ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1087/97 by Richard Corbett (PSE) to the Commission (21 March 1997)

Subject: EU job creation record

Could the Commission please list for each Member State an estimate of the number of jobs that have been created or saved since 1980 by Union policies (single market, structural funds, CAP, research, etc.)?

Answer given by Mr de Silguy on behalf of the Commission (5 June 1997)

The Commission would point out that the main rôle of Community policies is to promote a favourable environment for job creation in Member States.

Employment figures as published by the statistical institutes of the Member States and by the Commission reflect the net effect of all factors influencing the labour markets. To assess the employment effects of Community policies their impact must be separated from the impact of national policies, the business cycle and changes in general economic conditions which have taken place simultaneously. This can only be estimated on the basis of econometric model building.

Concerning the employment effects of the structural funds, one of the models available to the Commission suggests, that for objective 1 regions in the period 1989-1993 up to a million jobs may have been dependent on the the structural funds investments and transfers, while a recent ex-post evaluation of the objective 2 regions estimates that 450 000 net jobs were created in the same period. In the period 1994-1999 it would be reasonable to expect an increase in employment effects commensurate with the doubling of funds (in real terms) made available.

On the basis that there is no single, ideal, robust way to estimate the various impacts of the single market (including those on employment), several economic models have recently been used by the Commission. Although the estimates provided by these models vary, they all estimate the impact of the single market on employment to have been positive overall. A model for estimates that the employment level in 1994 (for the Community of 12) was about 300 000 higher than it would have been in the absence of the single market. A second model for Community of 12 estimates that the single market has led to the creation of an extra 600 000 jobs. A model for Community of 15 estimates that the single market has increased employment by around 900 000 additional jobs (0.7% of the total Community workforce).

All three models therefore produce estimates of roughly the same order of magnitude, suggesting that so far the single market has had a positive impact of employment.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1058/97 by Jesús Cabezón Alonso (PSE) to the Commission (19 March 1997)

Subject: Modernization in the olive oil sector

What view does the Commission take of the efforts made by the Spanish olive oil sector as regards the modernization of holdings, oil quality, labelling, improvements to bottling plants, etc.?

How are these efforts to be reflected in the planned reform of the COM in olive oil?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (14 April 1997)

The Commission is fully aware of Spain's efforts since its accession, and even before, as regards the entire olive oil industry.

Spain's production capacity has increased considerably mainly as a result of new plantings and the annual increase in production aid during the olive oil sector's transition period to the common agricultural policy.

Moreover, the quality of oils has been improved tremendously on account of major investment in the sector which has brought about a technological modernization of the majority of mills and new bottling industries.

Conversely, the present common organization of the markets, has on the one hand had the effect of increasing production potential, and on the other, has given rise to blatant malfunctions (largely due to a very old set of regulations which has been amended many times).

Whatever the proposed reform, the Commission intends to take the very positive efforts made by the entire Spanish olive oil industry into account, without however losing sight of the actual reality of the Community olive oil sector as a whole.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1449/97 by Angela Sierra González (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (28 April 1997)

Subject: Risks to the health and well-being of those living near a professional training centre in the Canary Islands

In the town of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria (Canaries) the Canaries Government's Canaries Institute for Training and Employment and the European Social Fund have been funding three training courses organized by the Provincial Federation of Small and Medium-sized Metal Businesses of Las Palmas. Training courses concerning a 'sheet metal and painting' workshop are taught at one of the Federation's premises, which stands in a residential area of the town, where activities of this type are banned by town planning regulations in view of the nature of the activities and the small size of the premises, which result in harm to the health of local residents (gas and smoke emissions, toxic paint dust, etc.). Nonetheless, the courses continue to be taught and have not been transferred elsewhere, despite repeated requests from local residents.

Without questioning the importance of these training courses for improving the professional qualifications of workers and employed people in Gran Canaria, they should be taught without harming public health and should respect the area's town planning regulations.

Does the Commission think that in these cases, training activities should be made compatible with protecting public health and safety?

What measures does the Commission believe should be taken to reconcile the training requirements of students and residents' rights in the case in question?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (6 June 1997)

Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/93 of 20 July 1993 ((OJ L 193, 31.7.1993. )) underlines the need for measures financed by the Structural Funds to be compatible with other Community policies in accordance with the provisions of Community law.

