ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0500/96 by Spalato Belleré (NI) to the Commission (1 March 1996)

Subject: Food aid for destitute people in the European Community

Given that the European Union allocated the sum of ECU 200m to the programme for food aid for deprived persons under EEC Regulation No 2535/95 ((OJ L 260, 31.10.1995 p. 3. )) which,

- since Germany renounced its share, was divided between eleven Member States,

does the Commission consider that it would be appropriate to increase the funds earmarked for that purpose for 1996 to take account of the new EU Member States (Austria, Sweden and Finland) and, in particular, the needs of the poorest Member States and those with high levels of unemployed and deprived citizens?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (26 March 1996)

During the particularly harsh winter of 1986/87 the Community set up an emergency programme which provided for the free supply of food over a limited period of time to the most deprived persons in the Community.

As a result of this experience, the Community received many calls for it to implement a more permanent programme of this type. Following a proposal by the Commission, the Council adopted Regulation (EEC) No 3730/87, ((OJ L No 352, 15.12.1987. )) amended by Regulation (EC) No 2535/95, ((OJ L No 260, 31.10.1995. )) laying down the general rules for the supply of food from intervention stocks to designated organizations for distribution to the most deprived persons in the Community, and an implementing regulation. ((Replaced by Regulation (EEC) No 3149/92 - OJ L No 313, 30.10.1992, last amended by Regulation (EEC) No. 267/96 - OJ L No 36, 14.2.1996. ))

Every year since 1988 the Commission has adopted a plan, broken down by Member State, using products from intervention stocks. Participation by Member States is optional. The appropriations of funds for these annual plans totalled ECU 100 million in 1988 and 1989, ECU 150 million from 1990 to 1993, ECU 175 million in 1994 and ECU 200 million in 1995. Eleven Member States took part in 1995. The new Member States were unable to participate as the implementation period began on 1 October 1994, prior to their accession.

The Commission adopted the 1996 plan in its Decision of 18 October 1995 (95/424/EEC). ((OJ L No 253, 21.10.1995. )) All the new Member States could participate, but only Finland committed itself. Germany, the Netherlands, Austria, Sweden and the United Kingdom decided not to.

The total funds available for 1996, in other words ECU 200 million, were divided up between 10 Member States, with the Commission taking into account the most up-to-date statistics from Eurostat on the assessment of poverty in the Community, as well as requests from charities and the use of the funds in previous years. Changes in statistics on poverty and the fact that the United Kingdom is no longer taking part have meant a change in the allocation of the funds in comparison with previous years.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0775/96 by Thomas Megahy (PSE) to the Commission (1 April 1996)

Subject: Public health information

One of my constituents has complained that he was exposed to the risk of catching Legionnaires' disease because of lack of proper public health communication between Turkey and the UK. This is a matter that may also concern other EU countries.

He states that Legionnaires' disease was contracted at a hotel in Kusadisi in May 1995. There were eleven cases in total. However, it was only in late September that tourists were removed from this hotel and during this time four and a half thousand British holidaymakers had been exposed to the risk of Legionnaires' disease.

What arrangements exist between the EU and Turkey for the exchange of vital public health information? Does the Commission think the present methods of communicating public health hazards are satisfactory? If not, what can be done to improve them?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (8 May 1996)

Data on legionnaires' infections are the subject of a surveillance network funded by the Commission. This system, called the European working group for legionnaires' infections, includes the collection and analysis of data from 24 countries, including the Member States (except for Luxembourg), Croatia, the Czech Republic, Malta, Norway, Russia, the Slovak Republic, Switzerland and Turkey. Its objective is to rapidly identify clusters which may indicate a common source and to alert forthwith the countries participating in this network. The network was created in 1987. The collection centre, initially located at Stockholm, has been since 1 July 1993 the Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre at Collindale (London).

The Commission is keen to develop networks of this kind at Community level and for other communicable diseases, as can be seen from the Communication on surveillance networks for communicable diseases in the Community and the proposal for a Parliament and Council Decision on the creation of a network for the epidemiological surveillance and monitoring of communicable diseases in the Community ((COM(96) 78 final, 7.3.1996. )), currently under examination. Moreover, health indicators for Turkey may be obtained from the European regional office of the World Health Organisation, which covers this country and all the Member States.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0523/96 by Richard Howitt (PSE) to the Commission (11 March 1996)

Subject: HELIOS programme

What number and proportion of individuals interviewed or surveyed as part of the evaluation of the Helios programme are disabled people themselves?

Is there a difference of support to the programme between disabled and non-disabled people interviewed?

To what degree have such evaluations been conducted by disabled people?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (23 April 1996)

The Helios II programme is assessed independently by an organisation outside the Commission.

