ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1333/96 by Cristiana Muscardini (NI) to the Commission (3 June 1996)

Subject: Meat meal and animal fats

The problems concerning meat meal and animal fats, which have made news on account of the BSE epidemic, could do severe harm to Italian stockbreeders unless the EU manages forthwith to ensure uniform enforcement of existing rules in the Member States.

Will the Commission issue a Directive whereby:

1. processing companies would have to vouch for their production process;

2. sterilization would have to be carried out before and after processing;

3. the necessary treatment systems for filtering plants would be made the subject of assessment;

4. unused materials would have to be disposed of in accordance with the arrangements laid down;

5. it would be forbidden to use animal proteins of any kind in the manufacture of feed for ruminants?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (15 July 1996)

There are several directives and decisions already in place which regulate the production and use of animal waste. These rules have been adapted in the light of the latest scientific knowledge in order to make the products derived from rendering safe.

1. The competent authorities of the Member States are responsible for ensuring compliance with the rules.

2. A new decision on the approval of alternative heat treatment systems for processing animal waste with a view to the inactivation of spongiform encephalopathy agents was given a favourable opinion by the standing veterinary committee on 2 July and is in the process of adoption by the Commission. This lays down the minimum parameters for processing animal waste ie 133°C for 20 minutes under a pressure of 3 bar in a continuous or batch system. This may be considered as a sterilisation phase. Member States may authorise the processing of animal waste by a method which does not achieve the parameters mentioned if such processing is preceded or followed by a process which achieves these parameters.

3. The scientific veterinary committee has made recommendations for the methods of checking that all plants are achieving the specified parameters. Member States use these methods when validating the plants on an individual basis.

4. All animal waste, except certain defined material for specific purposes (hides and skins, gelatine, glands and organs for pharmaceutical use, blood and blood products, milk and milk products, bones fit for human consumption and animal waste to be fed to fur animals) have to rendered in accordance with the above criteria. There are no by-products of the rendering process. Rendering results in tallow and meat-and-bone meal and these substances are safe as regards scrapie and BSE when produced in accordance with the legal requirements.

5. Commission Decision 94/381/EC has already banned the use of mammalian proteins for feeding to ruminants.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1125/96 by Cristiana Muscardini (NI) to the Commission (13 May 1996)

Subject: New foodstuffs and ingredients

The scope of the Community regulation on new foodstuffs and ingredients is to be extended to matters which are already the subject of current legislation and it is to become impossible to use biotechnology in order to produce new varieties.

Furthermore, it is to become compulsory to label products obtained from raw materials which are genetically modified but are essentially the same as those obtained from the equivalent raw materials obtained by traditional farming methods, and this will lead to serious problems in identifying and separating genetically modified raw materials.

Can the Commission intervene to secure the speedy adoption of the proposal with a view to avoiding these problems?

Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission (24 June 1996)

The common position for a regulation on novel foods and novel foods ingredients ((OJ C 320, 30.11.1995. )) covers all foods and food ingredients not hitherto used for human consumption in the Community, provided they fall under the categories which have been listed under article 1 (2) (a), (b), (c), (d), (e) and (f) of the common position. However, products having to undergo a more specific authorization procedure - such as additives, flavourings and extraction solvents - will require no additional authorization under the regulation. As far as new cultivating methods are concerned, the common position does not prevent the use of biotechnology and the benefits of biotechnology.

The Commission has always argued in favour of extensive labelling which provides meaningful information to the consumer and which is enforceable at the different stages of processing. This is the reason why the Commission endorsed article 8 (a) of the common position that is based on the concept of significant difference which establishes the need for specific labelling.

The Commission examined the amendments adopted by the Parliament in its second reading on 12 March 1996, aiming at modifying the common position. The Commission transmitted its opinion on 23 May 1996 ((COM(96) 229 final. )) to the Parliament and the Council.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1633/96 by Richard Howitt (PSE) to the Commission (24 June 1996)

Subject: Handynet information system - EU Helios programme

In the course of the last twelve months, what precise and quantifiable improvements have been made in the development and operation of the Handynet information system?

