ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3195/00

by Caroline Jackson (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 October 2000)

Subject: Research into alternative uses of tobacco

Can the Commission state whether the European Union is undertaking research into alternative uses for tobacco? Is it aware that research in India has led to the manufacture of Solanesol, a high value alcohol from tobacco and also resulted in the production of nicotine sulphate, which may turn out to be an environmentally friendly insecticide?

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(8 December 2000)

The Community tobacco fund, under its new application Regulation (CE) No 1648/2000 of 25 July 2000 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2075/92 with regard to the Community tobacco fund and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 2427/93(1) can finance research projects, including the dissemination of the results to national authorities and the sectors concerned, regarding the creation and development of alternative uses for raw tobacco in accordance with Article 1(1)(b) of the above-mentioned regulation (e.g. more environmentally-friendly cultivation methods). No project has been funded yet on this subject which has been introduced with the new implementation regulation.

As for research and technological development in the context of the Fifth framework programme (1998-2002)(2), the research key action Sustainable agriculture forestry fisheries and agro-industry within the specific programme Quality of Life, provides for the funding of research projects on alternative uses of industrial crops, including tobacco crops. The calls for research proposals published by the Commission did not however so far result in the submission of research projects of the required high standard of scientific excellence.

The Commission is aware of the non-food product developments in India.

(1) OJ L 189, 27.7.2000.

(2) OJ L 26, 1.2.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0060/00

by Avril Doyle (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(20 January 2000)

Subject: The addition of certain types of foliage crops to the Combined Nomenclature list of acceptable vegetation which can be grown on areas eligible for aid under the set-aside scheme

Would the Commission kindly indicate whether the following varieties could be added to the Combined Nomenclature list of acceptable vegetation which can be grown on areas eligible for aid under the set-aside scheme, on the basis that they are not used for human or animal consumption:

- Pittosporum in variety

- Ozothamnus in variety

- Heathers in variety including erica in variety, erigena, callunas in variety (Irish heathers) and senecio

- Hypericum in variety

- Macrocarpa (gold crest)

- Viburnum in variety?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(1 March 2000)

Land set aside in line with Council Regulation (EC) No 1251/1999 of 17 May 1999, establishing a support system for producers of certain arable crops(1) can be used for the production of raw materials listed in annexes I or II of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2461/1999 of 19 November 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1251/1999 as regards the use of land set aside for the production of raw materials(2) and intended for processing into non-food end products listed in annex III.

The annexes were composed in such a way that new industrial, non-food outlets for agricultural produce would be created. Special care was taken not to disturb existing outlets.

The crops to which the Honourable Member refers are all ornamental plants to be classified under combined nomenclature (CN) ex 060290. These plants do not fulfil the criteria indicated above and for that reason cannot be added to the lists in the annexes.

(1) OJ L 160, 26.6.1999.

(2) OJ L 299, 20.11.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2708/00

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(1 September 2000)

Subject: Production of euro notes

1. Will the Commission state how many printing plants are involved in the production of euro notes?

2. What is the equivalent number of printing plants producing dollar notes in the United States?

3. Will the Commission state what measures have been taken to ensure that the quality of euro notes at different printing plants within the EU is uniform?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(4 October 2000)

1. There are twelve printing plants for the production of euro notes.

2. The US Federal Reserve is divided into twelve districts, each of which is authorised to issue banknotes. The Treasury Department's Bureau of Engraving and Printing, which currently occupies two sites (in Washington and Fort Worth) is responsible for banknote production.

3. The European Central Bank keeps a close eye on the quality of banknote production, so as to ensure that notes are identical.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2688/00

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(1 September 2000)

Subject: Staff disciplinary procedures

1. Will the Commission reconsider its response to my Written Question E-0557/00(1) concerning disciplinary procedures for its own staff given (a) the very small numbers of employees of the Commission who are dismissed and (b) the answer given by the British Parliament to Mr Matthew Taylor MP (113608) showing that 0,1 to 0,2 per cent of the non-industrial civil service employees are dismissed or discharged each year?

2. Does the Commission take the view that there may be an inverse relationship between its very low rate of disciplinary action against employees and the evidence of malpractice, inefficiency and delays (for example in making due payments)?

