ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1175/96 by Gerhard Schmid (PSE) to the Commission (15 May 1996)

Subject: The FAIR research programme

1. Who has received grants, how much and for what projects in the period up to 1994 under the FAIR programme drawn up as part of the agriculture and fisheries research programme?

2. What experts did the Commission consult when a decision was taken on providing support under the FAIR programme?

Answer given by Mrs Cresson on behalf of the Commission (28 June 1996)

1. The programme FAIR, agriculture and fisheries (including agro-industry, food-technologies, forestry, aquaculture and rural development) is one of the specific Community research programmes implementing the Fourth framework programme. It was adopted by Council Decision of 23 November 1994 ((OJ L 334, 22.12.94. )), and will run from the date of adoption to the end of 1998, with a total budget of 728 MECU.

The first call for proposals was launched on 15 December 1994 and closed on 15 March 1995. Therefore, there were no FAIR research projects funded during 1994. As a result of the first call, a total of 114 projects were selected for funding by the Commission during 1995 (see also the answer to the written question E-207/96 by Mr Méndez de Vigo ((OJ C 173, 17.6.1996. ))). A list of all the selected projects with the titles and duration is sent directly to the Honourable Member and to the Secretariat General of the Parliament.

2. The experts consulted by the Commission, to evaluate the quality of the FAIR proposals submitted in response to the first call, were chosen on the basis of their scientific and technical quality from nominations suggested by the Member States, nominations from related industries, learned societies, and relevant associations, which make up the FAIR data base of experts.

The experts for proposal evaluation have to sign an agreement which binds them to work independently and to keep the results of their deliberations confidential. In return, they are assured of anonymity to allow them to give their opinion freely without the possibility of being lobbied beforehand or criticised afterwards.

Although, for these reasons, the allocation of proposals or programme areas to individual experts is not made public, the Honourable Member may ask to consult the full database of experts for the FAIR programme, if he so wishes.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1853/96 by Cristiana Muscardini (NI) to the Commission (5 July 1996)

Subject: Falconry

Article 9 of the regulation on the protection of wild flora and fauna provides that animals may be moved provided prior authorization is requested and received. While the regulation envisages the movement of animals that are ill or require to be moved to other sites, it heavily penalizes the practice of falconry which, however, had been permitted by Article 7(4) of Directive 409/79 on the conservation of wild birds.

Will the Commission amend Article 9(3) of the regulation (C4-0285/96) so as to abolish the prior authorization for animals that have to be moved when the move concerns wild fauna used for falconry?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (2 August 1996)

The Commission would point out that its proposal for a regulation on the protection of wild flora and fauna ((OJ C 26, 3.2.1992 and OJ C 131, 12.5.1994. )) only requires prior authorization for the movement from a prescribed address where imported wild-collected live animals of Annex A species are involved. The Council adopted a common position on the proposal on 26 February 1996 ((OJ C 196, 6.7.1996. )).

Imports of wild-collected live birds of prey of Annex A species are subject to conditions that are not likely to be met where the import is for the purpose of falconry. As a result, the use of birds of prey for falconry will be limited to animals that are either collected from the wild in a Member State in accordance with Directive 73/409/EEC ((OJ L 103, 25.4.1979. )), or bred in captivity, or of an Annex B species. In none of these cases an authorization to move the animals is required so that the suggested amendment is not necessary.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1240/96 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission (23 May 1996)

Subject: COM - Processed fruit and vegetables

In the proposal for a Council regulation on the common organization of the market in processed fruit and vegetables (COM(95) 434 final ((OJ C 52, 21.2.1996, p. 23. ))), the Commission does not tackle the question of processed fruit and vegetables in a homogeneous way.

With regard to processed tomatoes, will the Commission prevent a reduction of quotas in the whole of the Union and some Member States being put at a disadvantage by the distribution of these quotas.

The current quota should be increased by an amount corresponding to consumption in the three new Member States and attributed to the agricultural side, to allow effective planning of production which is consistent with market demands.

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

In the proposal for reforming the common organization of the processed fruit and vegetable markets, the quota for processed tomatoes remains the same at 6 596 787 tonnes. This will be shared out between the Member States according to the average of the quantities produced within the maximum price limit over the three previous marketing years.

The three new Member States already get much of their supplies from the Community.

Under the proposal, quotas will, as at present, be allocated to the industrial side.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1972/96 by Odile Leperre-Verrier (ARE) to the Commission (16 July 1996)

Subject: Honey production in the European Union

Would the Commission say what progress has been made with amending Directive 74/409/EEC ((OJ L 221, 12 August 1974, p. 10. )) on honey production? Will it be compulsory to include the words 'imported honey' on the labels of honey from third countries?