According to the information supplied by this organisation, 18 of the 57 persons interviewed in the course of preparing the interim assessment report represented organisations for disabled people.

At present no appreciable differences in the views expressed by the disabled people's organisations and the other participants can be discerned. Apparently, there are the same differences in assessment in every category of participants.

Disabled people were involved in the work done by the organisation evaluating the programme.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0852/96 by David Hallam (PSE) to the Commission (12 April 1996)

Subject: European Monitoring Centre for Racism and Xenophobia

Which communication did Commissioner Flynn refer to when replying to my question E-2750/95 ((OJ C 340, 18.12.1995, p. 53. )) about the establishment of a European Monitoring Centre for Racism and Xenophobia, and what is the date of its publication?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (15 May 1996)

On 13 December 1995 the Commission adopted a Communication on racism, xenophobia and antisemitism and a proposal for a Council Decision designating 1997 as European Year against Racism ((COM(95) 653 final )).

This Communication was forwarded to Parliament by letter of 22 January 1996.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0602/96 by Martina Gredler (ELDR) to the Commission (13 March 1996)

Subject: Use of chloramphenicol for livestock

The antibiotic, chloramphenicol, has been in use since 1947. Consumption by humans of meat from animals treated with the substance can lead to alterations in the composition of the blood, which in extreme cases can be fatal.

It was for this reason that agreement was reached to stop using the antibiotic to treat livestock after the end of 1996.

Chloramphenicol has been banned in Austria for five years. Alarming reports have emerged in Germany, however, that traces of chloramphenicol have been found in up to 20% of meat selected for testing. This has been reported by official veterinary inspectors.

In what countries is chloramphenicol still being used?

Are there countries in which particularly high levels of the substance have often been found in routine sampling?

What likelihood is there of consumers unknowingly purchasing meat containing chloramphenicol?

Has the Commission any idea of the extent of farmers' remaining stocks of this antibiotic available for use before the end of 1996?

Does the Commission intend to take measures to buy remaining stocks of the antibiotic back from farmers to prevent the possibility of further large quantities being used before the deadline expires?

Has the Commission considered informing consumers in the transitional period by indicating which kinds of meat are most likely to be affected?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (24 April 1996)

For the public health reasons cited by the Honourable Member, the use of chloramphenicol has been banned throughout the Community since June 1994. Commission Regulation (EC) No 1430/94 of 22 June 1994, ((OJ L 156, 23.6.1994. )) amending the annexes to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2377/90 establishing a Community procedure for setting the maximum residue levels for veterinary medicines in foodstuffs from animals, included chloramphenicol in Annex IV (list of banned substances).

The Commission is aware of the problem in Germany, where farm checks revealed residues of the substance in more than a few samples taken from animals, particularly in the first half of last year. In accordance with Article 9 of Council Directive 86/469/EEC on the detection of residues in animals and fresh meat, ((OJ L 275, 26.9.1986. )) the German authorities introduced very tight checks, especially in farms, and launched an information campaign targeted at vets, pharmacists and farmers on the problems illegal use of chloramphenicol could cause.

The proposals for Council regulations on the checks for certain substances and their residues to be carried out on live animals and derived produce ((COM(93) 441 final. )) were sent to Parliament and the Commission in September 1993 and look likely to be adopted in the next few weeks. Under the proposed measures, Member States will be able to impose tough penalties on breeders and those issuing or administering banned substances. These will include severe administrative sanctions and on-spot fines irrespective of any legal action the relevant Member States may also decide to take against offenders.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0632/96 by Eolo Parodi (UPE) to the Commission (15 March 1996)

Subject: Die-back of cluster pines owing to infestation by the Matsococcus Feytaudi Duc parasite

In the Tigullio area of Liguria (and particularly in the communes of Casarza Ligure, Sestri Levante, Castiglione Chiavarese and Moneglia), cluster pines have been infected by the Matsococcus Feytaudi Duc parasite, an insect which causes these trees to wither and die.

The infestation, which began to spread in 1986-1987 with the appearance of oil spots, is now causing leopard spots to appear on trees in new areas, such as the protected region of Punta Manara - Punta Moneglia.

In view of the seriousness of this phenomenon (which has resulted in the loss of 200 000 high forest trees in the last few years), the extensive environmental and economic damage suffered and the increased risk of forest fires due to the presence of a large amount of dry material, what action does the Commission intend to take to:

1. help safeguard the environment, for example by containing and isolating the infestation?

2. support measures to prevent forest fires and hence prevent natural disasters?

