ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0412/97 by Manuel Medina Ortega (PSE) to the Commission (13 February 1997)

Subject: POSEICAN programme

What progress has been made with the review of the special supply arrangements for the Canaries provided for in the POSEICAN programme?

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

The Commission is very much alive to the impact of the special supply arrangements laid down by Council Regulation (EEC) No 3763/91 of 16 December 1991 introducing specific measures in respect of certain agricultural products for the benefit of the French overseas departments ((OJ L 356, 24.12.1991. )), Council Regulation (EEC) No 1600/92 of 15 June 1992 concerning specific measures for the Azores and Madeira relating to certain agricultural products ((OJ L 173, 27.6.1992. )) and Council Regulation (EEC) No 1601/92 of 15 June 1992 concerning specific measures for the Canary Islands with regard to certain agricultural products. It is aware of the operational difficulties caused throughout 1996 by the relationship between world prices and Community prices for cereals. The Commission would point out, however, that the situation has been improving in recent months.

The Commission is carrying out an in-depth study in order to find long-term solutions which, given the complexity of the system, would enable the existing arrangements to be adjusted and which would prevent such situations from arising in the future.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0344/97 by José García-Margallo y Marfil (PPE) to the Commission (13 February 1997)

Subject: CMO for olive oil: expenditure on storage measures in Portugal

The Court of Auditors' annual report for the financial year 1995 shows that the 1996 budget provided for EAGGF Guarantee Section expenditure on olive oil totalling ECU 1781 million. Even though this figure is in line with expenditure between 1991 and 1993, expenditure was far lower in 1995, when it stood at only ECU 812.5 million.

Of this expenditure, storage measures had a negative value in 1995, standing at ECU * 94.9 million.

What is the total figure for expenditure on storage measures in respect of olive oil in Portugal?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0320/97, E-0321/97, E-0322/97, E-0323/97, E-0324/97, E-0325/97, E-0326/97, E-0327/97, E-0328/97, E-0329/97, E-0330/97, E-0331/97, E-0332/97, E-0333/97, E-0334/97, E-0335/97, E-0336/97, E-0337/97, E-0338/97, E-0339/97, E-0340/97, E-0341/97, E-0342/97, E-0343/97 and E-0344/97 given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (6 March 1997)

The Honourable Member will find the figure he requests in the table below. Total Community expenditure under the 1995 and 1996 budgets was 812.5 and 2007.7 million ecus respectively. The discrepancy with the totals in the table largely relates to payments for olive oil promotion action. The 1995 budget is much lower than for 1996 (and 1994) because the 1994/95 prices package included a decision to move the payment date. This meant that the 1995 budget made no provision for 1994/95 marketing year payments but only for outstanding ones from 1993/94.

(in MECU)

>TABLE>
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1003/97 by Miguel Arias Cañete (PPE) to the Commission (19 March 1997)

Subject: Farmers in the United Kingdom

Will the Commission say how many farmers there are in the United Kingdom and how many people are directly employed in agriculture in that country at the present time?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0989/97, E-0990/97, E-0991/97, E-0992/97, E-0993/97, E-0994/97, E-0995/97, E-0996/97, E-0997/97, E-0998/97, E-0999/97, E-1000/97, E-1001/97, E-1002/97 and E-1003/97 given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (2 May 1997)

Survey on the structure of farms

>TABLE>

Source: Eurostat.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1323/97 by Mark Watts (PSE) to the Commission (11 April 1997)

Subject: Implementation of safety measures on ferries

Will the Commission please list all safety measures implemented by ferry operators since the 'Herald of Free Enterprise' capsized and sank off Zeebrugge on Friday 6 March 1987?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1322/97 and E-1323/97 given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission (23 May 1997)

In the aftermath of the 'Herald of Free Enterprise' disaster, the deficiencies brought to light by the Court of Enquiry set up by the British government were taken into account by the Commission and the Member States in the course of giving support to proposals made to the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) to adopt a set of amendments to the 1974 Safety Of Life at Sea (SOLAS) Convention that were aimed at preventing the recurrence of such accidents and at improving the safety of ro-ro passenger ships in general.

The adoption - in 1988 and 1992 - of subsequent amendments to the 1974 SOLAS Convention has resulted in the implementation of a number of specific safety measures for ro-ro passenger ships as listed in a table sent direct to the Honourable Member and to the Parliament's Secretariat General.

