ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1252/97 by Hugh McMahon (PSE) to the Commission (2 April 1997)

Subject: Socrates programmes in Italy

How many projects and how much money was allocated to Italy for Socrates projects in the period 1994-1996?

In particular, how many of these projects took place in Naples, Verona and Palermo?

Answer given by Mrs Cresson on behalf of the Commission (5 May 1997)

The Commission is sending direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat a table containing the information requested.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0389/97 by Ian White (PSE) to the Commission (13 February 1997)

Subject: Bit tax

Would the Commission advise whether it is considering any proposals on a possible bit tax which would affect computer users, particularly involving information sent via the Internet?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (2 April 1997)

The question of a 'bit tax' is mentioned in the first interim report of January 1996 of the high level expert group on the social and societal aspects of the information society called 'Building the European information society for us all'. The Commission is also aware of the document 'The bit and tax: the case for further research' which was sent out by the chairman of the group for further comments and reactions.

The Commission points out that Community legislation on indirect taxation (VAT) makes no discrimination between traditional commercial transactions and transactions via the new electronic media. Any new tax, such as a 'bit tax', on cyberspace activities would therefore mean an extra charge on these activities. It is not clear on what grounds such a tax could be based. On the contrary, many activities and initiatives, with support from the Commission, are directed at stimulating and promoting these new developments.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0033/97 by Jesús Cabezón Alonso (PSE) to the Council (22 January 1997)

Subject: Common position on Cuba

With reference to its common position on the European Union's policy vis-à-vis Cuba, is the Council drawing up a similar declaration in respect of countries such as China, for example, which are not exactly models of democracy and political pluralism?

Answer (16 May 1997)

A common position is one of many CFSP instruments available to the Council. Common positions do not necessarily address questions related to democratic standards or respect for human rights. Common positions have been adopted in relation not only to several countries other than Cuba, but also to express the Union's position regarding concrete international issues.

As regards the granting of civil rights, and specifically the right to freedom of expression, the Council closely follows China's human rights and democratic records which are a cause for concern.

The difference by comparison with Cuba is that relations with China are conducted within the framework of a more institutionalized political dialogue which includes a specific dialogue on human rights.

In any event, the European Union has on each occasion over the last two years submitted a draft Resolution on the human rights situation in China to the Commission on Human Rights in Geneva.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1018/97 by José Apolinário (PSE) to the Commission (19 March 1997)

Subject: Special Protection Areas in Portugal

Can the Commission provide a list of the Special Protection Areas in Portugal, as defined in Directive 79/409/EEC ((OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, p. 1. )).

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (22 April 1997)

The Commission maintains a list of all special protection areas classified by the Member States and officially notified to it. The list for Portugal, relating to 36 sites, is communicated directly to the Honourable Member and the Secretariat of the Parliament.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0581/97 by Nikitas Kaklamanis (UPE) to the Commission (25 February 1997)

Subject: Cost of road haulage in Europe

According to a report in the Greek magazine Trans Weekly, European road haulage is the most expensive in the world. A survey carried out by the IRU shows that the present cost of road haulage is the highest in the world and as much as 25% more expensive than in the USA.

The main reasons for this are the varying standards of infrastructure encountered by hauliers in Europe, the variations in services provided from one country to another, the long delays and, in particular, the high level of indirect taxation on lorries. The cost of tolls and combined transport (road-sea-road and rail-road) is exceptionally high, particularly for hauliers operating out of countries such as Greece with its familiar problems of distance and lack of alternative routes.

Will the Commission consider immediate action to reduce the burden on HGVs, especially on those from countries which are far removed from the EU's main markets, as the additional cost of transport makes products from those countries less competitive?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission (8 April 1997)

Last year the Commission made a proposal ((OJ C 59, 26.2.1997. )) to replace Directive 93/89/EEC on road taxes and charges for heavy goods vehicles ((OJ L 279, 12.11.1993. )) by a more differentiated structure of charges according to the damage vehicles cause to road infrastructure and the environment. The proposed rules require that toll rates should be set so that the resulting revenues do not exceed the costs of constructing, operating and developing the relevant infrastructure, plus a rate of return attainable in similar investment projects. In addition, Member States may add an external cost element at a level reflecting the corresponding external costs, up to a maximum of ECU 0.03 per kilometre.

