ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3453/98

by Freddy Blak (PSE) to the Commission

(9 November 1998)

Subject: Use of toxic sprays

In some Member States it is impossible to obtain information about the use of toxic sprays in fruit and vegetable production. In Denmark and the Netherlands, information is available about their use, whereas it is impossible to obtain such information in Spain and Italy, for example.

The problem is that pesticide residues are found extensively in fruit and vegetables imported into Denmark from other Member States.

Will the Commission take steps to restrict and control the use of pesticides? In common with the directive on nitrates, a directive on pesticides might lay down provisions to restrict and monitor their use in the Member States and require the Member States to draw up action plans and monitor compliance with them.

It is totally unacceptable that there is such a difference in the use of pesticides in the production of fruit and vegetables in the Member States.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(25 November 1998)

The control and reduction of risks from pesticides used in agriculture is mainly managed in the framework of Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market(1). The Directive provides for a positive list of accepted active substances that are considered as safe for human and animal health and the environment after a thorough evaluation. One of the results of the programme will be the elimination of all such products that do not satisfy the high safety requirements of the Directive. The authorization of individual plant protection products for specific crops and under specific controlled conditions of use remains within the responsibility of Member States (subsidiarity).

Maximum residue limits (MRLs) for individual pesticide residues in and on individual food commodities are fixed by Directives 76/895/EEC (fruit and vegetables)(2), 86/362/EEC (cereals)(3), 86/363/EEC (foodstuffs of animal origin)(4) and 90/642/EEC (products of plant origin, including fruit and vegetables)(5). Since 1996, there have been annual Community-wide monitoring programmes for pesticide residues in food commodities. The results of the first such monitoring programme, in 1996, have recently been collated and will be published in the very near future by the Commission.

(1) OJ L 230, 18.8.1991.

(2) OJ L 340, 9.12.1976.

(3) OJ L 221, 7.8.1986.

(4) OJ L 221, 7.8.1986.

(5) OJ L 350, 14.12.1990.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2517/98

by Maartje van Putten (PSE) to the Commission

(30 July 1998)

Subject: Support for the development of alternative methods to animal experiments

Given the importance which the European Parliament attaches to the successful development of alternative methods to animal experiments, as expressed, for example, in the resolution on the development, validation and legal acceptance of alternative methods to animal experiments in the field of cosmetic products(1), the recent authorization of an alternative method to animal experiments issued by ECVAM and the prospect of further validation studies being completed at an early date.

Can the Commission answer the following questions:

1. Given ECVAM's special position within the JRC in Ispra, can the Commission indicate the way in which guarantees can be given to ensure that ECVAM carries out its agreed tasks to the best possible effect?

2. Can it indicate the way in which ECVAM can, in the short term, increase the number of its staff to the level required for it to fulfil its tasks, with particular regard to the recruitment procedure and timetable seen in relation to the lengthy duration of validation studies and the need to attract suitably qualified scientists?

Answer given by Mrs Cresson on behalf of the Commission

(15 October 1998)

The European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods (ECVAM) within the Joint Research Centre (JRC) will continue to receive the support needed in order to conduct its research efficiently.

As was the case in the 4th Framework Programme for Research and Development (Decision No 1110/94/EC)(2), alternative test methods will continue to be developed under the 5th Framework Programme. That approach is included in the JRC's specific programme, and also as part of the indirect activities.

The Council common position of 12 February 1998 on the 5th Framework Programme for research stipulates, in the first project "quality of life and management of resources for living beings" that "as far as possible animal experiments and tests on animals will have to be replaced by in-vitro methods or other, alternative methods."

(1) OJ C 132, 28.4.1997, p. 27.

(2) OJ L 126, 18.5.1994.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3508/98

by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission

(25 November 1998)

Subject: Community Statistical Programme

With reference to the proposal for a Council decision on the Community Statistical Programme (1998-2002) (COM(97) 735 final - 98/0012 CNS and CES 800/98-98/0012 CNS), can the Commission stress the need for a common methodology for collecting statistics on the development of consumer prices and purchasing power parity and provide more information as to the statistics required with a view to the adoption of a permanent VAT system at Community level?

Answer given by Mr de Silguy on behalf of the Commission

(22 January 1999)

The need for comparability in Community statistics, which carries with it the harmonisation of methodologies and nomenclatures, is clearly stated in the third recital of the proposal to which the Honourable Member refers, and runs as a common thread through all themes of the Community statistical programme. It is thus a fundamental component of the work on consumer prices and purchasing power parities.