Following the Estonia disaster on 28 September 1994, the IMO established a panel of experts to undertake a comprehensive review of the safety of ro-ro passenger ships. That action resulted in the adoption, by an ad-hoc SOLAS Conference in November 1995, of an additional set of amendments to the 1974 SOLAS Convention. They are also listed in the table mentioned above.

To ensure that all these specific safety measures would also be applied to passenger ships engaged on domestic voyages in the Community, the Commission, in its proposal for a Council directive on safety rules and standards for passenger ships ((OJ C 238, 16.8.1996. )), has incorporated those SOLAS amendments, which, under the 1974 SOLAS Convention only applied to passenger ships engaged on international voyages.

In response to the Council Resolution of 22 December 1994 on the safety of ro-ro passenger ferries ((OJ C 379, 31.12.1994. )), the Commission tabled a proposal for an advanced mandatory application of the International safety management (ISM) Code by 1 July 1996 to all regular ro-ro passenger ferry services operating to or from Community ports ((OJ C 298, 11.11.1995. )). Following this proposal, on 8 December 1995 the Council adopted Council Regulation (EC)No 3051/95 on the safety management of ro-ro ferries ((OJ L 320, 30.12.1995. )).

In a further response to the Council Resolution of 22 December 1994, the Commission also tabled a proposal for a Council directive on the registration of persons sailing on board passenger ships ((OJ C 31, 31.01.1997. )) envisaging a coherent application in the Community of the SOLAS provisions on the information on passengers on passenger ships and high speed passenger craft engaged on international and domestic voyages.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1286/97 by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (11 April 1997)

Subject: Creation of protected areas in the delta of the River Nestos

The delta of the River Nestos is protected by the RAMSAR Convention and has been designated a specially protected area by Directive 79/409/EEC ((OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, p. 1.)). Under the terms of both the Convention and the Directive, protection areas (A, B and C) must be set up by Presidential Decree. However, so far only a joint ministerial decision has been taken which fails to include the areas proposed to the Greek authorities and the European Union after lengthy research. The Greek authorities have proposed protection areas that are smaller than those originally proposed.

Since the delta of the River Nestos is a vital part of Greece's environmental heritage, will the Commission say:

1. whether it is aware of these circumstances;

2. how it intends to act in order effectively to protect the delta;

3. whether the relevant authorities have respected the criteria for the classification of protection areas; and

4. whether the Greek authorities are violating Directive 79/409/EEC, and if so, what measures it intends to take?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (30 May 1997)

1. The Greek authorities have indeed designated the Nestos Delta as a special protection area (SPA) in accordance with Article 4 of the Birds Directive 79/409/EEC ((OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, as amended by Directive 91/244/EEC, OJ L 115, 8.5.1991. )). They have also proposed the Nestos Delta as a site of Community importance (SCI) for the Natura 2000 network under the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC ((OJ L 206, 22.7.1992. )) for a larger area than that designated as an SPA. However, the Commission does not have any information about the creation of protection areas within the SPA. This kind of subdivision is not provided for in the above two directives.

2. The protection of sites classified as SPA and of the SCI proposed for the Natura 2000 network is the responsibility of the Member States. The Commission takes action only if it has information which shows that the above Directives may have been violated.

3. and 4. If it is found that the Birds Directive has been infringed, the Commission will take the necessary measures to ensure that Greece fulfils its obligations under that Directive.

Under the Habitat Directive, Community protection of the site will not take effect until the list of sites for the Mediterranean biogeographical region has been adopted. The sites proposed by Greece are being assessed with the scientific support of the European Environment Agency.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0408/97 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (13 February 1997)

Subject: Blocking of projects under Article 10 of the ERDF

According to information from many project managers, DG XX is blocking funds on specific themes under Article 10 of the ERDF including: Information Society (30 projects), New Jobs (42 projects), Information Technology (20 projects), Cultural Cooperation and Economic Development (32 projects). These are going to be followed by: Urban Pilot Project and Terra.

Although the Commission expects in many cases that work will start in January 1997, there is no guarantee when the letter of grant will be sent and the first payments follow. Delays in payments jeopardize not only the projects but also the existence of very many people and organizations, in particular small and medium-sized companies.

It cannot be right that the European Union tarnishes in this way the sound reputation of the people involved, who are willing to work concretely for European integration. All these projects are highly sophisticated and require a lot of time in order to achieve positive cooperation.

What is happening with regard to the letters of grant to the projects selected so far by DG XVI for implementation under the four themes mentioned above?

Why is DG XX blocking these projects?