The Commission proposal is currently being examined in Parliament and in the Council. The possibility of granting special treatment to vehicles from certain peripheral Member States, including Greece, is at the moment also under discussion.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0933/97 by Miguel Arias Cañete (PPE) to the Commission (12 March 1997)

Subject: The EDF and the fisheries agreement with Guinea-Bissau

Can the Commission say what appropriations were paid to Guinea-Bissau under the EDF in 1995 and 1996 to finance the development of the national fisheries sector, and can it list the specific products for which this aid was used?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0923/97, E-0924/97, E-0925/97, E-0926/97, E-0927/97, E-0928/97, E-0929/97, E-0930/97, E-0931/97, E-0932/97, E-0933/97 and E-0934/97 given by Mr Pinheiro on behalf of the Commission (23 April 1997)

In reply to questions on allocations and specific projects to develop the fisheries sector in 12 African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries, a document listing fisheries projects in developing countries that have received EC aid has been sent to the Honourable Member and lodged with Parliament's General Secretariat.

The document comprises tables giving detailed information including the types of project, their objectives, the recipients and the Community contribution.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0513/97 by Jesús Cabezón Alonso (PSE) and Juan Colino Salamanca (PSE) to the Commission (19 February 1997)

Subject: Urban development abomination in Segovia

Is the Commission aware of the affront to cultural sensibility and the historic heritage which the incumbent local authorities are perpetrating by giving permission for a hotel to be built a few metres from the Segovia aqueduct (Spain)?

Does it realize that this out-and-out abomination in the name of urban development is being committed in a city which Unesco has declared a World Heritage site?

What steps will the Commission take, given the seriousness and urgency of the matter?

Answer given by Mr Oreja on behalf of the Commission (4 April 1997)

The Commission is aware of the situation created by the proposed hotel construction near the Segovia aqueduct, which has been declared a world heritage site by the United Nations educational, scientific and cultural organization.

Although also aware of the sentiments and opinions against this urban construction, the Commission would like to inform the Honourable Members that, in conformity with the principle of subsidiarity and Article 128 of the EC Treaty, it can not intervene in the matter as the responsibility for the protection of national, regional and local cultural heritage lies exclusively within the competence of the Member State authorities.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0290/97 by Noël Mamère (V) to the Commission (13 February 1997)

Subject: Policy of 'controlled use' of asbestos

Each year, all the countries in northern Europe devote sizeable budgets to the gradual removal of asbestos from buildings lined with the substance. In other EU countries prevention policy is still, in many cases, applied in a rather timid manner.

Has the European Union adopted legislation on the risks arising from the use of asbestos?

What action has the Commission taken to promote a total ban on the use of asbestos in the building sector?

Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission (25 April 1997)

Workers have been protected from risks related to exposure to asbestos since 1983 by Council Directive on the protection of workers from the risks related to exposure to asbestos at work (83/477/EEC ((OJ L 263, 24.9.1983. )) as amended by 91/382/EEC ((OJ L 206, 29.7.1991. ))).

This Directive already requires preventive measures and in particular makes activities in which workers may be exposed subject to a notification system administered by the Member State. The Directive prohibits the application of asbestos by means of the spraying process as well working procedures using low-density insulating or soundproofing materials which contain asbestos.

A communication of the Commission on the protection of workers from asbestos ((COM(96) 426 final. )) has been sent to the Council and the Parliament. Comments are awaited and the Commission intends to continue its effort towards a strengthened protection of workers.

The Commission understands the concerns of the Honourable Member about the dangers to health from asbestos fibres. It recalls that the Community has controlled the marketing of asbestos-containing products since the mid-1980's. Accordingly, all but one of the asbestos fibres are totally banned and fourteen categories of products containing the last remaining fibre, known as chrysotile, are also banned. Other product categories containing chrysotile fall outside the scope of the Community harmonization and should be allowed to circulate freely provided they are properly labelled and subject to Articles 30-36 of the EC Treaty.

