ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2206/98

by ( Hanja) Maij-Weggen (PPE) to the Commission

(10 July 1998)

Subject: Fisheries in the Netherlands Antilles

Can the Commission indicate why an export ban on fish has been imposed on the Netherlands Antilles? When does the Commission intend to lift this ban?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(23 September 1998)

Imports of fishery products from third countries are regulated since 1991 by Council Directive 91/493/EEC of 22 July 1991 laying down the health conditions for the production and the placing on the market of fishery products(1). It provides in particular for the conditions to be met by establishments, factory vessels and freezer vessels to be approved to place fishery products on the Community market. This Directive applies to internal Community production and foresees that the provisions applied to imports of fishery products shall be at least equivalent to those governing the Community production.

In order to fix the import conditions of fishery products from a third country or an overseas territory, the Directive lays down that the Commission shall take particular account of the legislation of the third country or territory, the organisation of the competent authority of the third country or territory and of its inspection services, the actual health conditions during the production, storage and dispatch of fishery products intended for the Community and the assurance which the third country or territory can give on the compliance with the standards laid down in the Annex of the Directive.

Commission Decision 97/296/EC of 22 April 1997 drawing up the list of third countries from which the import of fishery products is authorized for human consumption(2) requires the Member States to ensure that no fishery products, in whatever form intended for human consumption, are imported except from the third countries or territories listed in the Annex to the Decision. The countries or territories contained in the list have provided information and guarantees on these items. As an exception to avoid disruption of trade, the above decision allowed Member States to import on a bilateral basis fishery products from third countries and territories not included in the list up to 1 July 1998.

Since the Dutch Antilles provided to the Commission the necessary information after the date of 1 July 1998 it was not possible for the Commission to submit a proposal to authorize the imports of fishery products from this country to Member States. Therefore the Dutch Antilles do not figure on the lists of Decision 97/296/EC. As soon as the information received is evaluated, and it can be concluded that the sanitary conditions applied to fishery products in the Dutch Antilles intended for the Community market give equivalent guarantees to the Community provisions, a proposal to authorize these imports will be presented.

(1) OJ L 268, 24.9.1991.

(2) OJ L 122, 14.5.1997.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4046/98

by Ian White (PSE) to the Commission

(13 January 1999)

Subject: Levels of MHS supervision in licensed slaughterhouses

Would the Commission please specify why implementation regulations enacted in 1995 in full accordance with Directive 64/433/EEC(1) have been regarded by the Commission as failing to comply with the level of official veterinary supervision in licensed British slaughterhouses?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(15 February 1999)

The Commission has issued a reasoned opinion under Article 169 of the EC Treaty in respect of this matter. The principal infringement noted in this document concerns the level of supervision by qualified official veterinarians of United Kingdom meat plants. In particular the Commission has questioned the apparent inadequate frequency of veterinary controls in certain categories of establishment and the use of meat hygiene inspectors who are not qualified veterinarians to perform duties which under Community law must be carried out or adequately supervised by qualified veterinarians.

The United Kingdom has admitted that it currently has difficulties in recruiting sufficient veterinary staff. It recently submitted to the Commission its proposals for resolving this problem.

(1) OJ 121, 29.7.1964, p. 2012.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3779/98

by Manuel Escolá Hernando (ARE) to the Commission

(11 December 1998)

Subject: Aid for the pigmeat sector

The EU pigmeat sector finds itself in the midst of a price slump, highlighting the existence of deep-seated structural problems which must be tackled fully sooner rather than later.

The impact of the current slump has been particularly severe for small family farms, many of which face the prospect of temporary, or even permanent closure.

The turnover of the EU pigmeat sector exceeds ECU 20 billion and the sector generates a large number of jobs.

Has the Commission therefore considered the possibility of adopting structural measures to prevent any further return to overproduction, which pushes down prices and forces producers to make sales below the cost price? Has it examined the possibility of including within these measures subsidies for the withdrawal of sows from the market, with a view to cutting production surpluses?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(15 January 1999)

The Community pig industry is currently in a state of crisis because production greatly exceeds internal Community consumption. Pig farmers throughout Europe have expanded their herds, encouraged by the exceptionally high market prices in 1996 and 1997. The price drop in a situation of increased production is a typical cyclical phenomenon of pig production.

Within the pig sector markets are expected to regulate themselves, so market prices reflect the balance of supply and demand. However, the Commission has some limited possibilities to intervene in the market when necessary, and is now using the full range of measures available to support the pigmeat market.

