ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0653/01

by Sebastiano Musumeci (UEN) to the Commission

(6 March 2001)

Subject: Socio-economic study of the islands of the EU

On 24 October 2000, in response to oral question O-0102/00 on Article 158 of the EC Treaty and the status of islands, Commissioner Barnier undertook to request a socio-economic study of the islands of the EU in order to obtain as clear a picture as possible of the problems they face.

Can the Commission say what progress has been made on the study and whether the study's findings will be made available in the second half of 2001, as it had hoped?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(26 April 2001)

The Commission has decided that the study on the Community's island regions should comprise (a) assembly of the statistical indicators available for each island and island group and creation of a database, and (b) use of the base to make an objective situation analysis comparing and assessing the problems arising from island geography and the specific needs of the islands.

A call for tenders has been made(1). The Commission is now considering the twelve offers received in order to appoint a contractor.

The planned duration of the study is six months. The first interim findings should reach the Commission at the end of 2001. When complete the findings will be reported to Parliament.

(1) OJ S 248, 28.12.2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1961/01

by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission

(3 July 2001)

Subject: EC-Macao cooperation officer

In paragraph 18 of the resolution adopted on 15 February 2001 (A5-0017/2001) on the communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament: The European Union and Macau: beyond 2000(1), Parliament made a recommendation in which it [asked] the Commission to appoint an EC-Macau cooperation officer to Macau, as announced in its abovementioned communication, to contribute to the coordination of bilateral cooperation, in order to demonstrate its commitment to consolidating relations between the two sides.

This concern was already put forward in Parliament's earlier debates, when it adopted its previous resolution on Macao on 16 December 1999, at the time when Portuguese administration ended and Macao acquired the status of a special administrative region within the People's Republic of China. The above Commission communication to the Council and Parliament, moreover, charted the same goal.

Addressing Parliament in the February debate, the Member of the Commission concerned, Mr Nielson, said that: With regard to cooperation, the resolution calls upon the Commission to settle quickly the Question of appointing a technical cooperation officer for Macao. Here I would have liked to be able to report that the nominated technical cooperation officer had been appointed in November as had been planned. Unfortunately the selected candidate withdrew at the final stage after a selection procedure that lasted several months. We continue to consider the appointment of the technical cooperation officer very important.

Parliament, indeed, is most anxious for the EU-Macao cooperation officer to be appointed and start work.

Can the Commission therefore say what progress has been made as regards the appointment of the EC-Macao cooperation officer and how soon the officer will be able to start work?

(1) COM(1999) 484 - C5-0169/2000 - 2000/2099(COS).

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(19 July 2001)

The Honourable Member rightly recollects that the selected candidate withdrew from his nomination as Co-operation Officer for Union-Macao Co-operation last November 2000.

Following this disappointing news, and in view of the reorganisation of the Commission's external co-operation delivery system at the start of this year, the Commission has been preparing the required multi-annual, co-operation programming for Macao, including the Co-operation Officer appointment.

In this context, the Commission is pleased to be able to report that this programming is now in its final stages and the Question of the Co-operation Officer will be resolved shortly.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1374/01

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(7 May 2001)

Subject: Formal recognition of British Sign Language

There has long been a campaign for the recognition of British Sign Language. For the deaf community this is an issue of cultural and emotional as well as practical significance. In 1998 and 1988 European Parliament resolutions on sign languages for the deaf were passed, calling on the European Commission to make a proposal to the Council on the official recognition of sign languages.

Can the Commission advise what stage this proposal has reached?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(27 June 2001)

The Commission is aware of the importance of sign language for people who are deaf or have a grave hearing impairment.

In 1997, the Commission supported a far-reaching research project carried out by Bristol University (United Kingdom). The purpose of this research was to draw a precise picture of the use of sign languages in the Community and to determine the comparative status of sign language in the different Member States.

The study highlighted the fact that sign languages can achieve official status in different ways and that there are major variations between Member States in terms of their experience and provision of sign language.

