995 in respect of Greece and in July 1995 in respect of Belgium to the effect that, by failing to incorporate the Directive into national law by the prescribed deadline, these two Member States had failed to fulfil their obligations under the EC Treaty.

In the weeks that followed, the Commission asked Greece and Belgium to comply with the Court's rulings. In the absence of a satisfactory response by these two Member States, proceedings will be instituted under Article 171 of the EC Treaty.

Council Directive 92/51/EEC of 18 June 1992 established a second general system for the recognition of professional education and training to supplement Directive 89/48/EC. The Member States were obliged to take the measures necessary to incorporate the Directive into national law by 18 June 1994. The Commission has received no information to date on any such measures adopted in Greece or Belgium. In this connection, reasoned opinions were issued in November 1995 (Greece) and February 1996 (Belgium).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0978/96 by Anita Pollack (PSE) to the Commission (26 April 1996)

Subject: Statistics on laboratory animal use

Would the Commission outline the action it has taken to ensure the promised improvement in the collection and presentation of statistics on the use of laboratory animals, and specify which Member States have agreed and which have not agreed to implement any new system which has been developed?

Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission (7 June 1996)

The Honourable Member is referred to the Commission's answer to written question No E-482/96 from Mr Crampton ((OJ C 185, 25.6.1996, p. 6 )) on action taken to improve the collection of statistics on the use of laboratory animals in general.

Furthermore, at a meeting of the national authorities in Ispra on 27 and 28 June relating to Directive 86/609/EEC ((OJ L 358, 18.12.1986. )), the Commission emphasised the need, pursuant to Directive 93/35/EEC ((OJ L 151, 23. 6.1993. )), for statistics on the cosmetic products sector.

A supplementary table specific to cosmetics has been prepared, in addition to the statistical tables, and attention has been drawn to the need for annual data and supplementary data on certain toxicity tests and the need to make a clear distinction between the tests carried out on cosmetic ingredients and those on finished cosmetic products.

In July 1995 the Commission wrote to the Member States requesting detailed statistics on the use of animals in the field of cosmetic products, in accordance with these additional requirements.

All Member States replied to this request, and the information they have provided, which will be contained in the Commission's 1995 annual report to Parliament on the development, validation and legal acceptance of alternative methods to animal experiments, is being sent directly to the Honourable Member and to the Secretariat-General of Parliament. However, there are still many gaps, and the Commission will again urge the Member States to improve data collection so that they are able to provide all the details requested.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1437/96 by Christine Oddy (PSE) to the Commission (12 June 1996)

Subject: Pay rates of young workers

Is the Commission aware that the British trade union GMB has produced an extensive study of jobs on offer at job centres in eleven British towns and cities which shows that young people aged 16 and 17 appear to earn less than £2.00 per hour, or under £45 for a 35-40 hour week, for 18-25 year olds 49.3% of jobs offered £3.00-£3.99 per hour and 27.3% of jobs on offer paid less than £3.00?

Will the Commission ensure that young people, adolescents and school children are not financially exploited in the European Union?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (1 July 1996)

The Commission is grateful to the Honourable Member for drawing attention to the study of pay rates for jobs on offer to young people at job centres.

Council Directive 94/33/EC of 22 June 1994 on the protection of young people at work ((OJ L 216, 20.8.1994. )) requires the Member States to take steps to protect young people against economic exploitation and any type of work which might jeopardise their safety, their health or their physical, psychological, moral or social development, or which might be harmful to their education. The Directive does not, however, contain specific provisions in respect of the payment of young people.

Indeed, wage-setting is generally a matter for the Member States and two sides of industry. However, in September 1993 the Commission adopted an opinion on an equitable wage ((OJ C 248, 11.9.1993. )). In this the Commission reaffirmed the right, referred to in the Community charter of the fundamental social rights of workers, of all workers to an equitable wage, with particular attention to the more vulnerable members of the labour force. In this opinion the Commission expressed the view that Member States should take appropriate measures to ensure that the right to an equitable wage is protected. This includes a reference to ensuring fair treatment for workers in all age groups. The Commission is currently preparing a report on the progress made in relation to the issues raised in the opinion and the obstacles encountered.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1023/96 by David Thomas (PSE) to the Commission (3 May 1996)