The Commission considers that, in the case in question, it is the responsibility of the competent national institution to ensure that the training activities are compatible with health protection.

The Commission will contact the Spanish authorities in this connection in order to draw their attention to the problems referred to by the Honourable Member.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1051/97 by Jesús Cabezón Alonso (PSE) to the Commission (19 March 1997)

Subject: Structural Fund objectives

Does the Commission consider that, after several years' application of the Structural Funds, the objectives of bringing the development levels of the various EU regions closer together may be deemed to have been achieved?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (18 April 1997)

The Commission's first cohesion report ((COM(96) 542. )) shows that there has been considerable progress in narrowing the income gaps between many of the poorest Member States and regions and the rest of the Community. At the same time, regional differences in standards of living remain significant, while more remains to be done with regard to unemployment and the widening gaps between the regions and between social groups in relation to their access to jobs. The restructuring of the regions and the creation of durable employment opportunities for all, remain long-term challenges for both the Member States and the Community, requiring a long-term commitment through national and Community policies targeted efficiently on the worst-affected areas and problems.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1269/97 by Alessandro Danesin (UPE) to the Commission (11 April 1997)

Subject: Environmental impact assessment of the project for a waste tip at Spresiano (TV)

The consortium for the collection and disposal of solid urban waste 'Priula' is the body responsible for the TV2 (Treviso 2) landfill for the disposal of solid urban waste (Veneto Regional Council provision No 785 of 28 October 1988). Via the company Contarina Spa (in which it is a majority shareholder) Priula submitted a project for the construction of a plant to treat solid urban waste and produce compost and RDF, which was approved on 29 November 1991 and is to be carried out in the urban district of Spresiano at an estimated cost of LIT 30 billion.

In Decision No 6105 of 23 October 1992 the Veneto Region approved the project, after receiving a favourable opinion from the environment section of the Regional Technical Commission, on the basis of an environmental compatibility study submitted by Contarina Spa itself. However, this study contains data which do not correspond to the truth, as pointed out by the Major and Council of Spresiano. The data were essential to the approval of the project and described the plant as being:

- at least 1.4 km from the nearest village, whereas in actual fact it is 420 metres from the hamlet of Lovadina (the Regional Plan for waste disposal specifies a distance of 500 metres);

- approximately 100 metres from a motorway (the minimum distance laid down is 200 metres);

- approximately 20 metres from isolated houses and approximately 30 metres from a group of four inhabited houses (the minimum laid down by the Region is 100 metres).

Was this project forwarded to the Commission or does the Commission at least know about it?

Does the Commission consider that the project complies with Directive 85/337/EEC ((OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40. )) on environmental impact assessment and Directives 75/442/EEC ((OJ L 194, 25.7.1975, p. 39. )) and 91/156/EEC ((OJ L 78, 26.3.1991, p. 32. )) on waste?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (6 May 1997)

It is not for the Commission to verify the information provided by the Honourable Member. The matter may be brought before the national courts, if appropriate.

Works projects covered by Directive 85/337/EEC on the environmental impact assessment procedure are not automatically notified to the Commission.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1146/97 by Andrea Manzella (PSE) to the Commission (26 March 1997)

Subject: The binding nature of Community competition law

Is the Commission aware of the growing tendency in some Member States, apparently prompted by the conclusions of the Advocate-General in the Van Scijndel case (paragraph 49), to cast doubt on the fundamental principle of the predominance of Community law over national law? Is the Commission aware that in the Netherlands this worrying trend seems to have reached the Court of Cassation?

In particular, is the Commission aware that in proceedings brought with the purpose of suspending the execution of an arbitratral award on the grounds that it was contrary to public policy, an Advocate-General at the Netherlands Court of Cassation maintained that the binding nature of Community competition law did not take priority over the autonomy of the two sides in the case and that therefore the national judge was not obliged to apply Article 85 of the Treaty, although one of the parties had expressly invoked before the court the suspension and annulment of the arbitral award because it was contrary to public policy?

Does the Commission not consider that if this view prevails it might open the way for a form of private settlement of disputes which would disregard principles of public policy, such as Article 85 of the Treaty, and allow the parties involved to deliberately avoid the application of these principles?