British sign language is not an officially recognised language in the United Kingdom. There is no officially recognised language in the United Kingdom.

Given that the primary responsibility for action in this area rests with the Member States, there are no plans at this stage to present specific proposals on the matter.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1121/01

by Esko Seppänen (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(6 April 2001)

Subject: Final storage of spent nuclear fuel

Some European countries will shortly be taking decisions on final storage sites for spent nuclear fuel. Does the Commission see any possibility of nuclear fuel storage policy being placed on a Community footing so that each country does not have to keep this material itself but can have it stored in the sites which are the safest from the point of view of the whole EU?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(8 June 2001)

The Commission encourages co-operation between Member States concerning the disposal of high level waste. This includes spent nuclear fuel if it not to be sent for reprocessing. In its Communication to the Council in January 1999(1), the Commission took the following line: The Commission repeats its plea for self-sufficiency of the European Union as a whole and solidarity between Member States in matters of radioactive waste disposal. As in the strategy for non-radioactive waste the Union should aim for self-sufficiency, even if transfer to countries outside the Union is not excluded in Community legislation on control of shipment of radioactive waste. The possibility of voluntary co-operation between Member States however should be kept open, where, for example, a regional approach to disposal could result in improved safety and environmental benefits.

The Commission believes that this should continue to be the Community's approach. The benefits of a regional approach are of particular interest to the Member States without, or with very small, nuclear power programmes where the cost of disposing of their very limited quantities of waste will have an extremely high unit cost. On the other hand, the Commission believes that all those Member States with nuclear power programmes should at least have the capability to safely manage their own wastes, including their eventual disposal, even if there were to be voluntary co-operation on a regional approach.

However, the geology and tectonic setting of Western Europe is such that a variety of sites have been or could be identified that would be suitable for geological disposal. Moreover, as pointed out in the recent Green Paper on security of energy supply(2), definitive storage is feasible and construction and operating techniques are mature enough to be applied. The geology of Europe, coupled with the technical barriers that would be used in a repository, mean that it is very likely that every Member State could identify at least one potential site on its territory.

(1) COM(98) 799 final.

(2) COM(2000) 769 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1051/01

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(5 April 2001)

Subject: Transfer of footballers - Free movement of persons

Can the Commission state whether it still maintains the position taken by Commissioner Diamantopouloul in her answer of 19 December 2000 to my Written Question E-3535/00(1), when she said that the Community law provisions on the free movement of workers apply to all Union citizens who have reached the minimum age fixed by the host Member State for access to its labour market, including sports activities, given the recent settlement of the transfer issue which clearly discriminates on grounds of age. Would the Commission accept similar discrimination in other industries?

(1) OJ C 151 E, 22.5.2001, p. 187.

Answer givern by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(18 June 2001)

The Commission maintains its position, as set out in its answer to the Honourable Member's Written Question E-3535/00, that Community law provisions on free movement of workers apply to all Union citizens who have reached the minimum age fixed by the host Member State for access to its labour market, including sports activities.

This was reflected in the outcome of the discussions between the Commission and International Federation of Football Associations/Union of European Football Associations (FIFA/UEFA) where it was stated that international transfers of players aged under 18 will be allowed subject to certain conditions aimed at ensuring their protection. It should be recalled that FIFA/UEFA were, at first, in favour of prohibiting such transfers.

The difference in the treatment of football players according to their age as regards payment of compensation for their training costs is a different matter linked to the estimated duration of effective training.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0715/01

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(8 March 2001)

Subject: Maximum speed of agricultural and forestry tractors

In its answer to Question E-2241/00(1), the Commission refers to the danger of distorting the competitive position of conventional hauliers who are subject to stricter rules governing driving licences and higher rates of taxation. The fact of the matter is, however, that a higher maximum speed will primarily shorten the journey times of a tractor with attached implements from farm to field and/or from one piece of land to another. In addition, according to existing national rules only agricultural produce may be transported and only agricultural tractors are suitable for transporting products from the field to the place of destination since only they meet the necessary requirements for gathering in crops on the land and transporting them elsewhere.