Is it planned to set up a committee of experts to lay down quality criteria for honey and decide on the designations to be used?

Can the Commission explain why DG III deals with matters connected with honey production and the status of the beekeeping profession, and not DG VI, the Directorate-General responsible for agriculture? Honey is an agricultural product and should be treated as such.

Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission (9 September 1996)

On 17 April 1996 the Commission approved a proposal for a directive on honey ((Doc. COM(95) 722. )) which, once adopted, will replace Directive 74/409/EEC. Parliament is required to deliver its opinion on the proposal.

Contrary to what the Honourable Member believes, neither the proposal nor the existing Directive deals with problems relating specifically to primary production or the status of the beekeeping profession. The proposal is confined to aspects traditionally linked to foodstuffs legislation.

The proposal does not require any such indication as 'imported honey', but allows Member States to provide for the indication of the country of origin of honey originating outside the Community. This is in line with the arrangements established by Directive 74/409/EEC. However, operators (producers, distributors) are free, even in the absence of a legal obligation, to indicate a honey's origin where they so wish.

Honey, being a foodstuff, is subject to Community foodstuffs legislation like any other agricultural product within the meaning of the EC Treaty (sugars, preserved milk, jam and fruit juices).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1637/96 by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission (24 June 1996)

Subject: Urban community initiative programme

When does the Commissioner expect the UK Urban programmes to start and what impact will a late start have on the performance of the programme and on the take-up of funding?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (5 July 1996)

The approval of the Urban programmes for Great Britain is dependent upon agreement being reached with the United Kingdom authorities about administrative arrangements for their implementation. The Commission hopes that such an agreement will be reached soon.

The late start to these programmes - which has been due to a number of factors - should not have a major impact on their performance or on the take-up of funding. The reasons for this are twofold.

Firstly, the Urban programming period runs until the end of 1999, and allows spending of European structural funds until the end of 2001. The Commission foresees that funding will be fully taken up by this date, provided that, as usual, matching funding is available from the programme partners.

Secondly,the Commission believes that people living in the target areas should have a real stake in the development of local Urban plans. This process and the resulting capacity building within the target communities will have a beneficial influence on programme performance.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2013/96 by Miguel Arias Cañete (PPE) to the Commission (17 July 1996)

Subject: Density of olive groves in Portugal

According to the information available to the Commission, what is the current average density per hectare of olive trees growing in Portugal?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2006/96, E-2007/96, E-2008/96, E-2009/96, E-2010/96, E-2011/96, E-2012/96 and E-2013/96 given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (9 September 1996)

Statistics for olive cultivation coming from different sources tend to vary considerably depending on the definitions on which they are based, and need to be treated with caution. However, on the specific points requested by the Honourable Member, the following figures may be advanced.

The total number of productive olive trees in each of the Member States in question, according to the official returns received by the Commission from the national authorities for the purposes of setting annual fruit and oil yields for the 1994/95 marketing year, was as follows:

>TABLE>

The average density of olive plantations in those Member States (trees per hectare) is:

>TABLE>

The average density thus varies considerably between Member States and may also vary significantly from region to region - or even farm to farm - within Member States, depending on the degree of local specialization or industrialization of olive growers.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1566/96 by Raymonde Dury (PSE) to the Commission (17 June 1996)

Subject: Freedom of movement for underage children

Has the Commission realized that free movement has increasingly been obstructed since the principle was laid down in the Single Act and endorsed in the Maastricht Treaty?

Especially where underage children are concerned, freedom of movement has been made singularly more complicated by the fact that a child's father and mother are not named in the European passport. The effect of the passport, coupled with the 1990 Convention on the abduction of children, is to prohibit movement within the Union's frontiers unless documents apart from the European passport can be produced to prove the parent-child relationship or indeed that both parents have given permission for a child to leave or re-enter the territory.

Will the Commission take steps to bring about freedom of movement for one or both parents accompanied by their underage children?

Answer given by Ms Gradin on behalf of the Commission (13 September 1996)

The conditions under which underage children can travel are as follows. If they are travelling alone, they can use one of two types of document: either their own passport, in the same way as adults, or an identity card accompanied by an authorization to leave national territory issued by the appropriate authorities in the Member States.

Where underage children travel with one or both parents, they may use their own passport or have their names on the family passport.