What steps does the Commission intend to take to ensure that the safeguarding of the integrity of the entire Community legal system prevails?

Answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission (2 May 1997)

The Commission is aware of the proceedings before the Dutch Court of Cassation to which the Honourable Member refers. It has though been unable to discern any tendency on the part of national courts that might cast doubt on the predominance of Community law, and in particular its rules of competition, over national law. If this were not the case, it would be certain, in its role as guardian of the EC Treaty, to take all the measures necessary to restore compliance with the Community legal order.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1024/97 by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Council (24 March 1997)

Subject: Health testing of genetically produced or modified foods

The European Parliament and Council regulation on novel foods and novel food ingredients provides for health testing of genetically modified or produced foods.

1. a) What criteria are envisaged for such health testing?

b) What testing methods are available?

2. a) How is a genetically modified or produced food tested for allergenic effects?

b) What testing methods are available for this purpose?

c) What is the Council's response to the fact that the US Food and Drug Administration claims that no testing methods are currently available for assessing the allergenic effects of genetically modified or produced foods?

3. Does the Council agree that this state of affairs in effect makes consumers guinea-pigs?

Answer (2 July 1997)

1. and 2. As the Honourable Member says in her Question, novel foods and food ingredients have to undergo health testing; they are subject to the inspections provided for in Council Directive 89/397/EEC on the official control of foodstuffs and in Directive 93/99/EEC on the subject of additional measures concerning the official control of foodstuffs.

As regards testing methods, Article 4 of Directive 93/99/EEC lays down that Member States must ensure that the validation of methods of analysis used for the official control of foodstuffs complies, whenever possible, with certain criteria laid down by Directive 85/591/EEC concerning the introduction of Community methods of sampling and analysis for the monitoring of foodstuffs intended for human consumption.

As regards point 2(c), it is not for the Council to comment on these claims.

3. As for consumer protection, Article 3 of Regulation No 258/97 concerning novel foods and novel food ingredients provides that foods or food ingredients falling within its scope must not:

- present a danger to the consumer;

- mislead the consumer;

- differ from foods or food ingredients which they are intended to replace to such an extent that their normal consumption would be nutritionally disadvantageous for the consumer.

Furthermore, Articles 4, 6, 7 and 8 lay down a procedure for the assessment of novel foods and food ingredients before they are placed on the market in the Community.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1195/97 by Ernesto Caccavale (UPE) to the Commission (26 March 1997)

Subject: Structural Funds: risks for Campania

According to the figures issued by the Italian State General Accounting Department, during the period 1994-1999 Campania committed 16% of its Structural Fund appropriations and spent 2.5% of them, making it the European region with the lowest level of Structural Fund spending.

Nothwithstanding an improvement in this trend, it seems clear that the Region of Campania, having lost LIT 600 billion in the previous period, risks losing no less substantial a sum this time.

Does the Commission intend to clarify whether the Region of Campania risks losing its Structural Fund money and, if so, how much?

Is it possible, in the Commission's view, to extend the period laid down for the spending provided for?

Does the Commission intend to ask the Government to cut the red tape binding the Region of Campania in order to increase its Structural Fund spending?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (24 April 1997)

The Commission can confirm that the 1994-99 operational programme for Campania is suffering from serious implementation delays and that there is consequently a real risk that it might lose the resources made available to the programme by the Structural Funds. The total amount of Community assistance involved amounts to ECU 1 327.9 million.

The Commission does not intend to extend the Structural Fund programmes for the current programming period.

In 1995, the Commission concluded an agreement with the Italian Government and regions, concerning a series of measures designed to improve and speed up the implementation of Structural Fund assistance in Italy. One of the principal measures involves an undertaking by the national government and the regions to simplify the procedures for preparing and implementing assistance. The Commission is making sure that this undertaking is honoured and continues to insist that the Italian authorities take specific steps to implement it.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0421/97 by Fiorella Ghilardotti (PSE) to the Council (6 February 1997)

Subject: Hazardous working conditions and hygiene problems in the new Council building

Recent articles in the Belgian press have highlighted considerable problems in the Justus Lipsius Building, the new headquarters of the Council's General Secretariat, concerning the working conditions in certain departments and in particular hygiene problems in the kitchens because of poor design and construction.