3. support clearing and replanting schemes?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (12 April 1996)

There are several instruments enabling the Community to act in cases of forest dieback:

- Measures to replant destroyed forests, improve forests and protect forests against fire can be supported under Council Regulation (EEC) No 1610/89 of 29 May 1989 ((OJ No L 165, 15.6.1989. )) laying down provisions for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 4256/88 as regards the scheme to develop and optimally utilize woodlands in rural areas in the Community. ((OJ No L 374, 31.12.1988. ))

- Fire prevention measures are eligible for support under Council Regulation (EEC) No 2158/92 of 23 July 1992 on protection of the Community's forests against fire. ((OJ No L 217, 31.7.1992. ))

- In communes eligible for Objective 5(b), the development, conservation and utilization of forest resources and the management of forest and ground water resources are eligible for backing under measures 2.1 and 2.2 of Commission Decision No C(95) 737 of 3 April 1995 approving a single programming document for Community structural measures in Liguria.

It is therefore for the Italian authorities to make the best possible use of the instruments available and to make any necessary adjustments to the regional development programmes in question and the regional programme for the prevention of forest fires.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0900/96 by Michl Ebner (PPE) to the Commission (23 April 1996)

Subject: Confusion between geographical descriptions of table wines in Italy

In a decree issued by the Ministry for Agriculture, Food and Forestry on 22 November 1995, published in the Official Journal of the Italian Republic on 27 December 1995, Italy authorized the wine producers of the province of Trento to use the geographical description Atesino to identify their own table wines.

This is despite the fact that the European Union established the principle, in Article 4 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2392/89 ((OJ L 232, 09.08.1989, p. 13. )), that a geographical name cannot be used for a table wine if it can be confused with the name of a quality wine psr.

The term Atesino is the adjective from the noun Adige, under which both the South Tyrol quality wines psr and the Valdadige quality wine psr are registered. The South Tyrol quality wines psr, in particular, are placed on the market under the name Alto Adige. To the Italian consumer, a wine from the South Tyrol is therefore a vino altoatesino. Furthermore, the consumer will hardly make a distinction between Atesino and Altoatesino since there is no Adige Region in Italy and there are no products described as Atesino although there is the Alto Adige (South Tyrol) Autonomous Region which means that there are products described as Altoatesino.

Furthermore, it must be stressed that the harm caused to wine producers in the South Tyrol as a result of the confusing table wine description Atesino is huge as they have protected almost the whole of their production under the name Alto Adige (or South Tyrol) quality wine psr.

What does the Commission intend to do to protect the consumer from the danger of confusing the Atesino table wine designation with the Alto Adige and Valdadige designations for quality wines psr, which have already been registered and are economically important, and to mitigate the damage done to South Tyrolean wine producers?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (15 May 1996)

The Commission ventures to remind the Honourable Member that Community law applying to table wines which are geographically designated lays down that it is the producer Member States which decide on the rules for their use (subject to complying with the minimum conditions set by Community rules) and recognize the list of names of geographical units smaller than the Member State that may be used in connection with these wines.

In the process of granting recognition to these geographical designations Member States take all material points into consideration, including the point of not causing confusion in the minds of consumers, and must ensure that Community rules are applied.

The Commission takes note, however, of the points which the Honourable Member has brought to its attention; they will be analysed and taken into consideration when this matter - on which the Commission has received a complaint - is under examination.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1481/96 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (12 June 1996)

Subject: Progress with sub-programme 3, Mainland Greece, Measure 2 of the 2nd CSF: 'Social facilities'

Measure 5.2 of the regional operational programme for mainland Greece provides for funding of health and welfare facilities for the population of the region. The specific objective is to create a further 500 hospital beds by building a regional hospital in Lamia and medical facilities as part of the national health care network.

The breakdown of funding was ECU 1 500 000 for 1994 and ECU 3 052 000 for 1995.

1. What was the take-up rate for 1994 and 1995?

2. Have there been any delays in taking up the funds and, if so, what were the main reasons for them?

3. Can the Commission provide details of the progress made with this measure?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1479/96, E-1480/96, E-1481/96, E-1482/96, E-1483/96, E-1484/96, E-1485/96 and E-1486/96 given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (26 June 1996)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0863/96 by Iñigo Méndez de Vigo (PPE) to the Commission (12 April 1996)

Subject: Management of the PHARE and TACIS programmes

At its meeting of 11 March 1996 the Ecofin Council called for improved management of the PHARE and TACIS programmes, pointing out that most of the money allocated thereto is spent on studies carried out by western consultants and does not benefit the countries for which the programmes are intended.

What does the Commission think of Ecofin's views? Does it consider that the management of the programmes needs to be improved?

Answer given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission (13 May 1996)

The Commission does not share the view that most of the money allocated to the PHARE and TACIS programmes is spent on studies carried out by Western consultants. It is true that at the outset of both programmes the Commission needed to have a clear picture of the situation of the different economic and social sectors in the countries concerned. For this purpose, the Commission contracted Western consultants specialising in the various fields. However, as knowledge of the situation has been acquired, the Commission has progressively shifted the funds to projects with a direct on-the-spot impact in the PHARE and TACIS countries.

