ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3358/98

by Manuel Escolá Hernando (ARE) to the Commission

(4 November 1998)

Subject: Project for water supplies to Zaragoza and the surrounding area

In the Spanish region of Aragon plans exist for a large-scale "Project for water supplies to Zaragoza and the surrounding area".

This project, which has now been approved, has been described as the largest of all those eligible for Cohesion Fund money in the Spanish state. It is intended to provide the city of Zaragoza and some fifty municipalities in the surrounding area with a high-quality water supply.

A total of PTA 22 000 million has been allocated to fund this project, with over half this sum (approximately PTA 12 000 million) being contributed by the EU. A physical link of over 100 km will be created to transport the water from its point of origin at the Yesa reservoir to its final destination (Zaragoza and surrounding area).

In view of the large sum involved and the input from the Union's coffers, and given that lack of time is the biggest problem, since a decision will have to be made on tendering no later than 31 December 1999 if the EU contribution is actually to take effect: Is the Commission fully informed of the state of progress on the project?

What are the deadlines for awarding the tender, beginning work on the project and completing it within such time that there is no risk of losing eligibility for the Community funding?

Does the possibility exist of extending the deadlines without prejudice to the Community funding?

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

(16 December 1998)

The Commission received an application on 4 August 1998 for a Cohesion Fund subsidy for the preliminary stage (drafting of preparatory studies) of the water supply project for the city of Zaragoza and some fifty municipalities in the Ebro valley between Novillas and Fuentes de Ebro. Work on the studies began in August 1998 and they are due to be completed in April 1999. However, no additional information has been provided on the construction phase of this project.

If the Spanish authorities were to submit an aid application for the construction of this project under the 1999 budget, the Commission could examine the possibility of part-financing subject to compliance with the rules and requirements laid down in Council Regulation (EC) 1164/94 of 16 May 1994 establishing a Cohesion Fund(1) and the availability of funds under the budget for that year.

It should be borne in mind that the date governing the eligibility of expenditure is the date on which the aid application is submitted to the Commission. Naturally, it is preferable that the project should be as advanced as possible from the point of view of awarding the tender for the works.

(1) OJ L 130, 25.5.1994.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2911/98

by Stephen Hughes (PSE) to the Commission

(2 October 1998)

Subject: Withdrawal from the EEC Surplus Food Scheme

Could the Commission indicate the total amount contributed by the British Government to the budget of the European Union? What proportion of that amount is allocated to the Surplus Food Scheme?

Could the Commission indicate whether the British Government will still have to pay the contributions relating specifically to the Surplus Food Scheme even though the UK will no longer take part?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(11 November 1998)

According to the 1999 preliminary draft budget the British share in total Community budget resources will amount to 13,9 % or 11 606 million euro.The total provision for the scheme for distributing surplus food to disadvantaged people amounts to 200 million euro. In accordance with normal budgetary principles, the own resources contributions of the Member States are not allocated to specific expenditure lines.

If the United Kingdom joined the scheme, it would obtain receipts under that scheme. The extent of those receipts in 1999, based on a formula which takes into account poverty keys, the utilisation of resources in prior years and the request presented by the Member State, would be in the region of 11 million euro.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3708/98

by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Commission

(11 December 1998)

Subject: Human stem cells and tissue engineering

Recent reports state that US and British research institutions are involved in the cloning and redesign of "master" stem cells obtained from human embryos in order to produce body components.

1. Can the Commission please confirm that no EU funds are being used, either directly or indirectly, in such research?

2. Will the Commission also please indicate in which EU Member States such research is permitted and what legal and ethical controls exist?

Answer given by Mrs Cresson on behalf of the Commission

(4 February 1999)

1. The Community is not funding any research project on the use of embryonic stem cells to produce body parts under the current framework programme.

2. Research involving the use of embryonic stem cells is part of the wider issue of human embryo research, which is regulated differently in the individual Member States. Information on the legal situation regarding human embryo research in Member States, as known to the Commission from available sources, is being sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.