In 1993 the Commission prepared a draft proposal for a directive to ban asbestos with exemptions. However, no qualified majority could be obtained for the draft proposal. The Commission relaunched discussions on the asbestos question with Member State experts in 1996. The most recent meetings were on 26th July 1996 and 7th November 1996. The Commission intends to examine, as quickly as possible, all the most recent scientific, technical and economical analyses in order to review the policy with regard to asbestos.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0496/97 by Ludivina García Arias (PSE) to the Commission (19 February 1997)

Subject: Implementation of Community RECHAR II initiative

Can the Commission supply detailed information on the implementation of the Community RECHAR II initiative since its commencement in the fifteen Member States, with the budget details, execution and names of projects broken down by Member State?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0493/97, E-0494/97, E-0495/97 and E-0496/97 given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (8 April 1997)

Under the terms of the guidelines on the Community Initiatives for industrial conversion adopted by the Commission in 1994, Member States were asked to forward draft operational programmes (OPs) to the Commission. 45 OPs were forwarded under Konver, 28 under Resider, 30 under Rechar and 13 under Retex. The Commission approved these operational programmes; their implementation, according to the principle of subsidiarity, is the responsibility of the Member States or regions which choose the projects to be financed on the basis of the OPs.

The tables being sent directly to the Honourable Member and to the Secretariat of Parliament contain full details of the amounts allocated to each Retex, Rechar, Resider and Konver OP for the period 1994-97, and on the budget implementation of those Community Initiatives up to 1996. The initial allocations are expressed in 1994 prices for the Community of Twelve and in 1995 prices for the new Member States.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0590/97 by Iñigo Méndez de Vigo (PPE) to the Council (25 February 1997)

Subject: Reflection group on measures to combat organized crime

Can the Council supply information about the work being carried out by the high-level group set up to consider how to improve the existing legal instruments for combatting organized crime?

Answer (27 May 1997)

The European Council (Dublin, 13-14 December 1996) decided to create a high level group to draw up a comprehensive Action Plan containing specific recommendations, including realistic timetables for carrying out the work.

The Group was asked to examine the fight against organized crime in all its aspects on the clear understanding that it would refer any issues involving Treaty change to the Intergovernmental Conference which is addressing Treaty changes in this area as a priority. It was invited to complete its work by March/April 1997.

The high level group is currently examining the matter of the fight against organized crime and is actively considering a draft Action Plan. It is expected that the group will be able to fulfil the mandate given to it by the European Council and that it will complete its report as requested in March/April 1997.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1169/97 by Gerardo Fernández-Albor (PPE) to the Commission (3 April 1997)

Subject: Community action on behalf of the homeless

The European Monitoring Centre for the Homeless estimates that some 5 million Community citizens are living on the streets. In the various Member States, a range of programmes of different types are underway to tackle this situation by setting up shelter services, dining rooms, day centres, occupational workshops, supervised centres and even reintegration enterprises. Such measures, however, are only partial and will not solve the pressing human problem of homeless people, whose sufferings include not only loneliness and rootlessness, but also very low self-esteem due to their feeling of social uselessness.

Can the Commission state what Community policy is with regard to this problem, and whether it believes that in conjunction with the Member States, a medium- and long-term policy should be developed to provide all Community citizens with a place to live?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (30 April 1997)

The problem of homelessness is dealt with under the more general matter of social exclusion, homelessness being an extreme form of social excusion. In this area the Commission has undertaken to support the efforts of the Member States, who hold the main responsibility for the economic and social integration of the most vulnerable individuals and groups.

In this context, the Commission submitted to the Council in 1993 a proposal for a medium-term action programme (1994-1999) to combat exclusion and promote solidarity ((COM(93) 435. )). The Council is still considering this proposal.

Additionally, in 1995 and 1996 the Commission had an allocation earmarked under budget heading B3-4103 for measures to combat poverty and social exclusion. The total allocation for this budget heading in 1996 was 9 mecu, of which 1.5 mecu was earmarked for housing and homelessness. The United Kingdom appealed to the Court of Justice, contesting the legality of funding projects in 1995 and 1996 from budget heading B3-4103. In September 1996 the President of the Court of Justice issued an order relating to interim measures, whereby the Commission was allowed to sign contracts in 1996 but not to make any payments until after delivery of the judgment, and only if the Commission won the case.

There is no sum earmarked for homelessness under heading B3-4103 in the 1997 budget. This does not exclude the possibility of certain measures to help the homeless being funded under Community initiatives such as Emploi (and the new Integra programme within this initiative), URBAN or Leonardo.