Has the Commission any statistics on the number of individual people with disabilities in some or all Member States who have directly used the system in this period?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (31 July 1996)

In the course of the last twelve months the Handynet system has developed as follows:

a) Information content:

1. general qualitative improvement of the data on technical aids;

2. input of data concerning technical aids manufactured outside the Community and data input on non-governmental organisations prepared by these organisations.

b) Retrieval programme:

1. general improvement of the retrieval programme, retrieval criteria and speed;

2. installation of a tutorial allowing each user to learn how to use the CD-ROM (11 languages).

c) Use of the CD-ROM by disabled people:

1. seventy-seven Handynet CD-ROM have been presented to the members of the European disability forum and to the national disability councils free of charge;

2. since December 1995 a programme for statistical data collection has been included in the retrieval programme. Fifty organisations including thirty-five NGOs are expected to enter their data by September 1996.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1467/96 by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Commission (12 June 1996)

Subject: Research in the field of heterotransplantation

1. In what context, in what countries, in what research institutes, under what budget heading and to what extent does the EU directly and/or indirectly assist research in the field of heterotransplantation?

2. How does the Commission view the health hazards of heterotransplantation as a result of the transfer of such pathogens as bacteria, viruses and prions from animals to human beings?

3. Is the Commission assisting risk studies in this sector, or is it aware of studies and research projects in the Community relating to the possible risks inherent in heterotransplantation?

4. Does the Commission not agree that not only are biological and medical risks associated with heterotransplantation but also fundamental ethical and moral principles, which need to be discussed before further research is undertaken?

Answer given by Mrs Cresson on behalf of the Commission (16 July 1996)

No research project relating to heterotransplantation is currently being conducted within the programme of research in the field of biomedicine and health. This does not, of course, rule out such research in the future, as heterotransplantation is part of the work programme of research into medical bioethics.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1646/96 by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Commission (24 June 1996)

Subject: Infringement by the City of Braunschweig of Directive 92/50/EEC in allocating the contract for incinerating residual waste to the Braunschweigischen Kohlebergwerke (BKB)

1. Is the Commission aware that the City of Braunschweig has concluded a contract with BKB according to which the City will provide BKB each year from 1999 with a minimum of 136 000 tonnes of residual waste for thermal processing at a purchase price of DM 250 per tonne, and that if this minimum figure is not reached the difference will have to be made up, so that at least DM 34 million per annum will be payable to BKB?

2. Does the Commission agree that in view of the volume involved this will constitute a public service contract under Council Directive 92/50/EEC? ((OJ L 209, 24.7.1992, p. 1. ))

3. Does it agree that there should have been an invitation to tender for provision of this service, open to all the EU?

4. Does it agree that the procedure chosen for allocating the above contract is a flagrant infringement of the public services directive?

5. If so, will the Commission be initiating infringement proceedings?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (6 September 1996)

The Commission has not been informed of the facts reported by the Honourable Member.

It is true that the amount of the contract is much higher than the threshold laid down in Directive 92/50/EEC and that the Directive would normally apply to contracts for refuse disposal services (see Category No 16 in Annex 1A to the Directive).

However, it must also be borne in mind that the 'services' Directive contains a large number of derogations and that a check must be made to ascertain whether the contract is excluded from the scope of the Directive by virtue of such a derogation. There is also the question of whether, exceptionally, the awarding authority was not entitled to award the contract by negotiated procedure without prior publication.

In order to take a decision in this matter, the Commission needs more detailed information on the nature and details of the procedure used, on the object of BKB, on the legal relationship between that company and the City of Braunschweig, and on any public contract awarded to that company.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1660/96 by Kenneth Coates (PSE) to the Commission (24 June 1996)

Subject: Agriculture - Surplus food scheme

Would the Commission be prepared to receive applications from interested organizations in order to continue the distribution of free surplus food to eligible people in the United Kingdom, many of whom are trying to survive on very low incomes?

Is there any way in which voluntary organizations and local authorities might continue to participate in the surplus food scheme, following the decision of the United Kingdom Government to withdraw?

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

The distribution of food from intervention stocks to the most deprived persons in the Community is carried out according to an annual plan drawn up by the Commission on the basis of information provided by the Member States (Council Regulation (EEC) No 3730/87, ((OJ L 352, 15. 12. 1987. )) as amended by Regulation (EC) No 2535/95). ((OJ L 260, 31. 10. 1995. ))

Each year the Member States must first notify the Commission of their wish to take part in the scheme. As the Honourable Member states, the United Kingdom informed the Commission that it would not participate in the 1996 scheme. Since the organizations which distribute the food to the most deprived persons are designated by the Member State, their participation in the scheme is dependent on the Member State's participation. Hence the Commission cannot include applications from United Kingdom charitable organizations for a scheme in which the United Kingdom is not taking part.