Answer given by Mrs Gradin on behalf of the Commission (15 April 1997)

The Commission reminds the Honourable Member that it acts collectively, even though in accordance with the financial Regulation of 21 December 1977 applicable to the general budget of the European Communities ((OJ L 356, 31.12.1977, as last amended by Council Regulation No 2333/95, OJ L 240, 7.10.1995. )), commitment proposals in each institution must be approved by the Financial Controller.

This financial Regulation states: 'The purpose of the approval of proposals for commitments of expenditure given by the Financial Controller shall be to establish that:

a) the expenditure has been charged to the correct item in the budget;

b) the appropriations are available in the budget;

c) the expenditure is in order and conforms to the relevant provisions, in particular of the budget and the regulations, and of all acts made in implementation of the Treaties and of the regulations;

d) the principles of sound financial management have been applied.'

120 pilot projects under the European regional development fund have been presented to the Commission's Financial Controller. A standard framework of analysis has been drawn up and applied to all these projects. As a result the bodies presenting the projects may have been asked to make some adjustments and to provide some additional financial information. The present situation is that all but four (three RIS ((Regional innovation strategy. )) and one RISI ((Regional information strategy initiative. ))) of the 120 projects have been approved. These four projects are still being considered.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0941/97 by Giuseppe Rauti (NI) to the Commission (13 March 1997)

Subject: Applications from Italian moped and motor-cycle manufacturers

Is the Commission carrying out a fair assessment of the applications submitted by Italian manufacturers of mopeds and motor-cycles, in connection with the 'multi directive' ((OJ C 190, 29.6.1996, p. 1. )) on motor cycles?

The author points to the enormous importance of the success of these applications, given that 52% of the mopeds and a good 62% of the motorbikes manufactured in Europe are produced in Italy. Another important factor in the Italian economy is that Italy's export quota supplies more than 46% of the continental market. Nor can we ignore the fact - presented in a very well-documented 'appeal' sent to MEPs by ANCMA, the Italian association representing the industry, and signed by its Director-General, Costantino Ruggiero - that 13 000 jobs, the production of some 80 000 units and a trade surplus of over LIT 1 billion for 1995, if components are also taken into account, all depend on the survival of this industry.

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

The Commission is well aware of the importance to Italian industry of mopeds and motor-cycles.

The proposal for a directive to cover the latest developments and innovations in such vehicles, which is needed to complete the type-approval procedure and is better known under the name of 'multi-directive', took account of both the different laws in force in the Member States and the opinion of the European industry in the sector, as represented by the Association of European motorcycle manufacturers (ACEM), of which the National motorcycle and accessories association (ANCMA) is also a member.

This proposal is currently at the final adoption stage and once it has entered into force complete type-approval can be put into effect. European laws in this sector will thus be harmonized, the benefits of which do not need stating. It will be the industry, including the Italian industry, which will draw the main benefits and its competitiveness can only increase.

The Commission does not therefore share the concern of the Honourable Member.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1405/97 by Fiorella Ghilardotti (PSE), Luigi Colajanni (PSE) and Luciano Vecchi (PSE) to the Commission (22 April 1997)

Subject: Disparities between Italy and the other Member States of the European Union as regards the rules governing access to the European Social Fund, Adapt and initiatives on employment

What was the result of the Commission's inquiries at the competent Italian ministry about the bank guarantee required by the Italian authorities to gain access to the ADAPT, Community employment initiatives and the ESF, inquiries to which the Commission referred in its answer to Written Question E-2138/96 ((OJ C 365, 4.12.1996, p. 85. )) by Luciano Vecchi on the same subject?

That requirement, which does not exist in the other countries, where the necessary guarantees are established by administrative checks before, during and after implementation of projects, often causes problems and impossibly high costs for the organizations promoting projects, particularly if they are non-profit-making organizations.

Could the Commission also say what steps it will take on this matter and on the other disparities between Italy and the other Member States as to the rules governing the award of funding for such programmes and particularly with regard to the procedures and arrangements for distributing the ESF contribution and the time taken to approve projects?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (1 July 1997)

As regards the bank guarantee, the Honourable Members are asked to refer to the answer given by the Commission to Mr Vecchi's written question E-2138/96 ((OJ C 138, 5.5.1997. )).

The Commission emphasises that the bank guarantee requirement is determined exclusively by the national legislation of each Member State for protection of their own financial interests.

With regard to funding arrangements and procedures, these are governed by Community legislation. The arrangements and timescale for project approval are laid down in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity by the institutions of each Member State in the light of specific provisions in the areas covered by national law.

