ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1194/97 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission (3 April 1997)

Subject: Cloning

Although the experiments conducted in laboratories in Scotland and New Zealand have succeeded in opening up new frontiers of research into biotechnology, they have also raised the question of whether or not limits should be placed on scientific research and experimentation.

Although cloning represents a major scientific breakthrough, it needs to be studied, classified and regulated from an ethical point of view in a society which has scant resources and has to meet major requirements.

1. Can the Commission set up a high-level scientific committee to study the ethical and legal implications of and possible scenarios resulting from genetic cloning?

2. Can it draw up a directive which, in the meantime, enshrines the conclusions of the Council of Europe's resolution of 16 March 1989 and the results of the Council of Europe's first bioethics convention adopted in December 1996 which outlawed both human and animal cloning?

3. Can it draw up a directive imposing limits on science so as to ensure that ethical values are respected and that human beings are not subject to the manipulations of science?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1016/97 and E-1194/97 given by Mrs Cresson on behalf of the Commission (21 May 1997)

As the Honourable Member knows, the Commission immediately referred the matter to the advisory body on the ethics of biotechnology - an independent body - which should give its opinion by the end of May. The purpose is to consider in depth the ethical implications of cloning in general, in the light of the recent experiments. The advisory body has, moreover, decided to hold a round-table conference on this subject, to which Members of Parliament, representatives, high-level research scientists and other interested parties will be invited. In taking this initiative, characterized by dialogue and transparency, the advisory body has the full backing of the Commission.

The Commission is also looking at the possible implications of cloning for Community policies and considering what action it may take within its sphere of competence.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1208/97 by Luciano Vecchi (PSE) to the Council (4 April 1997)

Subject: Murder of the Italian citizen Giacomo Turra in Colombia

On 4 September 1995 the Italian citizen Giacomo Turra was brutally murdered by policemen in Cartagena (Colombia). He had gone to Colombia to study and was never suspected or accused of being involved in any criminal activity.

Since then the Colombian civilian and military authorities - except the office of the Attorney-General - have completely boycotted all investigations, despite repeated assurances of their willingness to cooperate, and have prevented the policemen responsible for the murder from being brought to justice.

Can the Council say:

1. whether official steps have been taken to demand that the Colombian authorities clear up Giacomo Turra's murder and ensure that his murderers are brought to justice?

2. whether it considers it appropriate to take steps, including the threat of sanctions against Colombia, to ensure that the lives and safety of Community citizens are no longer jeopardized by the criminal and outrageous behaviour of members of the Colombian police force?

Answer (16 June 1997)

The Council does not have any information about the case of Giacomo Turra raised by the Honourable Member. The Council will consider what action, if any, might be appropriate to take when it has further information.

The Council continues to monitor closely the situation in Colombia. It is very concerned about the difficult human rights situation in the country including the safety of visiting foreigners. The Council will continue to make known to the Colombian authorities its concern in relation to the rule of law, human rights and democracy, as it has done in the past.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1299/97 by Felipe Camisón Asensio (PPE) to the Commission (11 April 1997)

Subject: Repercussions of the Asia-Ecobest project in central Asia

The Commission has decided to support, and to help finance, the project to promote environmental protection technologies in Asia ('Asia-Ecobest'), under which activities are to be carried out through the RIET institute in Singapore.

How will these activities affect the countries of central Asia, in particular Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikstan, Turkmenistan and Mongolia, given the environmental problems they face?

Answer given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission (5 June 1997)

RIET and Asia-Ecobest have been and are being financed from the budget line B7-3010, economic co-operation South and south-east Asia. The countries mentioned by the Honourable Member do not fall within the scope of this budget line.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0070/97 by José Barros Moura (PSE) to the Commission (24 January 1997)

Subject: CAP and R& D policy beneficiary countries

The First Cohesion report (COM(96)0542) surprisingly and in spite of all the evidence to the contrary states that cohesion countries have been the 'major beneficiaries' of the CAP and the Research and Development Policy (see page 87). How can the Commission substantiate such a remark, which tends to devalue the objectives of economic and social cohesion and, in particular, the structural funds?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (7 March 1997)

The starting point for the Commission's analysis in the cohesion report of the Community's research and technological development (RTD) policy and common agricultural policy (CAP) is the recognition that each has its own specific objectives. Both are concerned primarily with improving efficiency, while the CAP has specific

objectives laid down in Article 39 EC Treaty. At the same time, in pursuing these objectives both policies have a differential impact on regions and social groups. The cohesion report, while recognising that cohesion is not the main objective of these policies, has sought to examine this impact.