However, every year from 1 October, a new plan starts in which each Member State can participate. Withdrawal from the scheme for one or more years in no way prevents subsequent participation. Charitable organizations which wish to continue the scheme should therefore address their applications to the United Kingdom authorities.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1630/96 by Richard Howitt (PSE) to the Commission (24 June 1996)

Subject: EU aid to the International Planned Parenthood Federation

How much money does the EU give to the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) and what exactly is the money used for?

Is the money used directly for population control projects in China or is it used indirectly, for example, to send officials to the Cairo and Beijing Conferences, to block moves by pro-lifers condemning China's one child per couple policy?

Answer given by Mr Marin on behalf of the Commission (18 July 1996)

In 1993, the Commission agreed with the International planned parenthood federation (IPPF) to support a three-year 10.5 MECU project entitled 'Support to IPPF to provide family planning to reduce fertility in the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean countries'. This was a grant under budget heading B7-4080 'Operations promoting multilateral and regional or sub regional cooperation in the Mediterranean'.

In this project family planning associations from Morocco, Tunisia, Algeria, Egypt, Gaza and the West Bank, Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey implement integrated activities targeting the reduction of fertility, improvement of family planning, reproductive, sexual and mother and child health services, and the empowerment of women. No further IPPF activities have been supported by the Commission nor has any of the money been channelled directly to projects in China.

The Commission is not aware of any indirect use to block moves condemning China's one-child-per-couple policy.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1971/96 by Odile Leperre-Verrier (ARE) to the Commission (16 July 1996)

Subject: European identity card

Could the Commission say what progress has been made with the proposal made by Mr Lombardi, acting chairman of the 'Education' Council, to introduce a university identity card at European level?

Were feasibility studies carried out? xxxHas this decision been considered by the European bodies concerned?

Answer given by Mrs Cresson on behalf of the Commission (13 September 1996)

The Commission has no knowledge of the proposal referred to by the Honourable Member.

Past discussions with student organisations on the idea of introducing a Community university identity card have not convinced the Commission of the added value of such a card by comparison with existing student cards at European or international level.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1706/96 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission (25 June 1996)

Subject: Short-sea transport

In the December 1992 White Paper on the future development of the common transport policy, the Commission puts forward a series of proposals for legislation to encourage short-sea transport as an energy efficient and non-polluting alternative to road transport. While recognising the validity of the Commission's communication to Parliament, the Council, the ESC and COR, it is important to point out that particular attention needs to be paid to the following factors:

- creation of a competitive environment in which transparency of subsidies and the future internalization of external costs will put short-sea transport on a level footing with other modes of transport,

- full integration of short-sea transport within the trans-European networks, of which it must become an integral part and on an equal footing with other modes of transport,

- working out practical solutions to the administrative problems facing short-sea transport (such as customs and transit procedures),

- exploiting the potential of small and medium-sized ports to relieve congestion at the major ports and road routes.

In order to achieve these objectives, will the Commission draw up a list of priorities and ensure continuous follow-up to the measures taken, through close cooperation between the Commission, the Member States and the FIM's short-sea transport group?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission (9 July 1996)

The communication from the Commission on short sea shipping ((COM(95) 317. )) included an action programme which contains proposals for initiatives to be taken by the Commission and also by the Member States, by local and regional authorities and by the maritime industries themselves.

The Commission considers that responsibility for fostering the development of short sea shipping lies primarily with the maritime industries. While recognising the importance of the points mentioned by the Honourable Member, it is felt that for the Commission itself to draw up a list of priorities would not contribute greatly to the practical implementation of the action programme.

However, the Commission is already liaising closely with the short sea panel of the Maritime Industries Forum (MIF) in the implementation of the communication's action programme. This liaison is effectively based upon priorities set by the panel. The MIF's 7th plenary session to be held in Marseilles on 4 and 5 July 1996 will make its first official assessment of developments.

All of the points mentioned by the Honourable Member are the subject of ongoing Commission activity. In particular, there is a significant emphasis on short sea shipping in Commission activities such as the 4th framework programme on research and development, the inclusion of ports into the trans-European transport network and support for short sea shipping pilot actions.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1696/96 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission (24 June 1996)

Subject: World Trade Organization - Rice

In signing the Uruguay round agreement, the European Union undertook gradually to reduce customs duties on rice. Under the GATT agreements the Union will have to move from a minimum price, based on the entry price, to a maximum price. This will mean that Europe will face keener international competition in terms of both agricultural production and industrial processing of paddy rice to produce milled rice. The Commission is therefore considering the possibility of new regulations based on:

1. a reduction in producer prices;

2. compensation for producers;

reducing the level of producer prices will inevitably have a negative impact on the profitability of Community rice production. To maintain current income levels, it is necessary to introduce a compensation scheme, while maintaining a level of production consistent with market demand.

