ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2054/01

by Eija-Riitta Korhola (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(13 July 2001)

Subject: Programmes for the integration of immigrants

Various different programmes have been introduced in the Member States to promote the integration of immigrants into society in their new homeland. However, all too often immigrants find that the programmes only benefit those members of the country's own population who organise them; as a rule, not even the implementation of the programmes has been entrusted to immigrants.

Has the success of programmes for the integration of immigrants been assessed?

In which countries have the best results been achieved in terms of immigrants putting down new roots, and what factors have been conducive to such success?

Has the commercial value of the programmes and of education etc. associated with them been assessed, and has consideration been given to the possibility of making immigrants responsible for such business activity?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(12 September 2001)

Responsibility for the integration of migrants lies with the Member State which has admitted the migrants concerned. The Commission has not, therefore, carried out any systematic analysis of such programmes.

In its Communication on an Open Method of Coordination for the Community Immigration Policy(1) of 11 July 2001, the Commission has put forward proposals for European Guidelines, one of which (Guideline 6) concerns the development of comprehensive national integration policies for third country nationals residing legally on the territory of the Member State concerned. Once approved by the Council, Member States will be invited to submit national plans for the implementation of this guideline which includes the setting of an appropriate framework to ensure the involvement of all the relevant actors including migrants themselves.

The implementation of the open coordination method will enable the Commission in the future to provide information on the success of integration programmes for migrants and on the key factors which bring this about, including the role of migrants in the conception and running of such programmes.

The Commission intends to put forward proposals in 2002 for an Action Programme to promote the integration of immigrants. Subject to the adoption of this programme and to the provision of the necessary resources, the suggestion made by the Honorable Member could be considered within the context of the activities to be supported.

(1) COM(2001) 387 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1166/01

by Geoffrey Van Orden (PPE-DE) to the Council

(24 April 2001)

Subject: Zimbabwe Resolution

What steps have been taken against the Zimbabwean Government following the resolution of the European Parliament (R5-0156/2001)? What steps have been taken to identify overseas assets held by President Mugabe and his supporters? Has development cooperation assistance managed by the Zimbabwean Government and its agencies been suspended? Have consultations been initiated under Article 96 of the Cotonou agreement?

Reply

(20 November 2001)

Since the beginning of March this year and following the visit of President Mugabe to Brussels, the EU has decided to enter into a constructive, critical and balanced dialogue with Zimbabwe guided by the spirit of Article 8 of the Cotonou Agreement. The EU started this dialogue with the objective of exchanging information and fostering mutual understanding on issues which the EU considers to be of fundamental importance in the relations between the parties and which are, moreover, set out in the text of the Agreement. At its meeting on 25 June 2001, the Council (General Affairs) noted the lack of substantial progress in the ongoing political dialogue with the Government of Zimbabwe and expressed its deep concern over recent developments in Zimbabwe. It stressed that as a first priority the dialogue should yield rapid and tangible results on the following: an end to political violence, and in particular an end to all official encouragement or acceptance of such violence, an invitation to the EU to support and observe coming elections and full access to that end, concrete action to protect the freedom of mass media, independence of the judiciary and the respect of its decisions and an end of illegal occupation of properties.

The Council agreed to closely follow developments in these areas, as well as on overall questions regarding the rule of law, economic policies and the land reform during the next two-month period, and to take appropriate measures if substantial progress has not been made.

Concerning the question of what steps have been taken to identify overseas assets held by President Mugabe and his supporters, the Council can inform the Honourable Member that this action has not been discussed within the Council.

During the present crisis in the country, development cooperation assistance managed by the Commission has been reoriented to the social sectors. This has incidentally resulted in a substantial drop in the value of assistance delivered.

Present assistance is delivered under the Lomé Conventions, pending the coming into force of the Cotonou Agreement. Under Lomé, assistance is delivered through the government.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1902/01

by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(28 June 2001)

Subject: Society for Innovative Cooperation in Europe

Can the Commission indicate which budget line funds the Society for Innovative Cooperation in Europe and answer the following questions:

- What are the goals of this society, and what projects have been/are being carried out to date?

- How much money does it receive in EU funding, for how long has it been receiving it, and have any audits been carried out of the implementation of funds?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(4 September 2001)

The Association for Innovative Cooperation (AICE) in Europe has not received any grant from the Commission since 1997.