3. Can the Commission indicate the civil service of any Member State that dismisses proportionately fewer of its own employees in any given year?

4. If not, is it aware of any evidence that its own employees are intrinsically less likely to succumb to temptation or sloth than the employees of any other organisation or institution?

(1) OJ C 374 E, 28.12.2000, p. 105.

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(4 October 2000)

1. The Commission sees no reason to reconsider its answer to the Honourable Member's Written Question E-557/00 on the basis of the statistical data reported by the Honourable Member and given in a Parliamentary answer in the House of Commons. Whilst accepting the need for improvements to its disciplinary system and, consequently, pursuing such improvements through the Reform Strategy the Commission continues to take the view that the overall effectiveness of a disciplinary regime is best measured by the degree to which it helps to prevent indiscipline, rather than by the numbers of employees dismissed.

2. To the extent that malpractice, inefficiency and delays exist within the Commission, they are often the result of unsatisfactory rules and systems rather than the individual actions of the Commission's employees. This is largely the case, for example, with the payment delays to which the Honourable Member makes specific reference. In such circumstances, disciplinary proceedings against individuals would not provide a solution. Change in the system is necessary and that, too, is being actively pursued.

3. The Commission is not in possession of detailed information on the numbers of civil servants dismissed by Member States annually, and it is thus not in a position to respond to the Honourable Member's question.

4. The Commission does not assume that Community civil servants are intrinsically more or less likely to succumb to bad practices than any other people. It does recognise, however, that it would not be reasonable or wise to introduce a system of dismissals that is determined by whatever average may or may not exist in any other organisation or institutions.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3058/00

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(28 September 2000)

Subject: Classification of toluene

Toluene is a solvent currently indispensable for publication printing. However, it is shortly to be reclassified under EU law as a risk phrase R61, which would have the effect of ranking toluene as a poison. This would make it impossible for companies to print with toluene and endanger the jobs of a significant number of employees.

However, scientific studies have questioned the dangers of toluene.

The German MAK Commission has carried out a very intensive investigation into toluene and, as a result, has downgraded toluene from the more dangerous Group B to the less dangerous Group C. Other studies have concluded that there is currently not enough information on toluene on which to base a firm oinion.

Could the Commission indicate whether or not it has commissioned scientific studies on toluene and/or the information on which the Commission based its decision to rank toluene as a poison?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(6 November 2000)

The Commission has not yet taken a decision on whether toluene should be classified as toxic to reproduction nor has it commissioned a scientific study on this substance. However, toluene is currently undergoing risk assessment as foreseen under Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 of 23 March 1993, on the evaluation and control of the risks of existing substances(1), including consideration of its intrinsic hazards. All relevant scientific studies are being considered as part of the hazard and risk assessments. Denmark, the rapporteur for this substance, has recently submitted a draft risk assessment report. Commission working groups composed of experts from the Member States are currently discussing this report.

(1) OJ L 84, 5.4.1993.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2926/00

by Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission

(19 September 2000)

Subject: Construction of a vast cold-storage plant for fish

The Group of European Pelagic Fish Exporters (The Group), which was set up by Dutch, French and German shipowners and is based in the Netherlands, has for some time been operating with large super-trawlers in the Canaries and Saharan bank under private agreements with the Kingdom of Morocco. It now plans to build one of the biggest cold-storage plants in Europe, with a storage capacity of 60 000 t, with a view to large-scale operations from the port of Las Palmas. The total investment is put at ESP 3 billion and The Group is counting on FIFG funding for the project.

One of the arguments put forward by Morocco in relation to the renewal of the agreement was the need to conserve resources. However, while the Community fleet which previously fished in the waters of the Canaries and Saharan bank has been tied up for ten months, The Group's super-trawlers have landed more then 100 000 t of fish caught in the same waters since January alone, virtually the same volume as that caught in a year by the Community fleet. Constructing the cold-storage plant will enable The Group to double its fishing effort, currently estimated at 300 000 t per year.