The Commission shares Parliament's reservations concerning research on human embryos, which raises some very complex issues. Rapid advances are being made in knowledge and technologies, and the interests of couples and the sick must be taken into account. However, there are obviously certain limits that should not be crossed.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3951/98

by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Commission

(4 January 1999)

Subject: Gender mainstreaming in the Commission

1. How does the Commission implement the call for gender mainstreaming in its own departments?

2. Does gender mainstreaming take place in the individual directorates-general, e.g. agriculture?

3. If not, why not - or is gender mainstreaming sheer nonsense?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(3 March 1999)

1. Gender mainstreaming is taken into account in Commission staff policy, in particular through the third action programme for equal opportunities for women and men at the European Commission (1997-2000) adopted on 2 April 1997(1). Under the programme the Commission requires Directors-General and department heads to draw up specific action plans aimed at incorporating the gender perspective in the various aspects of an official's working life (recruitment, career development, training, working hours).

2. At present most Directorates-General have drawn up an action plan and given a support committee the task of monitoring its implementation. In the Directorate-General for Agriculture two working parties have been set up to improve equal opportunities for men and women. One deals with questions directly relating to agricultural policy, and the other deals with personnel matters in the Directorate-General. Both working parties are chaired by directors.

3. Incorporating the gender perspective is one of the Commission's priorities. A specific equal opportunities unit in the Directorate-General for Personnel is responsible for monitoring progress and developing measures which help to give effect to the objective of incorporating gender mainstreaming in staff policies, especially by holding seminars on the subject, or by giving direct assistance to Directorates-General and departments.

(1) SEC(97) 536.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3592/98

by Jan Mulder (ELDR) to the Commission

(3 December 1998)

Subject: GATT quotas for poultrymeat

With a view to the progressive development of the branch of the poultry industry involved in the sectioning of poultry carcasses into pieces and to the consequent added value and job opportunities created, it is extremely important for a substantial proportion of the GATT quota to be set aside for the export of poultry pieces. In order to cope with this year's reduction in the overall quota, the Commission has opted for a 6 % cutback in respect of the part quota for whole birds and a 37 % cutback in respect of poultry pieces.

1. Is the Commission aware of the importance of export refunds made in respect of poultry pieces, and can it endorse the view that the sectioning of poultry is a development which, given the added value created by the sector, merits support and that that support must also be reflected in the EU's export refunds policy?

2. Is the Commission aware that the overwhelming majority of the Association of European Poultry Processors endorsed a breakdown of the overall quota into part quotas amounting to 287 000 tonnes for whole birds and 60 000 tonnes for poultry pieces, which would constitute a fairly equitable proportional reduction?

3. Is the Commission prepared to increase the amount of poultry pieces which are eligible for export refunds when exported to third countries and deduct the same amount from the quota for whole birds?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(28 January 1999)

The cutting up of poultry carcasses has become more and more common in line with changing consumer demand in the Community. It is more important for turkeys than for broilers.

The Community export policy in the poultrymeat sector is to a large extent determined by its World trade organisation (WTO) export commitments which provide for an annual reduction by 30,000 tonnes of the export volume benefiting from refunds. In 1998/1999 only 345,400 tonnes or 30 % of poultrymeat exports may benefit.

This total quantity is allotted by the Commission to different product categories in a flexible manner with indicative ceilings taking into account the state of the market and the economic importance of the products in question as laid down in Article 8 (4) of Council Regulation (EEC) 2777/75 of 29 October 1975 on the common organisation of the market in poultrymeat(1).

It is for this reason that today the greater part of the 345,400 tonnes are reserved for whole broilers as entire regions in the Community depend on these exports. The annual quantitative reductions resulting from WTO export commitments cannot therefore be translated into similar reductions for all product categories. It should not be overlooked in this context that low value products which benefited from low refunds prior to 1995, but are not eligible for refunds since early 1995, are exported in increasing quantities despite not receiving any refund.

(1) OJ L 282, 1.11.1975.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3297/98

by José Barros Moura (PSE) to the Commission

(9 November 1998)

Subject: Transfer of Macao to Chinese administration - troops

In 1975 Portugal withdrew its military forces from the territory of Macao, the size of which did not justify a military presence. The Sino-Portuguese joint declaration grants the Central Government of the People's Republic of China exclusive competence in the area of defence and foreign policy, it being understood by the two parties that no Chinese troops would be stationed there. This was confirmed in April 1997 in the European Parliament by Mr Lu Ping in reply to my question.

Nevertheless, the Deputy Prime Minister Qian Qichen has now announced to the Preparatory Commission meeting in Beijing that China will send troops to Macao as a symbol of sovereignty.