According to its statutes, as published in the Moniteur Belge of 11 July 1996, the Association is a non profit-making organisation which focuses upon strenthening the

cooperation between Foundations, Associations, voluntary bodies and other non-governmental organisations in Europe. In particular it aims to act as a launching pad for new initiatives linking major European Foundations, focusing on projects which place the emphasis on innovative approaches in the social and political fields.

The main projects (in terms of amount granted) carried out by the AICE up to 1997 concerned projects in the social economy sector, town twinning and for advancing the idea of Europe.

As stated, the AICE has not received any Community funding since 1997. No audits have been carried out on the implementation of the funds received up to 1997 though of course the accounts on the use of the grant had to be approved before the files were closed.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2471/01

by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 September 2001)

Subject: Fraud against the EU committed by Italians

The Commission grants substantial Community contributions in various sectors and invariably has the task of carrying out checks and ascertaining any fraud committed by the recipients. Can it supply a list specifying the cases of fraud against the Community detected in Italy in the years 1998, 1999, and 2000, the amounts involved, and the percentages recovered to date?

Answer given by Ms Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(2 October 2001)

The Commission would point out that a distinction should be made between direct management of Community funds and management shared with the Member States (indirect expenditure via the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF-Guarantee) and structural operations).

The Member States have prime responsibility for managing indirect expenditure, including prevention and prosecution of cases of irregularities and fraud and recovery of funds. Member States are required to notify the Commission of cases of irregularities. The Commission can be called on to take action in particular, to carry out checks or additional inquiries.

In Italy's case, recent annual reports by the Commission on the protection of the Communities' financial interests and the fight against fraud give an idea of the number and scale of irregularities as well as the level of recovery with regard to both the EAGGF-Guarantee and structural operations(1).

In the area of direct expenditure, for which the Commission is responsible, no statistics are available showing how many Italian nationals have been involved in irregularities and fraud and the percentage of the amounts recovered.

(1) COM(1999) 509 final; COM(2000) 718 final; (COM)2001) 255 final/2: See also the First OLAF report on operational activities (1 June 1999-31 May 2000): http://europa.eu.int/comm/anti_fraud/reports/index_en.htm.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2163/01

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

(19 July 2001)

Subject: Use of pedestrian streets and public transport to reduce urban noise

At a recent meeting in Malaga of the working party responsible for drawing up the background paper for the Urbal programme on the urban environment in the EU, emphasis was placed on the need to combat urban noise, which represents the main threat to the environmental standards to which European citizens are entitled.

The essential recommendations for combating urban noise made by these experts included the need to improve public transport and increase the number of pedestrian streets in city centres.

Will the Commission promote an information campaign in support of these two recommendations, which are essential to provide urban dwellers in the Community with a high-quality environment, so that local authorities in the Community will encourage the introduction of these two measures, which experts believe would improve the situation considerably?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(12 October 2001)

At this time the Commission does not intend to go further on the specific question of noise awareness raising in Spain than already universally foreseen in the proposed directive about noise assessment and management, which is currently at second reading. The major emphasis is on strategic noise mapping and the consequent action plans to be undertaken by competent authorities, rather than on limit setting.

The Commission's activities on the topic can be found at the following URL: www.europa.eu.int/comm/environment/noise/home.htm.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2213/01

by Brian Simpson (PSE) to the Commission

(24 July 2001)

Subject: Changes in the scope of licence categories in the Third EC Driving Licence Directive

Will the Commission's proposals for a Third EC Driving Licence Directive result in a narrowing of the C1 licence category or changes in the scope of other licence categories?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(2 October 2001)

The Community legislation actually in force(1) fixes clear definitions of all driving licence categories. The definitions of all these categories, including category C1, trucks ranging from 3,5 to 7,5 tonnes, have been discussed at several occasions by the governmental experts on driving licences, in the framework of the implementation of the current Directive.

These discussions revealed that the actual category C1 comprises two types of vehicles with a cut off point around six tonnes. Bringing the definition of category C1 in line with the technical characteristics of the vehicles contained within the category, will make it possible to have a closer to reality driving education and driving test and will thus enhance road safety. Similarly, small improvements have been proposed by experts for categories B, D1 and D in which the word seat will be replaced by passengers and completed by requirements on weights and dimensions in order to prevent that large vehicles can be driven with a normal car driving licence only.

