ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0900/97 by Johanna Maij-Weggen (PPE) to the Commission (12 March 1997)

Subject: UNEP meeting in Nairobi

According to reports in the media (Reuter, AFP), the recent meeting of Environment Ministers on the subject of the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) ended in serious disagreement, with the United States, the United Kingdom and Spain suspending their contributions to UNEP.

Can the Commission specify the cause of the disagreement and state whether it and/or the Dutch Presidency played a coordinating role at the UNEP meeting in question?

Can the Commission say whether the attitude of the UK and Spain differed from that of the other Member States and, if so, why?

What position did the Commission itself adopt with regard to the problems in UNEP?

How, according to the Commission, should the problems with UNEP be resolved and what role does it see itself playing in this process?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (15 May 1997)

The governing council of the United Nations environment programme (UNEP) was suspended on 7 February 1997 because it was unable to complete its work due to disagreements over two draft decisions on the governance and the reform of UNEP. Both these decisions are aimed at making UNEP more effective and influential.

The Community, which was strongly led by the Netherlands Presidency, made a joint statement on UNEP's governing structures and negotiated as one. When negotiations broke down two Member States and the United States announced the suspension of their contributions to UNEP's environment fund pending agreement on the points at issue. Contributions to the fund are a matter for the Member States.

The Commission is an observer at UNEP and not a member of the governing council, but shared the wish of all Member States to see UNEP effectively reformed.

Agreement was subsequently reached on both issues when the governing council was resumed on 3-4 April. The Commission will work with the Member States to ensure that the decisions then adopted are implemented in such a way as to restore and strengthen the position and influence of UNEP.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1115/97 by Edward Newman (PSE) to the Commission (24 March 1997)

Subject: Labelling of food products to highlight ingredients that can cause allergic reactions

The labelling of food products that can cause allergic reactions has now been the subject of concern for a number of years. The Commission published a Recommendation on this matter as recently as 24 January 1997 asking Member States to monitor and analyse allergens and aflatoxics.

However, given the amount of time this has been an issue of concern, when will the Commission be in a position to propose legislation?

Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission (7 May 1997)

The Commission is currently looking into the need to amend Directive 79/112/EEC on the labelling of foodstuffs ((OJ L 33, 8.2.1979, as last amended by Directive 97/4/EC, OJ L 43, 14.2.1997. )) so as to provide better information to those who suffer from food intolerance or allergies.

One year ago, at the Commission's request, the Scientific Committee for Food finalized a report on scientific knowledge in this area. Within the framework of scientific cooperation between the Member States and the Commission, this work will be followed up by a review of the available epidemiological data (dose-response, geographical variations, frequency and degree of hypersensitivity). This is a necessary step in determining which criteria to apply in compiling a list of ingredients known to cause allergies or intolerance and which, where used in a foodstuff, would have to be indicated in the list of ingredients shown on the labelling. On the basis of the findings, which should be available by the end of this year, the Commission might be able to adopt a proposal to amend Directive 79/112/EEC.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0561/97 by Laura González Álvarez (GUE/NGL), Pedro Marset Campos (GUE/NGL) and María Sornosa Martínez (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (24 February 1997)

Subject: Shooting practice using live animals by the Ertzaintza using in Berroci, Alava (Spain)

According to media reports, the Ertzaintza (Basque autonomous police) has in recent years been carrying out shooting practice with live animals (mainly goats) in order to determine the effects of different types of ammunition on the bodies of live animals at installations of the Ministry of the Interior at Berroci (Alava).

The bodies of the animals are held taut in order to assess the capacity for reaction and movement after the impact and the tests have been recorded on video for subsequent use in ballistics training courses for Ertzainzta members.

Nineteen goats have so far been killed as a result of 'shots fired using different types of ammunition'.

Bearing in mind that the gratuitous cruelty of shooting animals can scarcely be seen as contributing to the training of police officers and that neither sadism nor cruelty can be justified for reasons of state or in the interests of police efficiency, will the Commission say:

1. Whether it is aware of this situation?

2. Whether it believes that an inquiry should be launched by the appropriate authorities and this practice ended immediately?

3. How it intends to ensure the protection of animals used under the pretext of improving police efficiency or similar purposes?