Aid has therefore been fixed per hectare of land sown with rice, subject to a maximum guaranteed area for the Community.

Since the reduction in intervention prices proposed must be compensated in full financially to maintain the level of producers incomes and to ensure their survival and the compensation must therefore be calculated on the basis of the average for the past three production years (1993, 1994 and 1995) recorded in each of the producer Member States, and bearing in mind the trend in consumption and the accession of new Member States, does the Commission not consider that it should review the penalties imposed in the event of the maximum guaranteed area being exceeded?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (9 July 1996)

Article 6(5) of Regulation (EC) No 3072/95 of 22 December 1995 on the common organization of the market in rice ((OJ L 329, 30.12.1995. )) stipulates that 'where the areas given over to rice in a given year exceed one of the base areas indicated in paragraph 4, a reduction of the amount of the compensatory payment shall be applied to all producers in the base area in question for the same production year equal to:

- three times the rate of overrun if it is less than 1%,

- four times the rate of overrun if it is equal to or greater than 1% but less than 3%,

- five times the rate of overrun if it is equal to or greater than 3% but less than 5%,

- six times the rate of overrun if it is equal to or greater than 5%.'

The Commission has no intention of proposing changes to the criteria used in applying the penalties since in its original proposal it considered that the reduction in the compensatory amount should have been equal to six times the rate of overrun in order to maintain a degree of proportionality between the rate of overrun and the penalty expressed as a percentage of the intervention price.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1561/96 by Ernesto Caccavale (UPE) to the Council (11 June 1996)

Subject: Extradition of an Italian citizen, Pietro Venezia, to the US, where he could be sentenced to death

The European Union respects human rights and fundamental freedoms, including the right to life, as laid down in international treaties including, in particular, the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights, and as recognized by the Members States' constitutional courts and constitutional law.

Pietro Venezia is in danger of being extradited by the Italian authorities to the US, where he is very likely to be sentenced to death.

What does the Council intend to do to avert this blatant violation of a European citizen's fundamental rights?

Reply (14 October 1996)

While, under Article F(2) of the Treaty on European Union, the Union is to 'respect fundamental rights, as guaranteed by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms' and 'as they result from the constitutional traditions common to the Member States', it is not for the Union to interfere in the application of the Convention by Member States in matters coming within their national sphere of competence. The Council is thus not qualified to answer the Honourable Member's question.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2183/96 by Undine-Uta Bloch von Blottnitz (V) to the Commission (2 August 1996)

Subject: EU membership of CITES

The Member States of the European Union are independent members of CITES, the international convention on the protection of endangered species. There have been attempts in the past to make the EU itself a member of CITES.

1. Are attempts continuing at an official level to make the EU a member of CITES?

2. If so, what is the timetable and what effects would EU membership have on the implementation of the EC Regulation on the protection of endangered species?

3. If not, what grounds are there for the EU not to become a member of CITES?

4. Would not the EU's absence from CITES make the implementation of the above-mentioned EC regulation more difficult?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (13 September 1996)

An amendment to the Convention allowing Community accession was adopted by the 1983 extraordinary meeting of the conference of the parties. Its entry into force requires formal acceptance of two-thirds of the parties at the time of adoption (i.e. 2/3 × 81 = 54 of which 33 have accepted the amendment so far). At the occasion of the adoption of common position N° 26/96, adopted by the Council with a view to adopting a Council Regulation (EC) on the protection of species of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade therein ((OJ C 196, 6.7.1996. )), the Council and the Commission agreed on the urgent need for the Community to accede to the Convention and undertook to move towards that end.

The timeframe for Community accession will depend upon the level of success of these joint efforts to ensure acceptance of the 1983 amendment by a sufficient number of additional parties.

As a party to the Convention, the Community will be legally obliged to implement it - as opposed to the autonomous implementation of the Convention since 1984 - and become accountable on implementation and enforcement issues.

Community membership will also bring the legal status of the Community in the Convention on international trade in endangered species of wild fauna and flora (CITES) in line with its area of competence on issues related to the Convention and render that status more transparent vis-à-vis third parties to the Convention.

The current observer status in meetings of the conference of the parties and its many important committees and working groups is indeed a negative factor in this context.