Consequently, the Commission does not consider that it can take this matter any further, given that responsibility lies solely with the national authorities.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1267/97 by Marjo Matikainen-Kallström (PPE) to the Commission (11 April 1997)

Subject: Noise prevention research

Noise is one of Europe's most significant local environmental problems. Future proposals for solutions to noise problems will have to take specific account of local circumstances and local needs. Noise caused by road and rail traffic can be prevented, for example, by means of infrastructure measures such as the building of embankments and noise screens. The various noise prevention alternatives should be studied at European level and compared in order to determine which is the most effective.

What measures does the Commission plan to take in order to establish the noise-prevention benefits offered by embankments and noise screens?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (10 June 1997)

Infrastructure measures to abate noise include those that limit the transmission of noise (such as noise protection walls, noise attenuation dams and passive protection of buildings through insulation) and those that contribute to the reduction of noise at source (such as the design of railway tracks and road surfaces).

In its green paper on future noise policy ((COM(96) 540. )), the Commission has outlined possible actions to be taken at European level concentrating mainly on measures to limit the transmission of noise, since the use and effectiveness of measures to reduce noise at source can be best dealt with at local level. In the light of the comments received on the green paper the Commission will decide on the future actions to be taken. It will in this context also consider whether a study on the composition and effectiveness of various local infrastructure measures can be undertaken at Community level.

Noise research is also being considered by the Commission for inclusion in its proposal for the fifth framework programme of research and development ((COM(97) 142 final. )). No specific details of the types of noise research can be given at this time, since the framework programme will be adopted by a co-decision procedure which has not yet started.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1622/97 by Eva Kjer Hansen (ELDR) to the Commission (14 May 1997)

Subject: Minority rights

Is it reasonable that the Union requires more from the future Member States from Eastern Europe, when it comes to the protection of minority rights, when the Union has made no legislative effort in that field for the minority groups within the Union?

Has the Commission any intentions to draw up the proper legal base for the only existing budget line (B3-1006) that gives financial support to minority languages in the Union in order to conserve its existence in the future? Has the Commission considered Article 128 as a legal base?

Answer given by Mrs Cresson on behalf of the Commission (4 July 1997)

The Commission would like to confirm to the Honourable Member that in its 1997 work programme, it is stated that a proposal for a Decision establishing a multiannual programme for the protection of regional and minority languages and cultures will be presented to Parliament and the Council during the second half of 1997.

The legal basis for this proposal will be determined in accordance with its contents and objective, and in line with the requirements established in the rulings of the Court of Justice.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1100/97 by Jesús Cabezón Alonso (PSE) to the Commission (21 March 1997)

Subject: Fourth multiannual guidance programme for fisheries

The fourth multiannual guidance programme for fisheries proposed a large reduction in fish catches by the Community fleet over the next few years. For the present, this proposal has been rejected.

Does the Commission intend to reformulate the initial proposals of the fourth MGP and suggest a reduction in catches based on the reductions already made by each country during the third MGP?

Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission (20 May 1997)

The Honourable Member will be pleased to know that the Council adopted its guidelines for the multiannual guidance programmes (MAGP IV) on 15 April 1997.

The Commission would like to remind the Honourable Member that, in its original proposal, the cuts called for under MAGP III were already taken into account, since it calculated the reductions in fishing effort under MAGP IV on the basis of the targets set under MAGP III.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1179/97 by Gianni Tamino (V) to the Commission (3 April 1997)

Subject: Promotion of quality beef and veal products

With reference to Regulation No 1318/93 ((OJ L 132, 29.5.1993, p. 83. )), will the Commission provide the names of the beneficiaries of the measures to promote and market quality beef and veal in Italy, together with details of the amount of funding allocated and the results achieved?

Does the Commission intend to amend this regulation and/or Regulation No 2067/92 ((OJ L 215, 30.7.1992, p. 57. )) and, if so, in what way?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (6 May 1997)

The Commission has recently adopted a proposal ((COM(97) 70. )) for a Council Regulation replacing Regulation (EEC) No 2067/92 on measures to promote and market quality beef and veal.

As regards the results of promotional action in Italy, a study for the 1995/96 marketing year covering five sales points of a supermarket chain showed that during the promotional action period the number of customers had increased by 6% and the number of pieces of meat sold to each had risen by an average of 34%.

In a survey on the EQB (European Quality Beef) collective logo carried out for the Intercarne Qualità group 25% of those questioned recognized important differences between quality meat and other meats and 46% recognized certain differences between the two types of meat. For 63% of those questioned these differences lay in consistent quality of the meat, for 54% in its tenderness, for 46% in its taste and for 35% in the existence of quality control.