Also, the Commission continues to support Feantsa (the European Federation of National Organisations working with the homeless) and the associated Monitoring Centre.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0600/97 by Alex Smith (PSE) to the Commission (27 February 1997)

Subject: Criteria for contracts on nuclear safety

What criteria were adopted in choosing the contractors for the research projects sponsored under the Nuclear Fusion Safety Programme 1994-1998, as published in report EUR 16980 EN? Did any non-governmental research groups, aside from universities, apply for any of the research projects in research areas A-E respectively? Will the Commission take steps to encourage environmental NGOs to participate in the programme?

Answer given by Mrs Cresson on behalf of the Commission (1 April 1997)

The evaluation criteria applied for selecting projects for the nuclear fission safety programme 1994-1998 concern conformity with the scope and objectives of the programme and transnational cooperation as well as the technical criteria, scientific and technical excellence and innovation, quality of the project management, cost effectiveness of the proposal, European dimension and related benefits and exploitation and dissemination plans.

A considerable number of proposals involving non-governmental research groups (industry, consultants and small and medium enterprises) have been submitted and accepted.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1030/97 by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Commission (19 March 1997)

Subject: Risk to the health of the public and employees as a result of underestimating neutron radiation during transport of highly radioactive waste

What is the Commission's view of the calculations published by Prof. Horst Kuni, a specialist in nuclear medicine at the Medical Centre for Radiology, Philipps University, Marburg, according to which the biological impact of neutron radiation are being underestimated by Germany's regulation on radiation protection by a factor of 30?

Answer given by Mrs Cresson on behalf of the Commission (12 May 1997)

The Commission is presently unaware of the publication of the article cited by the Honourable Member.

With regard to the assessment of biological effects, the Commission followed the recommendations of the International commission on radiological protection (ICRP). None of the comments made by experts from the Member States to the Commission's proposal objected to this assessment, and the Directive was adopted unanimously by the Council on 13 May 1996 (Directive 96/29/Euratom) ((OJ L 159, 29.6.1996. )).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0695/97 by Jan Mulder (ELDR) to the Commission (6 March 1997)

Subject: The current crisis in the European veal sector and the need for market-support measures

The veal sector in Europe is of great importance for managing the market in the beef sector. If fewer calves are used in the calf sector, this leads to additional production of beef. The importance of this factor has increased with the BSE crisis.

The objective of the early marketing premium which was introduced for beef calves is to use more calves, in the longer term, in the calf sector.

However, the short-term effect of this premium is a temporary increase of the supply of veal on the EU market. Consequently, the market price for veal is in a state of free fall and there is a crisis in the European veal sector.

1. Is the Commission aware of this temporary crisis, with a shrinking calf sector, and the effect it has on the beef and veal sector resulting?

2. How does the Commission intend preventing the situation in the calf sector resulting in a reaction to foreign veal on the part of producers in importing countries, such as the action taken in France in December 1996 in response to veal from the Netherlands?

3. Does the Commission endorse the increasing need, for the reasons given above, to support the market for veal in the form of an arrangement for private storage?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (21 April 1997)

First of all, it should be stressed that the early marketing premium for calves (EMP) was introduced to help rebalance the beef market, seriously disturbed following the appearance of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), and not as long-term support for calf production. In addition, the measure was planned for two years as from 1 December 1996. Moreover, it cannot be said that there was a sudden influx of calves on the market as a direct consequence of the application of the EMP, because, except in Belgium, it was introduced rather gradually (because of the administrative difficulties in developing any new aid scheme). By the end of February, applications for premiums had covered some 180 000 calves, i.e. about 10% of annual production. In reply to the Honourable Member's three questions:

1. While the beef sector has generally recovered, the same cannot be said for the calf sector, which has continued to deteriorate in recent months, particularly in France.

2. The Commission deplores any reactions that undermine the single market. It is currently examining the various options for dealing with the problems raised by the Honourable Member.

3. The adoption of private storage measures in the current situation does not seem an appropriate way of solving the crisis in the calf sector. Indeed, private storage only postpones the problem, creates products (frozen) for which there is no traditional market and can benefit production in certain Member States in relation to others. Moreover, the experience of private storage gained last year was rather disappointing in terms of both cost and effectiveness.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0998/97 by Miguel Arias Cañete (PPE) to the Commission (19 March 1997)

Subject: Farmers in Ireland

Will the Commission say how many farmers there are in Ireland 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.