Can the Commission state whether it has taken account of these objections in drawing up the relevant new framework directive and whether the latter has already been finalised?

(1) OJ C 103 E, 3.4.2001, p. 94.

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(13 June 2001)

It is true that the Commission is preparing a new version of framework Council Directive 74/150/EEC of 4 March 1974 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the type-approval of wheeled agricultural or forestry tractors(1).

One of the aims of this redrafting is to extend the scope of this framework directive to agricultural tractors with a maximum speed of more than 40 kph. To this end, it will also be necessary to lay down specific requirements, especially concerning safety and brakes. Once the new directive has been adopted, these tractors will be subject to Community type-approval.

On the other hand, the issues of the driving licence needed for this kind of vehicle or the tax to be applied do not come under the regulations on tractor type-approval, even if they are considered when drawing up the proposal. These issues either come under special rules or are the responsibility of the Member States in line with the principle of subsidiarity. With regard to driving licences, in fact, Council Directive 91/439/EEC of 29 July 1991 on driving licences(2) excludes agricultural or forestry tractors from the scope of the Directive. This matter is thus the responsibility of the Member States.

(1) OJ L 84, 28.3.1974.

(2) OJ L 237, 24.8.1991.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0949/01

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(28 March 2001)

Subject: Musk labelling

Is the Commission satisfied with the current labelling requirement of parfum for artificial musks used in perfumes, air fresheners and washing powders?

Does it agree that this may cover musks known to mimic hormones and which persist and accumulate in body fat?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(8 June 2001)

The current provisions of the pertinent legislation on cosmetic products, Council Directive 76/768/EEC of 27 July 1976(1), require the products to be labelled with the generic term perfumes to refer to the individual fragrance substances making up a perfume, including artificial musks.

The Commission is aware of published reports questioning the safety profile of certain artificial musks and in particular their potential for bioaccumulation and hormone mimicking effects.

Concerning musks in cosmetic products, the use of musk ambrette, musk moskene and musk tibetene is prohibited. Furthermore, the Scientific Committee on Cosmetics and Non-Food Products (SCCNFP) has adopted opinions on the use of the two most commonly used musks, musk ketone and musk xylene. It concluded that these musks can be safely used in cosmetic products provided their concentration is below a certain concentration limit. At the same time however, the SCCNFP identified the need for an evaluation of consumer exposure from other sources e.g. laundry detergents and the need for more data concerning the long-term toxicity effects of these materials.

Concerning washing powders, the use of musks in perfumes contained in washing powders falls under the provisions of the Directive 1999/45/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 31 May 1999 concerning the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous preparation(2).

The above should be revised when the risk assessment of these two substances, carried out in the framework of Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 of 23 March 1993, on the evaluation and control of the risks of existing substances(3), is finalised. As these are comprehensive evaluations of all available data on the toxicity and the effects of chemicals, covering all exposure situations from all known uses, the Commission would expect to have an in-depth analysis of the potential endocrine disrupting and persistence and bio-accumulation properties of musks. Any risk management recommendations, stemming from the conclusions of these risk assessments will provide the Commission with the scientific basis to propose further measures as appropriate.

(1) OJ L 262, 27.9.1976.

(2) OJ L 200, 30.7.1999.

(3) OJ L 84, 5.4.1993.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2019/01

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(13 July 2001)

Subject: Mediterranean Sea

Does the Commission have any concerns about the long-term effects of the growing use of desalination plants on the ecology and biodiversity of the Mediterranean Sea?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(6 September 2001)

The principle of sea water desalination is to remove the salt from sea water by a technical process (by distillation, nowadays particularly by pressure filtration through very fine membranes), resulting on the one hand in freshwater of the desired quality for drinking water supply etc. and on the other hand - in much smaller quantity - of brines, sea water with a higher concentration of salt.