The Council's final acceptance of the building is due to take place on 9 April 1997. In the interests of easing the burden on the Community budget, has the Council identified the areas of responsibility of the operators involved in the many stages of design and construction?

Answer (1 July 1997)

Under the contract of 26 Febraury 1985 concluded between the Belgian State and the European Communities for the construction of the Justus Lipsius building which was completed in 1995, it is the Belgian State and not the Council which has to carry out final acceptance of the buildings in accordance with the various specifications. However, the contract provides that the Council must give its agreement before final acceptance can take place. This can occur once the problems which are currently the subject of detailed examination have been satisfactorily resolved. At the same time, completion of the official deed of sale to the Council is being prepared.

Thus, the Council is taking care to safeguard its rights pursuant to the relevant legal and contractural provisions.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0920/97 by Peter Skinner (PSE) to the Commission (12 March 1997)

Subject: Noise pollution

The noise pollution from motor sports vehicles is not covered by the Council directive on the permissible sound level. However, this specific problem affects the health interests of the workforce and local residents in certain areas of the UK. Does the Commission intend to do something about noise pollution from motor sports vehicles?

Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission (5 May 1997)

Directive 70/157/EEC on the permissible sound level and exhaust systems of motor vehicles ((OJ L 42, 23.2.1970. )) is intended to facilitate the proper functioning of the internal market in motor vehicles while ensuring a high level of protection against noise nuisances caused by road traffic. That directive applies to vehicles receiving a registration certificate for use on public roads. It does not apply to vehicles designed for sports competitions which, conversely, obey technical rules drawn up at national level or by sporting federations.

It is the local authorities who authorize such sporting competitions and who are responsible for taking any additional action, such as the installation of anti-noise panels, that is likely to attenuate the causes of annoyance to those nearby.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1160/97 by Richard Howitt (PSE) to the Commission (26 March 1997)

Subject: Regional breakdown of European Regional Development Fund

Will the Commission produce, for the latest year for which statistics are available, a concise table showing breakdown of total ERDF payments by NUTS III regions in Europe? For comparison, will it show the same figures for 1993? Given the lack of transparency entailed in providing inconsistent and incomplete figures in this respect, will the Commission commit itself to producing just such a table in each future Annual Report on the operation of the Structural Funds?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (14 May 1997)

Since the 6th annual report (1994), which concerned the first year of the 1994-99 ((COM(95) 583. )) programming period, the Commission has published each year a regional breakdown of the financial implementation in its annual report on the Structural Funds.

In the 7th report (1995) ((COM(96) 502. )), which has been forwarded to Parliament where it is currently being examined, this regional breakdown shows the implementation of all the Structural Funds for all assistance (Community Support Frameworks, single programming documents and Community initiatives).

The tables in question show implementation for the year covered by the report, as well as aggregate implementation since 1994, not only for payments but also for commitment appropriations.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1400/97 by Olivier Dupuis (ARE) to the Commission (22 April 1997)

Subject: UN Decade for the World's Indigenous People

In the light of the UN Decade for the World's Indigenous People, whose first quarter has almost passed, can the Commission indicate the projects through which it has supported the indigenous peoples of French Polynesia in 1995 and 1996?

Can the Commission list the names of the projects and the amounts of financial support it has given for all the different financial instruments it has at its disposition to support the indigenous peoples of French Polynesia?

Does the Commission feel that it has adequately reacted to the resolutions of the UN General Assembly which has called upon states and intergovernmental organizations to promote the rights and interests of the indigenous people living in their territories, as reflected by the title of the Decade: 'Indigenous People: Partners in Action'?

Answer given by Mr Pinheiro on behalf of the Commission (3 June 1997)

The Commission does not pursue a policy of solely targetting the indigenous peoples of French Polynesia in its programmmes. It takes the view that the population in general should benefit from the development process. Through the 6th and 7th indicative programmes it provides financial aid amounting to 21.35 MECU in support of the government's policies of rural development and economic diversification. 83% of this aid is allocated to current projects in the sectors of agriculture and fisheries and economic infrastructure of the type which will improve the socio-economic status of the indigenous peoples. A list of these projects is forwarded direct to the Honourable Member and to the Secretariat general of the Parliament. Consequently, the Commission feels that it has reacted adequately to the resolutions of the United Nations general assembly.