In any event, the proof of the parent-child relationship must be provided to the appropriate authorities in the Member States before travel documents are issued. A Member State which issues a travel document is assumed to have carried out the necessary checks, and the existence of such a document is regarded by the other Member States as the proof that such checks have been carried out.

If the Honourable Member has concrete information on this matter, particularly details of specific cases in which accompanied underage children carrying their own passports or appearing on their parents' passports were refused entry, the Commission would certainly investigate the problem thoroughly.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2254/96 by Angela Sierra González (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (26 July 1996)

Subject: Specific supply arrangements (SSA) for the Canary Islands

Stockfarmers in the Canary Islands have publicly expressed their concern at the difficult situation they face. The problems are due to the discrepancy between the measures laid down in the specific supply arrangements (SSA) provided for in the programme of options specific to the remote and insular nature of the Canary Islands (POSEICAN) and the level of economic support enjoyed by stockfarmers in the Canary Islands.

One of the objectives of POSEICAN is 'the development of stockfarming to meet local market needs' (Title III, Article 6.7 of POSEICAN). However, as a result of the application of the SSA, between 1988 and 1995 imports of refrigerated meat quintupled from 3205 tonnes to 15 500 tonnes. Similar situations apply to cheese and liquid milk.

In addition to the discrepancy between aid to local stockfarming and the import facilities allowed under the SSA, cereal prices have increased and aid for cereal imports has been reduced. Given current levels of support for stockfarming and the fall in demand for beef and veal, this sector in the Canaries is doomed to extinction unless aid for Canary Island stockfarmers is increased.

1. Is the Commission aware of the impact on Canary Island stockfarming of the reduction in aid for cereal imports?

2. Does the Commission plan to introduce any form of special aid for the Canary stockfarming sector to restore the balance in the face of imports allowed under the SSA and thereby guarantee the industry's survival?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (5 September 1996)

Council Regulation (EEC) No 1601/92 concerning specific measures for the Canary Islands with regard to certain agricultural products ((OJ L 173, 27 June 1992. )) establishes specific supply arrangements (SSA) whereby, in order to meet local requirements for everyday consumption or manufacturing, the Canaries can import non-Community products duty-free and bring in Community products on terms equivalent to the exempted products purchased on the world market. The Regulation also provides for measures to assist local production in various sectors.

For the purposes of the SSA, the Commission, working jointly with the national authorities on the basis of their proposals, establishes the quantities to be imported into the Canaries under the special arrangements each marketing year.

The Commission is fully aware of the the sort of consequences described by the Honourable Member and the importance of striking a balance between SSA imports and the expansion of local production.

The Commission will assess the situation in its report on the implementation of the measures under Regulation (EEC) No 1601/92.

Regarding the situation of the stockfarming sector, the Commission has recently adopted Regulation (EC) No 1204/96 ((OJ L 161, 29 June 1996. )) adjusting the level of aid.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2310/96 by Laura González Álvarez (GUE/NGL) and María Sornosa Martínez (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (27 August 1996)

Subject: Canalization of the Lagares river, Santo Tomé de Freixeiro (Vigo, Spain)

In the locality of Santo Tomé de Freixeiro the river Lagares is currently being canalized, with concrete panels being placed on its bed and banks. This cement casing, which is some 400 m long, has produced visible changes in the ecological balance and in the ecosystem of the Lagares river. These include:

- the destruction of the river's natural bed in this part of its course, now that it has been covered with concrete;

- the narrowing of the river: the casing has penetrated its source, leading to the total disappearance of vegetation from its banks;

- there is an obvious visual impact: the concrete casing is, over most of its length, between 1 m and 2.5 m higher than the natural ground level of the area.

Can the Commission, with a view to ensuring that Community environmental law is respected and complied with, carry out an investigation to determine whether this development affecting the Lagares river is not in breach of any Community legislation?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (16 September 1996)

The Commission is not familiar with the situation described by the Honourable Members.

However, since this could conflict with Council Directive 85/337/EEC ((OJ EC L 175, 5.7.1985. )) of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the impact of certain public and private projects on the environment, the Commission will contact the Spanish authorities and ask them for their comments.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2027/96 by Gunilla Carlsson (PPE) to the Commission (12 July 1996)

Subject: Member States' economic problems

Member States' large budget deficits are known to be a result of high government spending, especially on expensive and extensive social insurance systems.

Does the Commission have any information indicating that Member States are opting to increase taxes in order to redress their economies in the short term and meet the convergence criteria for participation in EMU, rather than tackling the structural problems affecting their public sectors?