How does the Commission assess this fact from the point of view of the credibility of China's commitments to the principle of "one country, two systems"?

Answer given by Sir Leon Brittan on behalf of the Commission

(23 November 1998)

The Commission is aware that after having administered the enclave of Macau since 1553, the Portuguese government decided in 1975 to withdraw its military forces from the territory. Under the terms of the Sino-Portuguese declaration of 1987, China will resume the exercise of sovereignty over Macau from 20 December 1999. Under Article 14 of the Basic law of the Macau special administrative region of the Peoples Republic of China, the Central Peoples Government shall be responsible for the external defence of the Macau special administrative region. The government of Macau shall be responsible for the maintenance of internal public order.

The Commission strongly supports the application of the "one country, two systems" policy to the future special administrative region of Macau, and will continue to co-operate closely with the territory under the Community-Macau Trade and co-operation agreement. The Commission will carefully monitor developments regarding the transfer of sovereignty.

In this context the Commission attaches utmost importance to the principle that law enforcement, crime prevention and the maintenance of public order are tasks which will be the responsibility of the authorities and the judiciary of the special administrative region. Under the Basic law these tasks cannot be the responsibility of any Chinese military presence stationed in Macao. The only conceivable justification of such a presence would be to deal with external threats to Macao's security, which is not currently apparent.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4074/98

by Daniela Raschhofer (NI) to the Commission

(14 January 1999)

Subject: Advertising campaign for clementines

An Austrian newspaper has drawn my attention to the advertising campaign for the purchase and consumption of clementines, co-financed by the European Union.

Can the Commission answer the following questions:

- What circumstances (collapse in prices, crop losses) make an advertising campaign necessary at this point?

- What financial contribution is the EU making to this campaign?

- How and by whom was the contract for the advertising campaign awarded?

- What advertising budget was spent in Austria?

- How and above all by whom were the types of advertising used in Austria selected?

- Which print media received advertising in Austria?

- Is there any experience of similar advertising campaigns to indicate their influence on consumer behaviour in the EU?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(16 February 1999)

The basis for the advertising campaign attracting the Honourable Member's attention is Council Regulation (EEC) 1201/90 of 7 May 1990 on measures to increase the consumption of citrus fruit(1) and Commission Regulation (EEC) 2282/90 of 31 June 1990 laying down detailed rules for increasing the consumption and utilisation of apples and the consumption of citrus fruit(2).

The reasons for organising the campaign are multiple: stagnant citrus fruit consumption in the Community, withdrawal of surpluses from the market and encouragement of consumption on health grounds.

As for all promotional programmes accepted for aid, the Community's financial contribution is 60 %, the remainder coming from the professional organisation proposing the programme.

Regulation (EEC) 2282/90 stipulates that contracts are to be concluded between the competent body of the Member State (generally the Ministry of Agriculture) and the professional organisation concerned. Details are given in the Regulation.

The budget for the campaign in Austria (1998/99) is 425 000 euros. This is the first campaign of this type in Austria. It is in fact part of a multi-country campaign covering Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Ireland, the Netherlands and Sweden. The agency mounting the whole campaign was selected after a call for tenders by Intercitrus, the Spanish professional organisation proposing the programme.

The Austrian publications that have received advertising are Die Ganze Woche, News, Wienerin, Diva, Beauty, Anima, and Wellness Magazin.

This is the first time that a promotional campaign for citrus fruit consumption has been financed by the Community in non-citrus producing Member States. It is occasioned by the need to step up promotional action in a sector in difficulty. For all promotional campaigns financed by the Community an independent external assessment covering impact on consumer behaviour and other matters is compulsory. This is now being made.

(1) OJ L 119, 11.5.1990.

(2) OJ L 205, 3.8.1990.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3357/98

by Georges Berthu (NI) to the Commission

(30 October 1998)

Subject: Transfer of national central bank gold reserves to the ECB

On 21 October 1998, when the report on foreign currency reserves in the third stage of EMU was being considered in plenary sitting, I asked Commission Member Mr de Silguy if foreign currency reserves in gold currently held by national central banks would be physically transferred, in whole or in part, to Frankfurt. The different statements made at European level hitherto have remained ambiguous on that point. Nor was the question answered in the debate that followed. Can the Commission issue a formal answer?