Is the Commission aware of this project? Has it received any such application? Would the construction of a vast cold-storage plant such as that planned by The Group be covered by the measures eligible under the FIFG? Do these developments not amount to a flagrant contradiction of a Europe-wide common fisheries policy?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(26 October 2000)

The Commission was informed in early 1998 of a project to construct and modernise cold stores and fishery product handling installations of the port of Las Palmas to meet the needs of a fleet of pelagic trawlers operating off West Africa and wishing to use Las Palmas as home port and as marketing base for African pelagic fish.

It was told that the investment, which would be in two stages, would given its size relaunch the port's economy and rectify a worrying financial situation linked to the reduction in fishing activity of recent years.

The Commission is aware of the concerns expressed over the possible impact of the investment on fishing in the region.

Such a project is in theory eligible for Community part-financing from the Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance. The Commission has asked the Spanish authorities what their intentions are.

The Commission checks that national structural aid programmes are compatible with common fisheries policy objectives (see Articles 1 and 3 of Regulation (EC) No 2792/99 laying down detailed rules and arrangements regarding Community structural assistance in the fisheries sector(1)). It will give all necessary attention to the opinions of all interested parties.

(1) OJ L 337, 30.12.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2273/00

by Armando Cossutta (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(7 July 2000)

Subject: Reform of the Common Organisation of the Market in rice

The proposed reform of the Common Organisation of the Market in rice will introduce important and, in my opinion, dangerous changes in the law on Community aid in that sector.

The Commissioner responsible for agriculture and fisheries, Franz Fischler, has indicated some of the main points of the proposed reform, including:

- introduction of 10 % set aside,

- abolition of the intervention price,

- abolition of public stockpiling,

- reduction of aid available under the CAP.

The above measures will result in a considerable reduction in the areas used to grow rice, as rice-growing is highly specialised and does not lend itself to crop rotation because the special machinery required cannot be used for other cereals and because of the lie of the land.

Obviously, therefore, the measures in question are damaging to European rice farmers and will encourage imports from third countries.

Does the Commission agree that crops such as rice, which are a traditional component of the rural economy in some areas, should be protected?

Does the Commission agree that, unless the position adopted by international organisations such as the WTO is adequately resisted, it will lead to the decline or disappearance of traditional products?

What political signal does the Commission believe it is giving by ignoring or failing to protect Community agricultural products?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(15 September 2000)

The European rice market is severely imbalanced, with intervention stocks amounting to almost 30 % of domestic production and market prices constantly below the intervention price.

The resultant financial costs are considerable, since intervention rice can deteriorate after two or three years' storage.

Having carefully examined all the possible options, the Commission's conclusion is that integrating rice into the arable crop system and abolishing the intervention price will make it possible to balance supply and demand while still safeguarding rice growers' income.

Far from stipulating any reduction in aid, the proposal provides for the current 52,65/tonne to be increased to 63/tonne in line with the amount laid down for cereals from 2001/2002 onwards.

With regard to the rules governing imports, the Commission intends to act in accordance with the international requirements which the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) stipulates.

The Commission considers that the proposal both complies with the requirements laid down in the GATT agreement on agriculture and will enable the Community's rice growers to benefit from a balanced market.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2363/00 by Jens-Peter Bonde (EDD) to the Council. The Danish EMU exemption.



Official Journal 103 E , 03/04/2001 P. 0134 - 0134



WRITTEN QUESTION E-2363/00 by Jens-Peter Bonde (EDD) to the Council (24 July 2000) Subject: The Danish EMU exemption Will the Council confirm that Danish agreement to participate in the third stage of EMU would mean that the Protocol on certain provisions relating to Denmark in the Maastricht Treaty would lapse, and that Denmark could no longer invoke that Protocol unless it were reintroduced at a new intergovernmental conference and ratified by all Member States? Reply (9 November 2000) The Council would remind the Honourable Member that interpretation of the EC Treaty and of the Protocols annexed thereto does not fall within its competence.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2147/00

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(30 June 2000)

Subject: Tallow for soap

Are there are any restrictions in operation within the Community on the use of EU tallow for soap?