4. Whether there is any Community legislation the Commission could enforce as a matter of urgency in order to end this practice and hold those responsible accountable?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (18 March 1997)

1. The Commission is not aware of the situation described by the Honourable Members.

2. and 3. There is no Community legislation in respect of the matter to which the Honourable Members refer. It is, therefore, a matter for the local or national authorities to regulate as they see fit.

4. Although the Council has adopted a number of directives on the protection of animals these texts, except in the case of transport, apply to animals kept for farming purposes and laboratory animals. There is currently no Community legislation covering all aspects of cruel treatment of animals.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1624/97 by Anthony Wilson (PSE) to the Commission (14 May 1997)

Subject: Unidentified flying objects (UFOs)

Does the Commission acknowledge that 'the extraterrestrial hypothesis' is the most likely explanation for a number of reports of unidentified craft?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1624/97, E-1625/97 and E-1721/97 given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission (25 June 1997)

In the performance of its duties under the Treaties, the Commission does not acquire information of the kind requested. It is therefore unable to answer the question.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1560/97 by Raimo Ilaskivi (PPE) to the Commission (6 May 1997)

Subject: Banning discrimination on the grounds of age in the Member States

In my opinion, Commissioner Pádraig Flynn's answer to my written question on banning discrimination on the grounds of age in the Member States (E-0936/97) ((OJ C 319, 18.10.1997, p. 200. )) is unsatisfactory, because it fails to tackle the key issue, i.e. discrimination on the grounds of age. The matter cannot be dealt with by referring to the limited nature of the Community's powers in the sphere of social protection, since the issue is one of broader equality. Were the issue unequal increases in men's and women's pensions in a particular Member State, the Commission's attitude would no doubt also be disapproving and it would probably take steps to deal with the matter by means of Community legislation.

Does the European Commission thus interpret equality solely as a principle which relates only to the respective treatment of the sexes and races, disregarding inequalities between Union citizens from different age-groups?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (13 June 1997)

Within the framework of the Inter-Governmental Conference, the Commission is in favour of the idea of inserting a new Article into the Treaty banning discrimination based on age, sex, race, ethnic or social origin, religion, disability or sexual orientation.

However, the final decision will be taken by the Governments of the Member States, and it is difficult at the present moment to forecast whether this Article will in fact be inserted.

It should be pointed out that up to now the Commission has explored all possibilities offered by the existing Treaties aimed at ensuring the principle of non-discrimination in various Community texts and actions, not only in the field of sexual equality but in all the above-mentioned fields.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1021/97 by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Commission (19 March 1997)

Subject: EU research funding for cloning experiments

1. a) Has the Roshin Institute in Edinburgh received research funding from the European Union?

b) If so, how much?

2. a) Has EU funding been utilized directly or indirectly to finance cloning experiments with sheep cells by this institute?

b) How much EU funding has been utilized directly and indirectly?

3. a) Have any EU funds been used directly and indirectly for cloning experiments with sheep?

b) Which institutes receive such funding?

c) How much EU funding has each institute received?

Answer given by Mrs Cresson on behalf of the Commission (22 May 1997)

1. a) The Roslin institute has participated in several Community programmes, receiving under the Biotech I (1992-1994) and Biotech II (1994-1998) programmes a total of 1.08 MECU.

2. a) One project, funded in the framework of Biotech I (1992-1994) programme aimed to gain understanding of the basic mechanisms in the early embryo of farm animals (cattle, sheep and pig) which determine whether a cell will retain the ability to contribute to all of the tissues. This Biotech project is limited to developing basic biological knowledge related to farm animals, and no direct research on cloning of animals was foreseen in the contract nor a fortiori any cloning experiment. The project fulfils the objectives of the specific programme for biotechnology 1992-1994, namely that research in area 2 'will be centred on the control of development, cell commitment and cell totipotency in higher organisms' (Decision No 92/218/EEC of the Council of 26 March 1992 concerning the specific programme for biotechnology ((OJ L 107, 24.4.1992. ))).

2. b) As indicated, no Community funding has been utilized to finance cloning experiments by the Roslin Institute.

3. The Commission has not directly funded any project on animal cloning, nor any project where cloning experiment were foreseen.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1202/97 by Ulla Sandbæk (I-EDN) to the Commission (7 April 1997)

Subject: Role of local organizations in EU humanitarian aid

In past years the Commission has encouraged partnerships between European development NGOs and organizations in developing countries. The recent Commission Communications on 'Linking Relief, Rehabilitation and Development' and on 'The European Union and the issue of conflicts in Africa' have stressed the importance of local organizations in the development processes and conflict prevention. Yet, on other occasions the Commission continues to stress the need for expatriate presence of EU-based NGOs in humanitarian aid programmes.