The report sets out in an objective way the results of external research on the regional effects of the CAP. This research confirms that the CAP has generally resulted in positive transfers towards rural areas, which are among the poorest in the Community. It is also of particular benefit to the poorest Member States, with the exception of Portugal, although the position in Portugal has improved since the 1992 reform of the CAP. With regard to RTD policy, the report shows that Community resources tend to be concentrated in absolute terms on contracts with the main centres of excellence located in the more prosperous Member States. At the same time, Community RTD policy has contributed to cohesion in that expenditure is highest in the poorest Member States and regions compared to the size of their RTD sector, thus helping to develop their research capacities.

In the conclusions of the cohesion report, the Commission recommends improvements in both RTD policies and the CAP. The Commission confirms its intention to continue the process begun in the 1992 CAP reforms, especially by developing more integrated approaches to helping the rural areas, emphasising environmental and social aspects.

With regard to RTD, the Commission advocates a greater emphasis on efforts to disseminate research results throughout the Community and to develop a research agenda which is more attuned to the strengths of the weakest regions. The Commission intends to publish a communication in the course of this year setting out its views on how policy in this field can make a greater contribution to cohesion.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1347/97 by Susan Waddington (PSE) to the Commission (21 April 1997)

Subject: Women officials in the Commission

Given that 27.3% of Members of the European Parliament are women, and that 25% of the Members of the College of Commissioners are women, what percentage of A-grade officials employed by the Commission are women?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1347/97, E-1349/97, E-1350/97 and E-1351/97 given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission (29 May 1997)

The numbers of women in the different categories in the Commission, as at March 1997, are as follows:

>TABLE>

These figures concern only permanent officials on the operational budget and do not include officials under the research budget, or temporary and auxiliary staff.

It can be noted that the Commission has set annual objectives for female recruitment in order to increase the number of women in all levels of category A, including management posts.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0337/97 by José García-Margallo y Marfil (PPE) to the Commission (13 February 1997)

Subject: CMO for olive oil: expenditure on consumption aid in Greece

The Court of Auditors' annual report for the financial year 1995 shows that the 1996 budget provided for EAGGF Guarantee Section expenditure on olive oil totalling ECU 1781 million. Even though this figure is in line with expenditure between 1991 and 1993, expenditure was far lower in 1995, when it stood at only ECU 812.5 million.

Of this expenditure, consumption aid accounted for ECU 268.6 million and ECU 166 million in 1995 and 1996 respectively.

What is the figure for total expenditure on consumption aid for olive oil in Greece?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0320/97, E-0321/97, E-0322/97, E-0323/97, E-0324/97, E-0325/97, E-0326/97, E-0327/97, E-0328/97, E-0329/97, E-0330/97, E-0331/97, E-0332/97, E-0333/97, E-0334/97, E-0335/97, E-0336/97, E-0337/97, E-0338/97, E-0339/97, E-0340/97, E-0341/97, E-0342/97, E-0343/97 and E-0344/97 given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (6 March 1997)

The Honourable Member will find the figure he requests in the table below. Total Community expenditure under the 1995 and 1996 budgets was 812.5 and 2007.7 million ecus respectively. The discrepancy with the totals in the table largely relates to payments for olive oil promotion action. The 1995 budget is much lower than for 1996 (and 1994) because the 1994/95 prices package included a decision to move the payment date. This meant that the 1995 budget made no provision for 1994/95 marketing year payments but only for outstanding ones from 1993/94.

(in MECU)

>TABLE>
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1574/97 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission (6 May 1997)

Subject: European Disability Forum

The new independent European Disability Forum met for the first time in Dublin in November.

The Forum asked the Irish Presidency to include in the Treaty on European Union a reference to the rights of people with disabilities and accordingly adopted a report entitled 'How can people with disabilities in the EU obtain equal rights as citizens?' which appears to clarify certain questions surrounding the inclusion of an anti-discriminatory clause in the Treaty.

Can the Commission explain why there is no new programme on disability to replace Helios II and can it draw up new proposals on this subject?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (17 June 1997)

On 30 July 1996, the Commission presented a communication outlining a new European Community disability strategy ((Doc COM(96) 406 final. )). This takes account of the ending of the HELIOS II programme on 31 December 1996 and paves the way for new proposals for action to be put forward by the Commission on the basis of the final evaluation of the HELIOS II programme.