In general the current market organization in pigmeat has functioned quite well. European pig markets have experienced many low price periods and each time pig farming has emerged with improved efficiency and a better structure.

Various new ideas for amending the market organization have been put forward by some Member States and discussed by the management committee for pigmeat on 4 November 1998. The idea of withdrawing sows from production was also discussed in this framework. However, the result of this discussion was to concentrate all efforts on traditional market support measures.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2216/98

by David Thomas (PSE) to the Commission

(16 July 1998)

Subject: Welfare of laying hens

Can the Commission confirm whether the provisions of Directive 88/166/EEC(1) have been implemented by all Member States and how many on-the-spot controls to verify compliance with the Directive have been carried out by Commission inspectors?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(24 September 1998)

According to the information the Commission has received from the Member States, all have implemented Council Directive 88/166/EEC of 7 March 1998 complying with the judgment of the Court of justice in Case 131/86 (annulment of Council Directive 86/113/EEC of 25 March 1986 laying down minimum standards for the protection of laying hens kept in battery cages). The Commission has, however, recently received a complaint from a trade association alleging that the Directive is not correctly enforced in some Member States. This complaint is currently being investigated.

In the field of animal welfare, the veterinary inspectors of the Commission have so far during their missions to Member States concentrated their efforts on the protection of animals during transport (Council Directive 91/628/EEC(2)) and at the time of slaughter (Council Directive 93/119/EEC(3)).

It is, however, intended to extend the veterinary on-the-spot checks to other fields in the near future, such as the well-being of laying hens kept in battery cages.

(1) OJ L 74, 19.3.1988, p. 83.

(2) OJ L 340, 11.12.1991.

(3) OJ L 340, 31.12.1993.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3289/98

by Arthur Newens (PSE) to the Commission

(9 November 1998)

Subject: DG XVII - information budget

Would the Commission confirm the allocation of a budget of ECU 4,5 million for information policy in 1998 to DG XVII (Energy), and can it provide details on how that money has been allocated, with particular reference to the LOIR and DEIRA companies?

Answer given by Mr Papoutsis on behalf of the Commission

(13 January 1999)

DG XVII does not have a specific budget line for information policy. Information and dissemination activities in the field of energy are undertaken and financed in the framework of various programmes, in particular the JOULE/Thermie, SAVE, Altener and Synergy programmes, in accordance with the specific provisions set out in these programmes. Within the framework of the Thermie component of the JOULE/Thermie programme, information activities are supported under two different budget headings: B6-7517-01 (code 10 - operational expenses) and B6-7151-01 (code 50 - information, publication).

During 1998, 23 actions were supported under the operational budget to which an amount of ECU 2,17 million was allocated. In addition to this, ECU 250 000 from the administration code 50 (information, publications), has also been allocated to programme brochures, information packages and programme activity reports.

Concerning the two companies cited by the Honourable Member, the company LIOR (EEIG) and its managing company DEIRA S.A. were selected, in 1998, for participation in two projects. One of the projects was under the operational budget of JOULE/Thermie programme and the other under the Altener programme. The supported activities are related to the production of an interactive multimedia CD-ROM on photovoltaic energy (total support of ECU 120 000 under the JOULE/Thermie programme) and the setting up of the so-called Agores website on renewable energy (total support of ECU 170 175).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3691/98

by Anita Pollack (PSE) to the Commission

(7 December 1998)

Subject: Reproductive rights in applying for accession

Does the Commission have any information on the situation of reproductive rights in countries applying for accession? Are there any EU projects in these countries to extend family planning services?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission

(28 January 1999)

The Commission has not carried out any specific studies on reproductive rights in candidate countries. It is not aware that reproductive rights are denied to anybody in the candidate countries.

The definition of family policy does not fall within the competence of the Community. It remains the responsibility of the Member States. Notwithstanding this general principle, family planning is part of the activities of some micro projects funded in the framework of the LIEN programme which targets non-governmental organisations (NGOs) in the social sector.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2913/98

by Richard Corbett (PSE) to the Commission

(2 October 1998)

Subject: Tourism and Liverpool

In the context of preparing for a new Objective 1 programme for Merseyside, does the Commission intend to give high priority to the potential of tourism in Liverpool?