The Commission has yet to finalise its proposals for a permanent system of value added tax in the Community. In view of the possible solutions retained, Eurostat has already engaged preliminary discussions with the national statistical institutes on the possible impact on statistical indicators and this aspect is fully covered under Title V in Annex 1 of the programme. Following the opinion of Parliament, the text on this part of the programme was reviewed and clarified by the Council working party.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2473/98

by Carles-Alfred Gasòliba i Böhm (ELDR) to the Commission

(30 July 1998)

Subject: Erosive effects of sheepgrazing

With reference to the aid granted by the Commission to agricultural and livestock activities in the Serra d'Espadá (Castelló, northern part of the Valencia region), has the Commission assessed the effects of such activities on the fragile ecosystem of the area?

If so, and if it is apparent that serious harm is being done to the environment, what action would the Commission take in order to prevent irreparable damage to the natural equilibrium?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(15 October 1998)

As already stated in the Commission's answer to written question E-2472/98 from the Honourable Member(1), the Valencia region agriculture and rural development operational programme, which is jointly funded by the Community, comprises a wide range of measures on restructuring and modernising agriculture.

In respect of the agricultural and livestock-rearing activities to which the Honourable Member refers, the programme includes - among other things - initiatives to improve fruit and livestock quality, thereby making farms more competitive and ensuring that the environment is better protected.

The programme also jointly funds measures on combating erosion, making more efficient use of irrigation water in order to improve groundwater protection, and applying methods of crop disease control and livestock health inspection.

(1) See page 9.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3430/98

by Jaime Valdivielso de Cué (PPE) to the Commission

(24 November 1998)

Subject: Fisheries

The first round of high-level fisheries consultations between the EU (represented by António Cavaco, Director-General for Fisheries at the Commission) and Japan took place on 17 July 1998. One of the specific matters dealt with was the dispute with Japan over fish aggregation devices used to catch tuna in the Bay of Biscay. Furthermore, a large number of Basque families remain dependent on these fishing grounds, in which Basque fishermen have used traditional vessels and equipment for some time past.

Will the Commission provide information on the overall outcome of the said consultations, with specific reference to their impact on the Basque fishermen who depend on the aforementioned fishing grounds?

Answer given by Ms Bonino on behalf of the Commission

(21 December 1998)

As far as the Commission is aware, the Japanese fleet does not use fish aggregation devices for tuna fishing in the Bay of Biscay.

The matter was not therefore discussed at the high-level meeting between the EU and Japan on 14 and 15 July. The Commission is forwarding the press release issued on the outcome of this meeting direct to the Honourable Member and the Parliament Secretariat.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3352/98

by Cristiana Muscardini (NI) to the Commission

(16 November 1998)

Subject: Doctors practising dentistry

The Italian State did not transpose the 1978 directive governing the work of dentists, which it made applicable only to graduates in medicine who enrolled at university before 28 January 1980, until 1985 - by means of Law No 409/85. In the meantime, the delay allowed thousands of young people who studied medicine after 28 January 1980 to practise as dentists, which they were retroactively disqualified from doing by the law transposing the directive. These young medical graduates, who had been practising dentistry, had their rights reinstated in Law No 471/88, which was censured by the Court of Justice. On 8 October last the Italian Government issued a legislative decree requiring an "aptitude test" to be taken by doctors practising dentistry who had enrolled at university between 1980 and 1985, as a precondition for continuing to work as dentists, although they had been doing so for 10 years. The approximately 5 000 doctors consider that the State is making them pay the consequences of its failure to comply with Community law.

1. Was it the Commission who imposed the "aptitude test" solution on the Italian State?

2. If so, what type of test is it?

3. Is the "test" compulsory only for the doctors referred to in Law No 471/88, who graduated by 31 December 1991 (the deadline for graduates in medicine to qualify to practise as dentists), or also for those who, although they enrolled between 1980 and 1985, graduated after 31 December 1991?

Answer by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(14 January 1999)

1. and 2. No, the Commission did not impose this aptitude test on the Italian State. It was the result of negotiations that occurred, at the request of the Italian authorities, between them and the Commission.

3. Article 9 (8) of the proposal, as part of the SLIM initiative, for a European Parliament and Council Directive of 2 December 1997(1) amending Directives 89/48/EEC and 92/51/EEC on the general system for the recognition of professional qualifications and supplementing Directives 77/452/EEC, 77/453/EEC, 78/686/EEC, 78/687/EEC, 78/1026/EEC, 78/1027/EEC, 80/154/EEC, 80/155/EEC, 85/384/EEC, 85/432/EEC, 85/433/EEC and 93/16/EEC concerning the professions of nurse responsible for general care, dental practitioner, veterinary surgeon, midwife, architect, pharmacist and doctor refers to diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications in medicine awarded to persons who commenced their medical training between 28 January 1980 and 31 December 1984.