The Commission will therefore consider in the near future whether the actual definitions can be improved in this sense.

(1) Council Directive 91/439/EEC of 29 July 1991 on driving licences OJ L 237, 24.8.1991.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2040/01

by Jens-Peter Bonde (EDD) to the Commission

(13 July 2001)

Subject: Neglect of wind energy in the proposal for the next Framework programme for research and technological development (2002-2006)

Why has the Commission, in the section on sustainable development and global environmental and climate change in its proposal for the next Framework programme for research and technological development(1) (2002-2006), completely neglected the importance of wind energy as a renewable source of energy?

(1) COM(2001) 94.

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(13 September 2001)

In the Commission's proposal for the new Framework Programme for Research, Technological Development and Demonstration Activities (RTDD) (2002-2006) and the subsequent Specific Programme, presently under consideration (in the co-decision procedure) by the Parliament and Council, funding of RTDD on renewable energy sources (including wind energy) is being foreseen under the priority thematic area of Sustainable Development and Global Change. In the short and medium-term, the Community's efforts will concentrate on tilting the actual energy balance towards more sustainable energy systems, which combine heat and power as well as new and renewable energy sources, and increasing the share of renewable energy systems from 6 % to 12 % by 2010. Research will focus on increased cost-efficiency and reliability of the main new and renewable sources and the combination with conventional generation. In the longer term, the objective in this field is to develop renewable energy sources which are intrinsically clean and which can be well integrated into a sustainable energy supply mix, for both stationary and transport applications.

Under the new Framework Programme proposal, RTDD on renewable energy sources may also be included in the activities for supporting Union policies and for strengthening it's European Research Area through the co-ordination of Community and Member State activities. It is expected that Community research can be instrumental for bringing together leading actors and thereby help to strengthen Europe's position in the international competition.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2065/01

by Sir Robert Atkins (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(13 July 2001)

Subject: Single European Sky

What are the precise reasons for the delays in implementing A Single European Sky?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-2064/01, E-2065/01 and E-2066/01given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(17 September 2001)

The Commission has explained the background of its Single Sky initiative in its replies to Written Questions P-312/011(1) and P-2062/012(2) of the Honourable Member.

Conscious of the need to propose measures quickly in order to alleviate delays and address the problems of the current air traffic management organisation, the Commission started work even before the completion of the High Level Group report referred to in its previous replies, in order to prepare the technical background for any legislative proposals.

In this context, several studies were commissioned, the results of which are published on http://europa.eu.int/comm/transport/themes/air/english/single_eur_sky_en.html and which were discussed at a public workshop late May 2001.

The Commission now expects to bring forward legislative proposals shortly after the summer.

Therefore the Commission is not of the opinion that there has up to now been any delay in the preparation of the Single Sky proposals.

In view of its general experience in the field of air transport, where several of its proposals have been held up in the Council because of difficulties concerning their application to Gibraltar airport, the Commission hopes that the United Kingdom and Spain can give it assurances that these difficulties will not arise in connection with the single sky proposals.

The Commission notes that contacts are under way between the relevant Member States on this question, expressing the hope that these contacts will produce early agreement. However, since the Commission is not party to these discussions, it is not in a position to inform the Honourable Member as to their progress and contents.

(1) OJ C 235 E, 21.8.2001.

(2) OJ C 350 E, 11.12.2001, p. 237.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2339/01

by Pat Gallagher (UEN) to the Council

(3 August 2001)

Subject: Council of Europe Charter for Minority and Regional Languages

Does the Council share the view that more than forty regional and minority languages spoken across Europe form a crucial part of Europe's cultural heritage and, as such,

need to be protected and promoted? Does it share the view that the signing by each Member State and by each applicant country of the Council of Europe's Charter for Regional and Minority languages constitutes a necessary part in this process of cultural preservation?