What is the legal situation of any company attempting to specify to producers the country/countries within the EU from which such tallow must originate before they will purchase the soap?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(8 September 2000)

Council Directive 76/768/EEC of 27 July 1976 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to cosmetic products(1), the Cosmetics Directive, in its annex II No 419 b., states as a general principle both non-Community and Community tallow derivatives may be used, provided that the listed methods with specifications for transesterfication and saponification, in other words the manufacturing process, has been respected. The producer must strictly certify the use of these methods for producing tallow derivatives.

Concerning the origin of tallow, this information will be found in the product information file which is kept by the producer. This product information file contains all specifications on the raw materials, in this case also the origin of tallow used in the soap. It is always the responsibility of the manufacturer or his agent or the person to whose order a cosmetic product is manufactured or the person responsible for placing an imported cosmetic product on the Community market to keep the product information file accessible to the Member States.

(1) OJ L 262, 27.9.1976.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2690/00

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(1 September 2000)

Subject: Agricultural support and accession of Poland

1. What is the Commission's estimate of the extra annual cost of support if existing EU farm support policies were extended to Poland on its accession to the EU,

(a) assuming no change in its current agricultural production;

(b) projecting a change in its agricultural production based on changes in price incentives as support and structural policies were brought into line with existing EU policies?

2. What is the estimated annual cost respectively for both Guarantee and Structural Funds in each case?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2690/00, E-2691/00, E-2695/00, E-2699/00, E-2700/00 and E-2701/00 given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(29 September 2000)

To estimate the extra annual cost of agricultural support resulting from the accession to the Community of Poland, the Czech Republic, Cyprus, Hungary, Slovenia and Estonia it would be necessary to know with a reasonable degree of certainty the date, the terms and conditions of the accession of these countries to the Community. These aspects will have to be defined in the accession negotiations with these countries, the agricultural chapter of which was opened for negotiation in June 2000. Consequently, any cost estimate made on the basis of assumptions indicated by the Honourable Member would necessarily be of a hypothetical, speculative and uncertain nature. At the present state of the negotiating process the Commission is, therefore, not in a position to answer the questions asked by the Honourable Member.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3250/00

by Jorge Hernández Mollar (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(20 October 2000)

Subject: The EU's cork policy

Following the end of the cork harvesting season which, every year, involves numerous workers in the sector, such as woodcutters, gatherers, cleavers, transporters and weighers in the municipalities of Ronda and Cortes de la Frontera (Malaga province, Spain), all those involved are concerned about their future in the face of the possible emergence of a new material to replace cork.

The laborious process which begins with the formation of cork in the cork-oak groves and ends with it reaching the hands of the consumer takes in the axe of the cork-cutter and the factory in which the season's harvest is processed. All the workers involved in the production process believe that the Community's policy for the sector must be reformed, to ensure their survival and a secure future.

Can the Commission state whether the Community's cork policy will be reformed in such a way as to ensure a secure future and whether, each year as has been the case up till now, the Community's cork-producing areas such as that in Malaga province will be able to go on harvesting cork in their time-honoured fashion?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(20 November 2000)

The Commission has taken note of the cork sector's current circumstances and future problems, and the concern which those working in it feel. Cork policy is covered by the forestry strategy(1), which provides for promoting the development of all the forestry sector's components (including the cork oak) and improving sustainable management.

Specific measures to assist the cork sector are included in the rural development plans drawn up under Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 of 17 May 1999 on support for rural development from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and amending and repealing certain Regulations(2). Various specific measures may be taken in accordance with Article 30: investment to improve and rationalise harvesting, processing and marketing; and particularly measures which address the concern expressed about the sector's future by promoting new outlets.

Projects may be submitted in relation to these various aspects. Support is also provided to professional organisations so that they can expand or maintain their activities in the sector, particularly regarding the processes to which the Honourable Member refers (such as bark-stripping).

The Advisory Committee on Forestry and Cork brings together trade and associated interests to exchange information and views.

The Commission recently defined the measures provided for, which cover the forestry sector including cork. They can be adjusted and given practical shape according to the sector's needs. It is therefore not necessary to consider revising Community policy, since improvements can be made on the basis of proposals which the trade puts forward within the existing framework.

(1) COM(98) 649 final.

(2) OJ L 160, 26.6.1999.