(1) OJ C 28, 6.1.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2360/98

by Maartje van Putten (PSE) to the Commission

(27 July 1998)

Subject: Emissions of greenhouse gases from cattle farming

1. Does the Commission have any data on emissions of greenhouse gases and ozone-depleting substances from cattle farms, in particular emissions of laughing gas (N20), and can it say to what extent laughing gas produced by cattle farms is contributing to the greenhouse effect and depletion of the ozone layer? If not, does it plan to investigate this matter in the future?

2. Has the Commission already taken action to reduce laughing gas emissions from cattle farms? If so, what action? If not, does it plan to do so in the future?

3. What are the Commission's views on the possibility of making cattle farming more extensive given the positive effect that such a policy might have on greenhouse gas emissions and the Union's plans, as set out in the Fifth action programme on the environment, to take the environment into account in other policy areas?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(7 October 1998)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3880/98

by Patricia McKenna (V) to the Commission

(11 December 1998)

Subject: Bilderberg meetings

Can the Commission explain more clearly its answer to my question H-0933/98(1), where it insists that participants attend Bilderberg meetings "in a private capacity", contrary to all the evidence that they are far from being purely private meetings?

If they are private meetings, why does the Commission announce them in its press communiqués, published by Reuters? Would it announce that a Commissioner was attending a conference on stamp-collecting if that was his or her personal hobby?

Why is it that Commissioners attending tend to be relevant to items on the agenda - Commissioner van den Broek for enlargement, the former Yugoslavia and Turkey, Commissioner Bjerregaard for global governance (which also applies to the climate), Commissioner Monti for the European economy (internal market) and Commissioner Brittan for the EU/US market?

Most recently, at Turnberry, Minister George Robertson was ferried by military helicopter on the clear understanding that he was present in an official capacity, as has happened in the past with Prime Minister Blair and former Minister Kenneth Clarke, now a member of the Steering Committee. Does the Commission really expect Members of Parliament to accept that British ministers are attending these meetings in their official capacities, while Commissioners attend the same meetings in a private capacity?

Why would the police exclude, and even arrest and charge, card-carrying journalists if the meetings were genuinely private, since it would then be the responsibility of the organisers to control journalists' access to the meetings, and the policy would merely conduct security checks to ensure the safety of the participants?

As former Commissioners derive continuing rights from and have continuing obligations towards the European Union, it surely behoves them to answer questions on these meetings should the Commission choose to ask them. Will the Commission now undertake to ask all former Commissioners still living whether they attended these and similar meetings during their time as Commissioners?

Answer given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission

(19 January 1999)

The Commission's reply that Members of the Commission who attended Bilderberg meetings expressed their personal views means that they were not representing the Commission, that they did not speak on behalf of the Commission and that their comments were not binding on the Commission. Naturally they were invited to attend the meetings mainly on account of their functions. The Commission considers that its Members should be free to express their views on subjects relating to the work of the Community, in particular during exchanges of views in international forums, without their participation being in any way binding on the Commission.

(1) Verbatim report of proceedings of the European Parliament, November 1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3927/98

by Paul Lannoye (V) to the Commission

(4 January 1999)

Subject: A 41 Annecy-Geneva motorway

Earlier this year, the French Minister of Transport, Mr Jean-Claude Gayssot, suspended work on the construction of the A 41 Annecy-Geneva motorway in order to allow the proper signature of the contract with the construction company. There are, however, reasons to believe that for the A 41 Annecy-Geneva motorway project, European legislation regarding public investment (e.g. Directives 89/440(1) and 93/37(2) has not been applied at all or at least not in a correct manner.

I should therefore like to know:

1. whether the French Government has issued a European "call for tender" with respect to the building of the A 41 motorway as required under Directive 89/440/EEC, which had to be transposed by July 1990,

2. whether there has been any exchange of letters between the Commission and the French Government about the A 41 motorway and the choice of the company, Autoroute et Tunnel du Mont Blanc (ATMB), which was already responsible for the Tunnel and the "white motorway" (A 40 motorway),

3. whether the Commission considers that the French Government has applied European legislation on public investment in a proper way?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(24 February 1999)

The question of whether the system of motorway concessions in France is compatible with Community law on public works contracts is currently the subject of a thorough investigation by the Commission, along with the compatibility of the systems in the other Member States which are in a similar situation.

In recent months the Commission and the French authorities have discussed this issue on several occasions, and as a result the latter have undertaken to provide certain information and explanations that have proved to be necessary for this investigation. The Commission is waiting to have all the material available before deciding what action should be taken.

(1) OJ L 210, 21.7.1989, p. 1.