Reply

(6 December 2001)

As far as concern for regional and minority languages is concerned, the Council would recall the objective stated in paragraph 1 of Article 151 of the EC Treaty, whereby The Community shall contribute to the flowering of the cultures of the Member States, while respecting their national and regional diversity

However, the Honourable Member is reminded that it is not for the Council to pronounce on the specific question of the signing of the Council of Europe's Charter for Regional and Minority languages, since this is a matter for the individual members of the Council of Europe.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2024/01

by Paul Lannoye (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(13 July 2001)

Subject: Animal testing

In the light of the fact that EU legislation such as Council Regulation 793/93(1) and Council Directives 86/609(2), 67/548(3), 91/414(4) and 98/8(5) now routinely stresses that duplicate testing on vertebrate animals should be avoided, and to this end either requires or encourages the sharing of information.

Can the Commission answer the following:

- what steps is it taking in the various sectors where animal experiments are performed to ensure that duplicate testing does not take place?

- what is the extent of duplicate testing in each of those sectors?

- what plans, legislative and/or administrative, does it have to ensure that it ceases?

(1) OJ L 84, 5.4.1993, p. 1.

(2) OJ L 358, 18.12.1986, p. 1.

(3) OJ B 196, 16.8.1967, p. 1.

(4) OJ L 230, 19.8.1991, p. 1.

(5) OJ L 123, 24.4.1998, p. 1.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(3 October 2001)

The directives to which the Honourable Member refers, do indeed stress that duplicate testing should be avoided. Directives 67/548/EEC, 91/414/EEC and 98/8/EC(1) furthermore permit Member States to introduce national measures rendering obligatory the sharing of test data and several Member States have done so. Under Council Directive 86/609/EEC(2), the Commission monitors the use of animals through regular collection of statistics on the use of animals in experiments in the Community.

The recent White Paper entitled Strategy for a future Chemicals Policy(3) proposes to extend existing best practices across the Community. Action 5F of the White Paper states:

Specific provisions should be included in the legislation that duplicate tests involving vertebrate animals should be avoided. Any duplicate testing will not result in an exemption from the duty to reimburse the party who owns the property rights for the first test.

The Commission believes that this will contribute to the cessation of duplicate testing.

(1) Council Directive 67/548/EEC of 27 June 1967 on the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances; Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market; Directive 98/8/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market.

(2) Council Directive 86/609/EEC of 24 November 1986 on the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States regarding the protection of animals used for experimental and other scientific purposes.

(3) COM(2001) 88 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2544/01

by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 September 2001)

Subject: Promotion of the use of wind energy

The EU often proclaims its intention to promote the use of environmentally friendly forms of energy, such as wind power. As part of this policy, several wind parks have been created, particularly in countries with high wind power potential such as Greece. However, many of the generators in the wind parks have been taken out of operation, leaving them inactive and presenting a rather depressing sight in areas which do not have other energy resources such as Skyros, Ikaria, Evvia, Crete etc.

Can the Commission say whether it knows how many of the generators which it has helped to fund, constructed in wind parks in Greece, are currently operating? How many of them have been taken out of operation? What are the exact amounts which the EU has allocated for the construction of wind generators in Greece? Which bodies have these amounts been given to?

Has the Commission investigated the reasons for these generators' high failure rate? What initiatives has the Directorate-General for Research taken for the promotion of this environmentally friendly form of energy, and what provisions have been made in the new programme which has replaced the Fifth Framework Programme to ensure that there are sufficient resources permanently available and to prevent a repetition of unwelcome developments such as the cutback of appropriations in the Preliminary Draft Budget for 2002 for environmentally friendly nuclear fusion?

Answer given by Ms de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(26 October 2001)

The Commission is collecting the information required in order to reply to this question in detail. It will communicate the results of its research shortly without fail.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2041/01 by Gerhard Hager (NI) to the Commission. Answer to Written Question E-3951/00.



Official Journal 081 E , 04/04/2002 P. 0001 - 0001



WRITTEN QUESTION E-2041/01 by Gerhard Hager (NI) to the Commission (13 July 2001) Subject: Answer to Written Question E-3951/00 I refer to my Written Question of 4 December 2000 concerning the use of EU funds in Spain (E-3951/00(1)). Given that, in your answer of 22 December 2000, you informed me that the Commission was in the process of obtaining the information required to answer the question, please forward that information to me. (1) OJ C 136 E, 8.5.2001, p. 239. Supplementary joint answerto Written Questions E-3951/00 and E-2041/01given by Prodi on behalf of the Commission (23 November 2001) Further to its answer of 22 December 2000(1), the Commission is sending the information requested direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat. (1) OJ C 136 E, 8.5.2001.