Subject: Cross-border shopping

Under the Single European Act indirect taxes were to be harmonized as at 1 January 1993. The rise in cross-border shopping, especially in Sweden, Finland, Ireland and the UK, has led to distortions in the market. What steps will the Commission take to reduce this distortion?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (3 June 1996)

Article 99 of the EC Treaty provides for the harmonization of indirect taxation 'to the extent that such harmonization is necessary to ensure the establishment and the functioning of the internal market'. In 1987, as part of its preparation for the internal market, the Commission proposed fully harmonised rates of duty for the three main categories of excisable goods, i.e. mineral oils, alcohol and tobacco products. This approach was rejected by Council, as was a revised approach based on minimum and target rates. Ultimately, the Council adopted just minimum rates, which were set at quite low levels. As clearly, in an internal market, private individuals would be free to make purchases where they chose, the expectation then was that market forces would assist in a process of rate convergence. It is a matter of debate whether subsequent shifts in purchase locations are an unwelcome consequence or a legitimate effect of the establishment of an internal market. It should also be pointed out that such shifts in purchase patterns have been limited in the case of Finland and Sweden since they negotiated derogations allowing them temporarily to impose quantitative restrictions on the amounts of duty paid goods which their residents may bring back from other Member States.

The relevant directives require that the minimum rates be reviewed every two years, taking account of the internal market, the real value of the rates of duty and wider Treaty objectives. The first such review did not give rise to proposals, but led to a major consultation process with administrations, trade representatives and other interest groups. This process, which is nearing conclusion, seeks to analyse the various policy objectives which may be relevant for future excise policy. The Parliament itself is a participant in that process, and its input is expected shortly.

Following the consultation process, the Commission will draw up its conclusions and proposals for future excise policy, in the form of the next review of minimum rates which is scheduled for later this year.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1229/96 by Michael Elliott (PSE) to the Commission (10 May 1996)

Subject: Konver II

Measure 3 of the Konver II Community Initiative is aimed at 'environmental improvements and regeneration of military and defence sites and areas affected by past military and defence industry and activity'.

Would it be unreasonable to expect that, under this measure, areas surrounding former military sites would be eligible for development support as well as the sites themselves?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (30 May 1996)

Paragraph 4(f) of the Commission's notice to the Member States laying down guidelines for operational programmes or global grants in the framework of the Community's Konver initiative ((OJ C 180, 1.7.1994. )) provides for environmental improvements to military sites.

These illustrative guidelines expressly refer to 'military sites' and 'areas seriously damaged by military activity', to 'landscaping' and 'minor works for improving the appearance of buildings, and roads giving access to new activities'.

Environmental improvements under Konver are therefore neither restrictive nor limited to the site alone. The thinking behind the structural funds and Community initiatives has to argue in favour of anything that might make an area more attractive and so help a region's economic development.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0361/96 by Karl Schweitzer (NI) to the Commission (22 February 1996)

Subject: Falsified information in the JOULE programme

1. Is the allegation which appeared in the Austrian magazine 'Sonnenzeitung' true that in the JOULE programme expert reports were falsified, to the detriment of research into renewable forms of energy?

2. What has the Commission done to limit the damage and to ensure that the experts' opinions are accepted?

3. Were those responsible for the falsifications identified and what action was taken?

4. Is the allegation made in 'Der Spiegel' of 18 December 1995 correct that Wolfgang Palz, the German head of the department responsible for renewable energy, has been transferred and that Ezio Andreta, who is suspected of committing or being involved in the falsifications, has remained in his post.

5. What action will the Commission take to deal with this discrimination against research into environmentally-friendly, renewable forms of energy?

Answer given by Mme Cresson on behalf of the Commission (25 April 1996)

1-2. The Commission has already publicly denied in the press and has demonstrated to Parliament that the accusations concerning tampering with expert reports to the detriment of research into renewable sources of energy were false. The Commission also vigorously refutes any unjustified allegations made against Mr Andreta, the director responsible for research and technological development projects concerning energy.

The Parliament's research, technological development and energy committee has itself stated that the Commission decisions concerning the assessment of proposals concerning research and technological development projects put forward in connection with the first call for proposals under the Joule programme were taken by the Commission in line with its powers of implementation.