What view does it take in such cases of the relative use made of tax increases and spending curbs as a means of putting economies in order?

Answer given by Mr de Silguy on behalf of the Commission (25 September 1996)

For the Community as a whole taxes have decreased from a peak of 46.2 in 1993 to 45.7 in 1995, as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP). However, they are expected to increase once again in 1996 and 1997, according to the spring 1996 economic forecasts from the Commission. The expenditure ratio peaked in 1993 as well, but is expected to show a continuous decline over the same period

>TABLE>

Source: The Community Economic Outlook, European Economy, Supplement A, No 5/6 May/June 1996.

This indicates that Member States seem to rely not only on lower expenditures in order to achieve the needed improvements in budgetary positions, but also, to a lower extent, on tax increases.

The Commission is strongly in favour of a determined effort to reduce budget deficits by reducing expenditures rather than increasing taxes.

The Commission's recommendation for the broad guidelines of the economic policies ((COM(96) 211. )) put forward a set of general principles as a guide to the country-specific consolidation measures, advocating that (i) restraining expenditure increases is in general a more efficient option than increasing taxes, that (ii) re-directing spending to investment and active labour market measures within an overall spending limit is desirable, that (iii) there is a need to improve the efficiency of public services, and that (iv) a desirable reduction of the overall tax burden should respect the higher priority of getting budget deficits on to a downward path, and that short term measures should be concentrated upon broadening the tax base and reducing the tax burden on labour.

These general principles were recently adopted by the Ecofin Council on 8 July 1996.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2252/96 by Elly Plooij-van Gorsel (ELDR) to the Commission (9 August 1996)

Subject: Imports of non-refillable lighters

1. What is the reason for the enormous increase in imports into the EU of non-refillable gas lighters from Taiwan, Macao and Hong Kong? Does this increase reflect a (corresponding) increase in production in those three countries?

2. Are there systematic checks on the stated origin of these goods - from countries which are all near China - and when will the Commission initiate an anti-dumping procedure in respect of these countries?

3. If the Commission itself does not take the initiative, what EU policy justifies such a selective approach towards the imposing of anti-dumping duties?

4. Has the Commission conducted an independent inquiry into the total consumption of non-refillable gas lighters in the EU, so that a comparison can be made between production within the EU, exports from the EU and imports into the EU in order to establish and check whether smuggling is taking place to avoid the anti-dumping measures?

Answer given by Sir Leon Brittan on behalf of the Commission (17 September 1996)

1. The Commission does not have the necessary information to answer the Honourable Member's question regarding the reasons for the increase in imports of non-refillable lighters from Taiwan, Macao and Hong Kong and those countries' production capacities.

2. The detailed check on the origin of goods imported from non-EU countries, which falls within the remit of the Member States' customs authorities, is not carried out systematically, according to the information available to the Commission, the aim being both to ensure that the checks are effective and also to avoid creating barriers to trade.

The Commission does not consider that it has the data on the basis of which it might examine the possibility of using its right of initiative in launching anti-dumping proceedings.

It should be borne in mind that the right of complaint which Community legislation accords the Community industry concerned presents certain guarantees which the Commission would find it difficult to provide. Under the Community's international commitments, an anti-dumping proceeding may be initiated only if sufficient proof has been obtained regarding not only dumping practices but also the resulting injury to the Community industry. The Community industry itself has essential information which the Commission generally lacks.

3. The Commission is always anxious to prevent anti-dumping proceedings from being selective and makes sure, before launching investigations, that the complaints are non-discriminatory.

4. The anti-fraud units, irrespective of whether they are answerable to the Commission or the Member States' authorities, usually carry out studies, cross-checks or surveys the effectiveness of which depends largely on the discretion with which they are conducted. The Honourable Member will understand, therefore, that in such a delicate area the Commission cannot go into the details referred to in his question.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2063/96 by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission (26 July 1996)

Subject: Endometriosis

Can the Commission provide details of how many women in Europe are affected by endometriosis, and what steps are being taken to investigate and research the disease?

Answer given by Mrs Cresson on behalf of the Commission (30 September 1996)

Endemetriosis is a disease in menstruating women that is known to interfere with fertility. The disease has not been retained as a priority area in the context of the framework for Community action in the field of public health and is not part of the working programme of the Biomedecine and health research programme. No action is presently going on at Community level on this subject.

Its incidence in the Member States is not known and the data very much depend on the diagnostic methodology and criteria.