The Commission will present the final evaluation report on the HELIOS II programme to Parliament and the Council in the near future.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1388/97 by Daniel Féret (NI) to the Commission (10 April 1997)

Subject: Implementation of BSE eradication measures

Letter of amendment No 1 increased the amount entered against heading B1-210 in the 1997 budget by ECU 700 million in order to help the UK implement measures to eradicate BSE.

Will the Commission state how that expenditure has been committed and what sums have so far been paid to the UK from the EU budget in support of action to combat BSE?

Will it also detail how those monies have been used by the UK authorities? Are UK measures financed under the above budget heading sufficiently in keeping with the purpose of the appropriations allocated to the UK?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (6 May 1997)

Budget heading B1-210 does not relate to measures to eradicate bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) but to export refunds on beef and veal. No increase in the budget heading was made in letter of amendment No 1/1997.

In that letter of amendment, the Commission proposed an increase of ECU 1.402 million in Chapter B1-21 (beef/veal) to take account of the costs of the emergency measures covering beef and veal proposed in July 1996 (ECU 1.381 million) and those resulting from the prices fixed for 1996/97 (ECU 21 million).

As regards the financing of measures to eradicate BSE in the United Kingdom, the Community contribution from the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund is limited to 70% of amounts paid as compensation for the market value of animals slaughtered under the slaughter programmes decided by the Council in April 1996 and implemented by the United Kingdom.

The following expenditure was either incurred in 1996 or 1997 or is provided for in the 1997 budget:

>TABLE>

The United Kingdom's practical difficulties in setting up the programme for the destruction of carcases of animals over 30 months old slaughtered under the measures adopted following the outbreak of the BSE crisis have brought about delays in its implementation, and the selective slaughter programme is also behind schedule. As a result, some appropriations for the 1996 financial year have been carried over to 1997.

The aim of these measures is to prevent any risk of humans coming into contact with the BSE agent by withdrawing from the food chain carcases of slaughtered animals over 30 months old and reducing the number of future cases of BSE by slaughtering animals which may have been fed contaminated feed (selective slaughter). Inspections have been conducted in the United Kingdom to monitor the proper application of these measures. Problems were identified in the case of the slaughter programme for animals over 30 months old as mentioned above. Most of these have been solved satisfactorily. Selective slaughter has just started and it is still too early to make any statement on its implementation.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1185/97 by Arlindo Cunha (PPE) to the Commission (3 April 1997)

Subject: Direct compensatory aid

According to figures supplied by the Commission (quoted in the Court of Auditors' report, p. 62 of the English version - OJ C 340, 12.11.1996), the total sum paid in 1995 in direct compensatory aid to offset price reductions was ECU 18 750.1 million.

Can the Commission state the number of beneficiaries and the corresponding total amount received, for the EU as a whole and for each Member State, for each of the following bands:

ECU 50 000 to 100 000; ECU 100 000 to 500 000; ECU 500 000 to 1 000 000; over ECU 1 000 000?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (16 April 1997)

Since the Commission reimburses Member States for their expenditure on the basis of an overall monthly declaration by budget heading and by Member State, it does not have the breakdown of expenditure requested.

Only the paying agencies of each Member State are in possession of that information.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1520/97 by Caroline Jackson (PPE) to the Commission (5 May 1997)

Subject: Information for the blind in Braille

Does the Commission have any plans to make available in future information regarding Commission programmes for the disabled, which might be relevant to blind or visually impaired people, in Braille?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (29 May 1997)

For some time now all official Commission documents concerning the integration of disabled persons (programme, report, resolution, European guide, etc), as well as Helioscope and Helios flash, have also been available to the blind and the visually impaired in diskette form in the various languages. Interested parties may request the Commission for the 'diskette' version of a particular document so as to convert it easily into Braille or print it in a form appropriate for the visually impaired.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1207/97 by Riccardo Nencini (PSE) to the Commission (7 April 1997)

Subject: Disparities in the treatment of graduates

In the Italian legal system there are still profound differences in the economic treatment of graduates, especially in the national health system. In particular, there is an unjustifiable discrimination between graduates employed in the national health service, graduates in business studies and graduates in law and political science, established by Presidential Decree No 761/1979.