1. Does the Commission have a clearly formulated view on whether or not to support NGO programmes that have been identified, formulated or implemented by local organizations in partnership with an EU-based NGO?

2. Does the Commission agree that the insistence on expatriate EU presence in humanitarian aid situations can also be harmful to local initiatives?

3. Has the Commission organized discussion meetings with its partner NGOs to discuss the pros and cons of supporting local humanitarian and development initiatives?

Answer given by Ms Bonino on behalf of the Commission (30 May 1997)

1. Article 7 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/96 concerning humanitarian aid ((OJ L 163, 2.7.1996. )) in fact makes provision for financing non-governmental organizations (NGOs) with their headquarters in a third country.

Nevertheless, in view of the difficulty of conducting checks on operational and administrative capabilities in the field in emergency situations, the Commission normally employs European NGOs which have signed the framework partnership contract in the field of humanitarian aid. They are recognized as being experienced in the operational area and, while cooperating with local partners, retain responsibility to the Commission for all their actions and for compliance with the principles governing humanitarian relief.

2. In almost all cases NGOs through which the Commission finances humanitarian aid operations have been operating for a long time in regions with humanitarian emergencies and are not to be regarded as entities extraneous to the structure of the local society with which they cooperate. Bear in mind that humanitarian aid is generally directed at victims of conflicts or crises in countries where the local structures cannot meet humanitarian needs.

The Commission encourages its humanitarian-aid partner organizations to integrate local operators into the process of implementing their projects. Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 1257/96 also provides that local structures need to be associated in order to help those affected to regain a minimum level of self-sufficiency.

3. The role of and terms for local initiatives in the field of humanitarian assistance form a subject frequently raised in the course of liaison between NGOs and the Commission. The point is to be discussed in greater depth at a forum on the ethics of humanitarian aid.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1425/97 by Anita Pollack (PSE) to the Commission (23 April 1997)

Subject: Voluntary sector

Given the important role played by voluntary organizations in society, can the Commission please describe in what ways is volunteering becoming more recognized in EU funding?

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

The Commission has increasingly recognised the importance of volunteering in Community funding. Several projects concerning volunteering have been funded. The Commission administers the European voluntary service pilot action which encourages trans-national volunteering, and it has in the past provided finance towards the European day on volunteering. The Commission has also submitted a proposal to the Parliament and Council for a multiannual Community programme on voluntary service.

The Commission accepts volunteers' time as being eligible as part of the matching funds provided by an organisation in co-financed projects using European funds. The amount of time varies from one European funding programme to another and must be agreed in advance by the Commission.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1322/97 by Mark Watts (PSE) to the Commission (11 April 1997)

Subject: Sinking of the Herald of Free Enterprise - 6 March 1987

As the Commission will be aware, 6 March 1997 was the 10th Anniversary of the sinking of the 'Herald of Free Enterprise' off Zeebrugge, when almost 200 people were killed.

Will the Commission please comment on the maritime safety lessons learned from this disaster?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1322/97 and E-1323/97 given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission (23 May 1997)

In the aftermath of the 'Herald of Free Enterprise' disaster, the deficiencies brought to light by the Court of Enquiry set up by the British government were taken into account by the Commission and the Member States in the course of giving support to proposals made to the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) to adopt a set of amendments to the 1974 Safety Of Life at Sea (SOLAS) Convention that were aimed at preventing the recurrence of such accidents and at improving the safety of ro-ro passenger ships in general.

The adoption - in 1988 and 1992 - of subsequent amendments to the 1974 SOLAS Convention has resulted in the implementation of a number of specific safety measures for ro-ro passenger ships as listed in a table sent direct to the Honourable Member and to the Parliament's Secretariat General.

Following the Estonia disaster on 28 September 1994, the IMO established a panel of experts to undertake a comprehensive review of the safety of ro-ro passenger ships. That action resulted in the adoption, by an ad-hoc SOLAS Conference in November 1995, of an additional set of amendments to the 1974 SOLAS Convention. They are also listed in the table mentioned above.