Answer given by Mr de Silguy on behalf of the Commission

(15 December 1998)

According to Article 3 of the Statute of the European System of Central Banks (ESCB) and of the European Central Bank (ECB), the official foreign reserves of the Member States are held and managed by the ESCB.

Article 30 of the ESCB/ECB Statute specifies the conditions under which the ECB shall be provided with foreign reserve assets by the national central banks. It states that the ECB shall have the full right to hold and manage the foreign reserves that are transferred to it and to use them for the purpose set out in the Statute.

However, there are no plans for the physical transfer of gold reserves from the national central banks to the ECB.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3738/98

by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission

(11 December 1998)

Subject: Abolition of duty-free sales

In anticipation of a review of the entire European tax system, the 1992 directives decreed that duty-free sales in the European Union would come to an end in June 1999. The decision in favour of abolishing duty-free sales, which was taken by the Ministers of Finance, can be changed only by a symbolic use of unanimity, which it is difficult to achieve in this area.

In view of the fact that the sector employs 140 000 people, and that the profits made on such sales enable all of Europe's biggest airports to absorb a range of costs and finance works and investment, and in view of the by now spasmodic quest for job creation:

Can the Commission indicate the logic behind the decision to abolish a sector which makes such a positive contribution to Community employment?

Does it intend to call a halt, as a matter of urgency, to the procedures for abolishing the sector, and initiate a study to examine the results of such abolition and its impact on industrial production and employment?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(4 March 1999)

The rationale behind the ending of intra-Community duty-free sales is that of a single market. With the elimination of import and export formalities, the possibility has been created for all citizens to purchase goods, tax included, in the Member State of their choice. The changes to the tax system implicitly put an end to duty-free sales to travellers within the Community. With the sole purpose of alleviating any economic and social problems that might arise from such legislative changes, the Ecofin Council in 1991 unanimously decided to introduce a specific measure, limited in time, allowing for the phasing out of that activity.

Regarding the employment aspect, the Commission has adopted on 17 February 1999 a communication to the Parliament and the Council concerning the employment aspects of the decision to abolish tax and duty-free sales for intra-Community travellers(1).

This communication is the follow-up to the request by the Vienna European Council in December 1998 to examine by March 1999, the problems that could arise with regard to employment following the abolition of intra-Community duty-free sales.

(1) COM(99) 65.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3649/98

by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission

(3 December 1998)

Subject: UCLAF

Several newspapers have reported that increasing numbers of intermediary companies are being set up by Community officials in order to respond to calls for tenders issued by the European Union.

In the light of the revelations about scandals and fraud engulfing the Community institutions, can the Commission explain why UCLAF, the Community anti-fraud unit, has been so slow to act? Following the statements made by Claude Perry to the Luxembourg judges, in connection with the ECHO scandal, will the Commission publish a detailed review of the companies with which the Commission deals in order to check up on their activities, ownership and contracts?

Joint answer

to Written Questions E-3647/98 and E-3649/98 given by Mrs Gradin on behalf of the Commission

(25 January 1999)

The Commission considers that it has already clarified its position regarding the allegations mentioned by the Honourable Member. The Commission has given information directly to the Parliament. In particular, the Commission's internal report on the Echo affair has been transmitted to the Parliament. Moreover, press information has been provided by the Commission.

The Commission would like to underline that the correct total amount of the four contracts involved under judicial investigation was ECU 2 421 080 .

It is furthermore not appropriate to consider that Uclaf has been slow to act. The Commission would stress that it is the enquiry conducted by its own Task Force for the Co-ordination of the fight against fraud that led to the conclusion that it was necessary to refer the case to the judicial authorities in Luxembourg. This was done on 10 July 1998, simultaneously with the completion of the report regarding the on-the-spot control carried out in the company principally involved.

The Commission would moreover point out that it carries out investigations for the purposes of protecting the financial interests of the Community each time there are sufficient suspicions. In this context, the Commission adopted on 14 July 1998 a decision concerning investigations carried out by the Task Force Co-ordination of the fight against fraud. In addition, detailed rules of application were adopted on 9 December 1998. These texts contain provisions regarding the way in which information is transmitted to the Parliament's committee on budgetary control while respecting the confidentiality of the investigations and the rights of natural and legal persons.

In relation to the possible review of the companies with which the Commission deals, the Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to Written Question E-3230/98 by Mrs Müller(1).

(1) See page 60.