The Commission is now reviewing the management systems of both programmes by way of increasing transparency in the awarding of contracts and including a review of the implementation of the programmes so as to involve more closely the local authorities and non-governmental organisations. Appropriate proposals are made in the framework of the draft TACIS regulation ((COM(95) 12. )) and the new approach given to Phare by the recent European Councils.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0050/96 by Stephen Hughes (PSE) to the Commission (25 January 1996)

Subject: Display screen equipment

How many Member States have attempted to implement Directive 90/270/EEC ((OJ L 156, 21.6.1990, p. 14. )) but the Commission believes their attempt to be inadequate?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (1 March 1996)

All the Member States apart from Spain have informed the Commission of the national implementing measures for the transposal of Directive 90/270/EEC.

The conformity of these measures with the Directive is being discussed with the various Member States.

Depending on the results of this work, the Commission could, if necessary, take appropriate measures to rectify any shortcomings.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0300/96 by Honor Funk (PPE) to the Commission (7 February 1996)

Subject: Ban on the use of BST (bovine somatotropin) in milk production in the EU

The use of rBST in milk production in the EU has been provisionally banned until the year 2000. The reason given for the time-limit on the ban is that further research on the long-term effects is needed. The use of BST is permitted in the USA. The trade press has recently reported a survey by the magazine 'Dairy Today', which shows that 40% of American milk producers using rBST are willing to stop using it because of a rise in the incidence of mastitis and birth defects.

1. Is the Commission aware of this survey, and what importance is attached to it?

2. Are the results of current surveys in the EU similar?

3. Can the Commission say how far long-term tests are taken into account in its decisions on the authorization of products in respect of the use both of rBST to increase milk yields and hormones and of other growth promoters to fatten animals?

4. If the results of the research referred to above are confirmed, can it say what influence they will have on the current discussions between the EU and the USA on the authorization of imports of milk and milk products produced with the aid of rBST and of meat produced with the aid of hormones?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (4 March 1996)

1. The Commission is not aware of the article cited by the Honourable Member, and cannot, therefore, comment on it.

2. Studies carried out in the Member States indicate that cows treated with bovine somatotropin (BST) have an increased incidence of mastitis. The Commission is bringing together a group of scientific experts to evaluate all available evidence on BST, including that from third countries where use of the substance is authorized.

3. The results of long term studies in practice are an important criterion in the evaluation of substances such as BST and are always taken into account in the authorization process.

4. The Commission is not at present discussing with third countries the question of trade in milk from animals which have been given BST.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0685/96 by Jesús Cabezón Alonso (PSE) to the Commission (26 March 1996)

Subject: Consumption of 'ecologically sound cellulose'

Of the thousand or so cellulose producers in the world, only 27 employ an ecologically sound woodpulp manufacturing process, using whitening techniques based on oxygen without chlorine.

These undertakings have had to invest large sums for this purpose.

This 'ecologically sound cellulose' is rather more expensive on the market.

Does the Commission have any initiative in mind to encourage the consumption of this type of woodpulp?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (10 May 1996)

Production of pulp and paper in the Community must be in compliance with relevant Community and national legislation which includes provisions on the limitation and prevention of water pollution.

In addition, a voluntary Community eco-label scheme for products was established in 1992, which indirectly also promotes clean process technologies. Within the voluntary eco-label scheme criteria have been developed for tissue products (kitchen rolls and toilet paper) which promote the reduction of chlorinated compounds through the limitation of adsorbable organic halogens (AOX). Eco-label criteria for copying paper are being prepared similarly.

Since the main substance which contributes to AOX compounds in pulping effluents is chlorine, particularly elemental chlorine, the eco-label thresholds are set so as to discourage use of the latter. Accordingly a threshold for AOX emissions in pulp and paper manufacture is set at 0,5 kg per air dried ton of pulp and paper. Concomitantly, as substitutes for elemental chlorine, the industry uses chlorine dioxide, oxygen and ozone within the bleaching process. However these processes are known to have energy requirements for bleaching which are often higher than for that with elemental chlorine.

Given that the eco-label seeks to reward those products having reduced environmental impact overall, the use of elemental chlorine or other bleaching methods is only one of the criteria to be borne in mind. For this reason the Commission does not promote one particular process on the basis of a single criterion but is in favour of any process which promotes cleaner technologies and satisfies legal requirements.

As far as the Commission is aware so-called 'environmentally-sound pulp', especially TCF (totally chlorine free) has enjoyed a market premium, but it is understood that sales volumes and the premium have diminished over late 1995 and early 1996 as market pulp prices have fallen dramatically.