Can the Commission say whether it is possible to take steps to eliminate this totally unjustified form of discrimination?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (14 May 1997)

The question put by the Honourable Member would seem to concern a domestic matter not falling within the scope of Community law. The observations made do not point to the existence of a cross-border element - discrimination based on nationality or the fact that a diploma was awarded in another Member State - that might justify action on the Commission's part.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1437/97 by Nikitas Kaklamanis (UPE) to the Commission (23 April 1997)

Subject: Danger facing minority schools in Turkey

There are reports that Turkey is planning to replace the five-year period of compulsory education with an eight-year period. This measure, which was initiated by the military, has further endangered the three Greek, nine Armenian and one Jewish school remaining in this country, which is not exactly renowned for respecting the rights of minorities within its territory.

Is the Commission aware of this situation and what action does it intend to take in response to this attempt by the Turkish authorities to restrict still further the education rights of minorities whose children are attending at the above schools?

Answer given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission (2 June 1997)

The plan to extend compulsory schooling from five to eight years was originally set out in the sixth Turkish five-year plan (1990-95) and put back on the agenda of the seventh (1996-2000).

The Turkish education ministry has drafted measures but the plan has not yet been approved owing to disagreements within the governing coalition.

From information at the Commission's disposal, an amended version of the plan is currently being prepared by the authorities.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1173/97 by Carmen Díez de Rivera Icaza (PSE) to the Commission (3 April 1997)

Subject: Milk and BSE

Can the Commission tell me:

1. Why the consumption of milk and milk-products from countries where cases of BSE have been detected is still authorized, even for children?

2. Would it be possible to include the country of origin on the packaging and labels of powdered milk and other foodstuffs for children?

Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission (27 May 1997)

When the World Health Organization was consulted on questions of public health connected with human and animal transmissible spongiform encephalopathies, it reported in 1996 that milk and milk products could be considered safe for consumers, even in countries with a high incidence of bovine spongiform encephalopathy.

The Scientific Veterinary Committee, which at the Commission's request assessed the potential risk of BSE transmission to humans and animals through bovine colostrum, milk and milk products, concluded that milk from healthy cows and products derived from such milk not containing additives of animal origin may be consumed without any risk in whatever form and by any species. There is no proof that milk transmits BSE and the Scientific Veterinary Committee has qualified the risk involved in milk as negligible.

In the light of these opinions, milk and milk products have never been subject to any consumer restriction.

Current Community law does not require the systematic indication of origin on food labelling, including powder milk and other baby food. Article 3(1)(7) of Directive 79/112/EEC ((OJ L 33, 8.2.1979. )) provides that particulars of the place of origin must be indicated on the label only where failure to give such particulars might mislead the consumer as to the true origin or provenance of the foodstuff.

Given the opinion delivered by the Scientific Veterinary Committee, the Commission does not intend to amend legislation in order to make it compulsory to indicate the origin of certain ingredients such as milk on the labelling of foodstuffs containing this type of ingredients. Manufacturers or packagers may of course voluntarily indicate the origin of the product as such or of some of its ingredients.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2000/97 by Caroline Jackson (PPE) to the Commission (9 June 1997)

Subject: EC aid granted to Bath and North East Somerset since June 1994

What is the total amount of Community aid granted to the area of Bath and North East Somerset, since June 1994, under:

1. the European Social Fund

2. the Fourth Research Framework Programme

3. Community programmes in the environment and energy fields

4. the EAGGF, Guidance and Guarantee sections

5. other Community Programmes?

Answer given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission (27 June 1997)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1569/97 by Honório Novo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (6 May 1997)

Subject: Establishment of anchovy quotas

The anchovy quota for the current year and the allocation thereof to Spain, France and Portugal were laid down in a regulation which allows France to have access to part of Portugal's quota.

For what reasons has the Commission allowed France to have such access? What are the actual circumstances under which France may avail itself of this share of the quota? Is the quota allocated to Portugal to be maintained at the same level in coming years?

Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission (2 June 1997)

During the discussions about the integration of Spain and Portugal into the common fisheries policy (CFP), which resulted in the adoption of Council Regulation No 1275/94 ((OJ L 140, 3.6.1994. )) and, subsequently, Regulation (EC) No 685/95 ((OJ L 71, 31.3.1995. )), Portugal and France agreed to exchange part of their quotas. They agreed also to tacitly renew these exchanges until 2002. This is reflected in Article 11 of Regulation (EC) No 685/95.

The condition attached to the transfer of part of the quota of anchovy is that it should be fished exclusively in waters under the sovereignty or jurisdiction of France.

As far as the maintenance of the quota of anchovy for Portugal is concerned, the Commission does not see, for the time being, any objective reason to modify the level of the total allowable catches (TAC) and, hence, the quota allocated to Portugal.