Possible impacts of desalination plants on the aquatic environment to be considered are therefore related to the discharge of brines, in particular to higher salt concentrations and temperatures at a local level, plus the use of chemicals used for pretreatment and/or cleaning. According to experience available, such impact can largely vary from close to zero impact to considerable impact, depending on the location and details of the process. This is why within the Mediterranean Action Plan (MAP) studies have commenced. MAP is dedicated to the protection of the Mediterranean under the auspices of the United Nations Environment Programme and the Barcelona Convention for the Protection of the Mediterranean Sea(1). This action is to lead to a comprehensive document with an assessment of impacts as well as mitigation measures.

Community environmental legislation has, through the new Water Framework Directive(2), a legally binding and enforceable instrument.

The Directive addresses all impacts on water quality, including those from desalination plants. For surface waters including coastal waters the objective is to ensure good ecological status. Such ecological status addresses the quality of water in a holistic way, in terms of its biology and functioning of the ecosystem, as well as morphological and physico-chemical components.

The necessary operational tools for achieving this objective (comprehensive analysis of all impacts on waters; management plans and programmes of measures, as well as a permit procedure for all relevant abstractions or discharges) will ensure that all impacts on coastal waters including those from desalination plants are properly taken into account and the necessary measures taken.

The Commission will carefully observe technical and scientific developments, facilitate where appropriate exchange of information and experience, and scrutinize the proper implementation of the Directive, including achieving the objective of achieving/maintaining good ecological water status.

(1) Ratification by Council Decision 77/585/EEC of 25.7.1977 (OJ L 240, 19.9.1977), as amended by Council Decision 1999/802/EC, 22.10.1999 (OJ L 322, 14.12.1999).

(2) Directive 2000/60/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy (OJ L 327, 22.12.2000).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1989/01

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(6 July 2001)

Subject: Agri-environmental measures/Organic livestock farming - rough grazing land and permanent pasture for direct grazing of animals according to organic farming methods

In 2001, as part of the agri-environmental measures related to organic farming, aid per hectare has been introduced for rough grazing land or permanent pasture used for direct grazing of animals according to organic farming methods. This measure is important to Portugal because, given that the type of stockbreeding is very close to organic farming, it could make for more effective conversion to such methods, thus guaranteeing a continuing livelihood for many breeders, in particular of mountain goats.

However, it is not clear which areas are eligible for the aid. The reason is that in Portugal, as in other Member States, much grazing, especially of goats, takes place in woodlands or wastelands (where there are varieties of broom, rock rose, heather, etc.). Grazing is also concentrated primarily in mountain areas. If these areas cannot be considered eligible, many applications will be rendered invalid, jeopardising livestock farming in many regions, even though it could meet high quality standards and organic farming requirements.

Could the Commission therefore confirm whether the above areas are eligible or not? If they are ineligible, will the Commission draw up the amendments to the rules needed to make them eligible, thereby safeguarding high-quality organic livestock farming and employment in areas affected by specific difficulties?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(4 September 2001)

The Commission wishes to inform the Honourable Member that the organic farming measure contained in the rural development plan for mainland Portugal for the period 2000-2006 applies to the whole of the territory of mainland Portugal.

The measure may include per hectare aid for rough grazing land and permanent pasture used for direct grazing of livestock reared in accordance with organic production methods and in compliance with Community law.

The Commission considers the statement by the Honourable Member to the effect that it is not clear which areas are eligible for this type of aid to be inaccurate therefore.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1603/01

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(1 June 2001)

Subject: Advance payment by the Greek Government of Community funds under the third Community Support Framework in the form of government bonds

The Greek Government is planning to make advance payments of Community funds to contractors responsible for CSF-financed projects in the form of bonds to be issued by the Ministry of Finance, which are guaranteed on the basis of revenue from Community funds over the next few years.

Will the Commission say whether this procedure is consistent with Council Regulation (EC) 1260/1999(1) laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds?

(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(3 September 2001)

The Commission has seen press reports commenting on financial arrangements being considered or entered into by the Greek government, which may have implications for the operation of European structural policies in Greece. The Commission is seeking further information from the greek authorities with a view to adopting a position.