Is it aware that:

- architecturally, Liverpool has more listed buildings than any other British city outside London and more Georgian houses than Bath;

- it has two of the most remarkable cathedrals in the world, one of which has the world's biggest organ and the world's largest Gothic arch;

- its group of museums and galleries, including the Walker Art Gallery, the Conservation Centre (which was designated Europe's Museum of the Year in 1998), the Tate in the North Gallery and the Maritime Museum, to name but a few, are the most impressive in the UK outside London;

- the restored Albert Dock is one of the most visited tourist attractions in Britain, with over 5 million visitors a year;

- Liverpool's waterfront and ferries similarly attract millions of visitors every year;

- one of Britain's trendiest and liveliest popular music scene and night-clubbing areas is in Liverpool;

- Liverpool's China Town boasts Europe's oldest Chinese community;

- Beatles tourism is a growing phenomenon, with several sites, including the Cavern Club, the Beatles Museum and Paul McCartney's house, now attracting thousands of visitors and providing an opportunity for an annual Beatles festival;

- halls and manor houses such as Speke Hall and Croxteth Hall are among the finest in Europe;

Does the Commission agree that it is important to highlight these assets?

Joint answer

to Written Questions E-2912/98 and E-2913/98 given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission

(10 November 1998)

Although it is likely that there will be a European structural fund programme covering the Merseyside area after 1999, it is not yet certain that it will be an objective 1 programme. Adoption of the new list of objective 1 regions is not expected until the first half of 1999.

Although image is not an economic driver in its own right, the Commission considers that positive developments in Merseyside's image should indeed be highlighted by the regional partnership. The Commission provides technical assistance to help publicise the contribution of the structural funds to such developments under the current Merseyside programme and would expect this to continue under a future programme.

The extent to which tourism might be a priority under a future programme for Merseyside will depend on how far local partners can commit themselves to a convincing strategy for creating good quality sustainable jobs in the sector. Strong partnership is essential to this kind of strategy, which calls for collective action to integrate tourism development with measures to encourage growth in cultural industries and the training of local people to raise standards and skills in the area.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2981/98

by John McCartin (PPE) to the Commission

(8 October 1998)

Subject: Price of mountain lambs

Is the Commission aware of the total collapse in the price of mountain lambs in Ireland and the UK and will the Commission consider taking into account the different regional market prices of sheepmeat when calculating the premium for this year?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(22 October 1998)

The Commission is aware of the problems being encountered at present by certain producers in the United Kingdom and Ireland. The mechanism for calculating the premium is however well established, being based on the Community average price. The introduction of payments made on the basis of regional markets would not only be complicated to operate, but would undermine the single market, leading to distortions in trade between Member States. In any event, it should be borne in mind that such a mechanism would on occasion result in lower premiums, which would have been the case in the United Kingdom at the beginning of the summer for example, when prices on that market were the highest in the Community.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3270/98

by Paul Rübig (PPE) to the Commission

(30 October 1998)

Subject: Hygiene during meat-processing operations

The Austrian legislation governing hygiene in meat-processing plants is based on Directive 93/43/EEC of 14 June 1993(1). Accordingly, the use of curing skewers and axe and knife handles made of wood has been prohibited since 1 January 1998. What is more, wooden barrels used in the preservation of meat must now be replaced by barrels made of materials that are resistant to corrosion, easy to clean and easy to disinfect.

Does the Commission feel that certain alternative procedures might guarantee at least the same degree of the requisite and desirable hygiene? Is it true that a much greater degree of cleanliness may actually be achieved if wooden containers are disinfected, since it a well-known fact that bacteria survive longer on plastic surfaces?

Can the Commission imagine a derogation being granted so that wood might be used in commercial and agricultural meat-processing operations?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(12 January 1999)

The aim of public health legislation is to prevent the consumer from being harmed by foodstuff contaminated and unfit for human consumption or potentially dangerous for human health.

The use of wooden tools and equipment in slaughterhouses and meat processing plants is forbidden by Directive 64/433/EEC, Annex I, Cap. 1, 4a, as amended. The issue has been discussed by experts many times and was subject to scientific investigations. All these works have shown that wood cannot be maintained properly and the surface gets rough and fissured after short time of use and contact with "aggressive" fluids (e.g. hot water, fatty acids, disinfectants).

As a result, liquids that are very good nutrients for dangerous bacteria penetrate wood and contaminate meat when coming in contact during production. Therefore the use of materials like plastic or metals which are easier to maintain and which do not impregnate bacterial contaminated liquids has been proposed.