To ensure that all these specific safety measures would also be applied to passenger ships engaged on domestic voyages in the Community, the Commission, in its proposal for a Council directive on safety rules and standards for passenger ships ((OJ C 238, 16.8.1996. )), has incorporated those SOLAS amendments, which, under the 1974 SOLAS Convention only applied to passenger ships engaged on international voyages.

In response to the Council Resolution of 22 December 1994 on the safety of ro-ro passenger ferries ((OJ C 379, 31.12.1994. )), the Commission tabled a proposal for an advanced mandatory application of the International safety management (ISM) Code by 1 July 1996 to all regular ro-ro passenger ferry services operating to or from Community ports ((OJ C 298, 11.11.1995. )). Following this proposal, on 8 December 1995 the Council adopted Council Regulation (EC)No 3051/95 on the safety management of ro-ro ferries ((OJ L 320, 30.12.1995. )).

In a further response to the Council Resolution of 22 December 1994, the Commission also tabled a proposal for a Council directive on the registration of persons sailing on board passenger ships ((OJ C 31, 31.01.1997. )) envisaging a coherent application in the Community of the SOLAS provisions on the information on passengers on passenger ships and high speed passenger craft engaged on international and domestic voyages.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0890/97 by Abdelkader Mohamed Ali (GUE/NGL), Laura González Álvarez (GUE/NGL), Pedro Marset Campos (GUE/NGL) and María Sornosa Martínez (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (12 March 1997)

Subject: The rainstorms in Andalusia (Spain)

The heavy rainfall in Andalusia in December 1996 killed 13 people, caused flooding in hundreds of towns and villages, resulted in millions of pesetas' worth of losses for arable and livestock farmers and caused serious damage to roads and over 200 monuments forming part of Andalusia's cultural heritage.

Given that the regional executive of Andalusia has estimated that the rainstorms caused millions of pesetas' worth of damage in Andalusia,

1. What special, urgent measures has the Commission taken or does it intend to take to alleviate the damage caused by the storms, particularly as far as the individuals and towns and villages affected are concerned?

2, Has the Commission received any request for assistance from the regional executive of Andalusia?

3. Given the scale of the damage, is the Commission prepared to work in conjunction with the Spanish authorities, as is its usual practice, to help rehabilitate the areas in question and rebuild infrastructures, housing and farm buildings?

Answer given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission (28 April 1997)

The Commission expresses its solidarity with the people of Andalusia who suffered serious losses and damage as a result of the rainstorms that struck the region in December 1996.

The Commission would point out that the budget heading B4-3400 'Emergency aid to disaster victims in the Community' was only given a token entry in the 1997 budget. As a result, the Commission is not in a position to grant aid of this sort to the citizens of the European Union affected.

However, the Spanish authorities (the Andalusian regional executive and the national government) may decide with the Commission, under the partnership arrangements, to allocate some of the Community funding awarded to Andalusia from the Structural Funds to the reconstruction of productive capacity and infrastructure damaged by the flooding.

In addition, although no specific measures are included under Objective 5a to alleviate losses due to natural disasters, the Commission has adopted Regulation (EC) No 386/96 ((OJ L 53, 2.3.1996. )) amending Regulation (EEC) No 220/91 laying down detailed rules for the application of Regulation (EEC) No 1360/78 on producer groups and associations thereof, in order to ensure that the temporary reduction in the output of producer groups resulting from natural disasters does not entail the automatic withdrawal of the recognition enabling them to obtain Community aid.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1264/97 by David Thomas (PSE) to the Commission (11 April 1997)

Subject: Directive 96/15/EC

The recognition of protected zones for all citrus fruit, with the exception of grapefruit, through Community legislation has not been extended beyond 1 April 1996 by Commission Directive 96/15/EC ((OJ L 70, 20.3.1996, p. 35. )). This decision was taken on the grounds that a ban aimed at protection against unspecified harmful organisms has been considered inappropriate under internationally established principles.

Against this background:

Is the Commission aware that after more than six months, various Member States have not yet implemented this directive?

What does the Commission intend to do to ensure that Commission Directive 96/15/EC is applied by all EU Member States?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (15 May 1997)

The Commission is aware that some Member States have not yet implemented Commission Directive 96/15/EC amending Directive 92/76/EEC recognizing protected zones exposed to particular plant health risks in the Community ((OJ L 305, 21.10.1992. )).

The Commission has launched the appropriate procedures which are available for such situations under the Treaty.