(2) OJ L 199, 9.8.1993, p. 54.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3901/98

by Patricia McKenna (V) to the Commission

(4 January 1999)

Subject: Participation of Commissioner Leon Brittan in the 1998 Bilderberg meeting

Concerning the Bilderberg meeting attended by Commissioner Leon Brittan in Turnberry, Scotland from 14-17 May 1998, could the Commission state:

1. What the items were which made up the total travel and whether the costs were reimbursed at the time, or if not who paid them?

2. Since Bilderberg normally pays the lavish accommodation, should this be declared by the Commissioner?

3. Did the Commissioner receive the specified subsistence allowance for the days of the trip?

4. Did the Commissioner take leave of absence for this trip?
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3723/98

by Roy Perry (PPE) to the Commission

(25 November 1998)

Subject: Community obligations to islands under the Treaty of Amsterdam

Now that the Treaty of Amsterdam has been signed and is generally expected to be ratified, what does the European Commission intend to do to honour its obligations to islands under the new Article 158? Can the Commission indicate any proposals it is considering making in order to meet its legal obligations under this Article, once ratification has been completed?

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

(6 January 1999)

On 18 March 1998, the Commission approved a proposal for a General Regulation on the Structural Funds(1) which translates into operational terms the guidelines set out in "Agenda 2000: for a stronger and wider Union"(2). In order to increase the impact of Community structural policies in regions facing the most difficulty, the Commission is proposing that geographical concentration of assistance be tightened: the proportion of the Community population in areas eligible under the new Objectives 1 and 2 should be around 35-40 % compared with 51 % at present under Objectives 1, 2, 5(b) and 6. This effort of concentration is to involve all regions, including islands.

The wording of the future Article 158, such as it arises from the Treaty of Amsterdam in the process of ratification, states that "the Community shall aim at reducing disparities between the levels of development of the various regions and the backwardness of the least favoured regions or islands, including rural areas." This Article does not therefore cover all islands but only those which have least-favoured status. The Commission believes that the eligibility criteria proposed for the new Objectives 1 and 2 will make it possible to assess the extent of the problems with which islands are confronted, bearing in mind that the individual circumstances of different islands can be very diverse.

(1) OJ C 176, 9.6.1998.

(2) COM(97) 2000 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3637/98

by Richard Corbett (PSE) to the Commission

(3 December 1998)

Subject: Number of Commission officials

Could the Commission please indicate the number of Commission officials there are for every million EU citizens and an estimate of the number of national civil servants working for the government of each Member State per million inhabitants of that state?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(13 January 1999)

The total population of the Union is roughly 370 million. If this figure is compared with the number of officials in the Commission's establishment plan, i.e. 19 830 (16 666 on the operating budget and 3 164 on the research budget), a ratio of 53,6 officials to one million inhabitants is obtained.

As far as the ratio for the Member States themselves is concerned, the Commission does not have comparable statistical data on numbers of civil servants and is therefore unable to answer the second part of the question put by the Honourable Member.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3960/98

by Jyrki Otila (PPE) to the Commission

(4 January 1999)

Subject: Decline in public health in Russia

During the 1990s, public health has declined substantially in Russia. Life expectancy has declined by ten years. Life expectancy in Russia is now 10 years shorter than the EU average and corresponds to the average figure for the least developed Asian countries.

This is a consequence of the collapse of the country's political and social system. One cause for concern is the renewed spread of infectious diseases in Russia which it was thought had already been effectively eliminated in Europe. These include tuberculosis and venereal diseases. The development of health care in Russia is one element in the building of a completely new society.

What will the Commission do to improve the sorry state of public health in Russia?

Answer given by Mr van den Broek on behalf of the Commission

(1 February 1999)

In the field of health care, the 1996-1999 Tacis indicative programme(1) for Russia singles out support to the health sector as a priority. Tacis is currently implementing several key projects with the ministry of health in selected regions, aimed at improving management of health care systems (two projects for 7,5 millions euro), and at improving preventive health care policies (4 millions euro). Specific attention is paid to the Republic of Karelia, where one project focuses on reforming the health and social care systems (2,6 millions euro). For 1999, Tacis will implement a project on the reform of the financing of the health care system (2,5 millions euro).

Furthermore, from 1993 to 1997, the Commission has been carrying out humanitarian operations, also addressing medical needs, in favour of the Russian population. Under the 1998 budget, an amount of 1,2 millions euro has been allocated and after the financial crisis of August 1998 and the further deterioration of the public health situation, the Commission renewed efforts to tackle the most urgent needs: a special allocation for Russia of 5,4 millions euro was decided in December 1998 to address problems of tuberculosis (especially in its multi-drug resistant forms) and the provision of emergency assistance to refugees and people displaced within the territory of the New Independent States.

(1) SEC(96) 1510.