As a result of all the discussions and investigation as mentioned above and with the obligation for effective and preventive consumer protection, the Commission does not support derogation for the use of wood in areas of meat production establishments where exposed meat can be contaminated.

(1) OJ L 175, 19.7.1993, p. 1.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4005/98

by Jesús Cabezón Alonso (PSE) to the Commission

(5 January 1999)

Subject: Investment in the city of Santander (Spain)

What works, projects, initiatives, etc., have been financed since 1994 (or are due to be financed up to the end of 1999) in the city of Santander - the capital of Cantabria (Spain) and an Objective 1 region - using money from the Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission

(24 February 1999)

The city of Santander receives assistance from the Structural Funds under two operational programmes for the region of Cantabria: the operational programme for Cantabria and the regional operational programme for Cantabria, and under a national programme, the local environment operational programme.

It should be noted that the financial resources providing assistance under the Structural Funds are allocated at programme level and that the projects to be part-financed under them are selected by the authorities responsible for their implementation, apart from those of a certain size, which are dealt with on an individual basis. The Commission is therefore unable to give a precise answer to the questions asked.

However, from the implementation reports submitted at the last meetings of the Monitoring Committees for these programmes, the Commission has been able to identify some projects in Santander, although their total cost was not stated. A list of these projects is being sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.

In addition to this assistance, Santander also receives, through the Urban Community Initiative, assistance from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and the European Social Fund for an integrated development project in the "Barrio de la Calle Alta o Promontorio, El Cabildo, Barrio Castilla Hermida and Barrio Pesquero" areas. The total cost of this project is EUR 10 million, to which the Community is contributing EUR 7 million.

Santander is also receiving finance for a large independent project, "First phase of the integral treatment system for Santander bay". Total investment in this project amounts to ECU 25,32 million to which the ERDF is contributing EUR 17,72 million.

The Cohesion Fund is helping finance phase II of this project for waste-water disposal and a treatment system for Santander bay. The Fund is providing EUR 22,83 million towards a total investment of EUR 28,54 million.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3203/98

by Honório Novo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(27 October 1998)

Subject: Situation at Autoeuropa

Autoeuropa is a joint Ford/Volkswagen investment in Portugal, which has received considerable cofinancing from the Structural Funds. This investment appears to have been based on the assumption that the factory will remain in operation up to 2001 and on a commitment that every effort will be made to continue production over the period 2001-2014.

The programme for the production chain agreed in the contract provided for the opening of a third shift, which has not materialised to date.

It is now known, however, that Ford has withdrawn from the project. Following this, the Commission has decided to ask Ford and Volkswagen to state their intentions concerning the future of Autoeuropa.

Given these circumstances, can the Commission answer the following questions:

1. What reasons have been invoked by Autoeuropa for not opening the third shift for the production chain, as initially provided for? Does it intend to do so in the future? If so, when?

2. Does the information supplied by Autoeuropa to the Commission include an undertaking to comply with all the conditions required in return for Community cofinancing, and, in particular, the requirement that no changes should be made as regards production and employment? If so, until when - 2001 or 2014?

3. What concrete political action does the Commission intend to take against Ford and Volkswagen - both in the present case of Autoeuropa and in the case of fresh investment projects on the part of either of those transnational companies - should it become clear that the contractual agreements have not been complied with?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission

(4 November 1998)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3662/98

by José García-Margallo y Marfil (PPE) to the Commission

(7 December 1998)

Subject: The millennium bug

It has been established that the "millennium bug", a problem also known as the "year 2000 effect", may affect all types of programmable electronic systems (PESs), ranging from mainframe computers to microchips.

These systems are employed for all nature of industrial purposes at the various stages of the production process, in the transport sector, in the public services and so forth. Furthermore, the said systems are date-dependent and their reaction on the first day of the new millennium will be critical. For those reasons, it would advisable to pinpoint the risks involved.

Is specific cooperation of any kind under way between the Community administration and the national and local administration in each Member State, with a view to ensuring that the process of adapting systems runs smoothly and encounters no risks?

Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission

(5 February 1999)

The Commission holds regular meetings with Member State representatives to discuss the millennium bug. Amongst the many issues discussed, Member States share information on the progress and activities of the public sector. Member States also work together with the Commission to solve problems in Community-wide telematic systems such as those financed by the IDA programme.