3-4. However, the view of the evidence provided by all involved in this assessment, the Commission has decided to launch a more detailed enquiry in order to ensure maximum transparence and to guarantee that the procedural rules are obeyed without exception. This being the case, and in view of his organizational powers, Mr Palz has been assigned, with his own consent, to other duties while awaiting the results.

5. As a supplement to its decision of 24 July 1995 assessing 181 research projects, the Commission on 18 December 1995 adopted a reserve list including a broad majority of projects on renewable energy sources. Moreover, on 16 January 1996 it issued a further call for proposals in this area and embarked upon a plan of action intended, in particular, for those intending to lodge proposals and to guarantee the quality of those proposals.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0811/96 by David Hallam (PSE) to the Commission (26 March 1996)

Subject: European Union subsidies to the carpet industry

The carpet industry in the Wyre forest district of my constituency has recently suffered massive job losses.

My local manufacturers claim they face stiff competition in the North American contract market from Ulster Carpets of Portadown Northern Ireland.

How much subsidy has Ulster Carpets received from European Union sources?

What were the subsidies for and, at the time they were given, was any consideration given to the likely impact on jobs elsewhere in the United Kingdom or European Union?

Supplementary answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (17 June 1996)

The Commission has ascertained from the relevant authority in Northern Ireland (the Training and Employment agency) that Ulster Carpet Mills of Portadown has benefitted from assistance under the European social fund (ESF).

Ulster Carpet Mills received ESF support under the management, entrepreneurial and workforce training measure of the economic development sub-programme of the single programming document within the framework of the Training and employment agency's 'company development programme'. The Training and employment agency informs the Commission that the company received ESF assistance totalling £146 064 during 1994 and 1995. This support enabled Ulster Carpet Mills to undertake a structured and systematic review of its training and development needs in order to deal with the upgrading of skills among the company's workforce.

Under Article 7 of Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88 as amended ((OJ L 193, 31.7.1993 )), measures financed by the structural funds must comply with the provisions of the Treaties, with the instruments adopted pursuant thereto and with Community policies. In this context, the single programming document for Northern Ireland sets out the requirements for compliance with competition rules, which are followed by the Member State in the implementation of structural fund measures.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1124/96 by Cristiana Muscardini (NI) to the Commission (13 May 1996)

Subject: Free choice of health services

If a citizen seeks recourse to an institution which is not part of the state structure of the National Health Service and has his or her application rejected, this constitutes a serious breach of the right to freedom of choice.

Will the Commission intervene with a directive to give citizens the freedom to choose an organization providing health services, whether in the form of diagnosis, treatment or therapy?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (10 June 1996)

The Commission has no intention to propose legislation on the matters raised in the Honourable Member's question, as the organisation of national health systems is a matter for Member States.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0551/96 by Karin Riis-Jørgensen (ELDR) to the Commission (11 March 1996)

Subject: Limit values for nitrate in vegetables

The Scientific Committee for Food points out in its opinion from September 1995 that there is no direct health-related need to introduce limit values for nitrate in vegetables. The main reason for introducing limit values for nitrate in lettuce and spinach is therefore the trade problems arising from differing limit values in those Member States where such values have been introduced.

How will the Commission ensure that distortion of competition does not arise between the Member States as a result of the introduction of European limit values, since the northern countries in particular will have difficulty in complying with the proposed limit values on account of climatic conditions?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (24 April 1996)

The Commission would remind the Honourable Member that the Scientific Committee for Food, in its Opinion delivered on 22 September 1995, recommended ongoing efforts to reduce exposure to nitrates and insisted that sound agricultural practices be adopted in order to keep nitrates at the lowest level possible.

In accordance with its repeated undertakings to the Council and Parliament, the Commission plans in the very near future to lay down maximum limits for nitrates present in certain vegetables in order to guarantee vegetable quality in terms of health requirements and ensure market unity.

The Commission is aware of the problems experienced by producers in northern regions of the Community; all its efforts are accordingly directed towards finding a balanced solution which would take account of the need to simultaneously ensure maximum protection of human health, the environment and the interests of producers.