ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0178/98 by Mark Watts (PSE) to the Commission (5 February 1998)

Subject: Disposal of sewage and waste water

Is the Commission aware that several barges a day still take sewage from London down the River Thames and discharge it into the Thames estuary within a relatively short distance of the Thanet coast? What legislation exists or is planned to prevent such wholesale disregard of the marine and coastal environment?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (5 March 1998)

The UK authorities have informed the Commission that discharges to surface waters from boats were not of urban sewage but of sludge from sewage treatment plants. Article 14 of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste water treatment ((OJ L 135, 30.5.1991. )) calls on the Member States to ensure that by 31 December 1998 the disposal of sludge to surface waters by dumping from ships, by discharge from pipelines or by other means is phased out.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0304/98 by Maartje van Putten (PSE) to the Commission (17 February 1998)

Subject: Impact of a Community biodiversity strategy on other policy areas

Can the Commission answer the following questions?

1. The Commission recently deliberated internally on the Community biodiversity strategy proposed by DG XI. Can the Commission indicate what impact that strategy would mean for other EU policy areas and, in particular, what its impact would be on the common agricultural policy?

2. Does the Commission feel that a Community biodiversity strategy could contribute to the promotion of forms of agriculture within the EU which are more environmentally friendly? If so, in what way?

3. Does the Commission feel that a Community biodiversity strategy may constitute a framework for the assessment of Agenda 2000?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (24 March 1998)

The Commission adopted on 4 February 1998 a communication to the Council and to the Parliament on a Community biodiversity strategy ((COM(98) 42 final. )). This strategy defines a framework for actions to achieve integration of biodiversity concerns into relevant Community policy areas.

The implementation of the Convention on biological diversity by the Community calls for a two-step process. The adoption of this strategy containing the general policy orientations is the first step. The second is the development and implementation of action plans and other measures for the policy areas concerned.

The strategy defines how biodiversity concerns will be taken into account in the current review of the arrangements for the structural funds, in the common agricultural policy (CAP) reform process announced in Agenda 2000 ((COM(97) 2000 final. )), and in the new framework agreement between the Community and the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries (ACP) beyond the year 2000. The development of these action plans should be completed within the next two years. Progress in the implementation of the strategy and the performance of the action plans and other measures will be monitored and assessed using biodiversity indicators and measurable targets.

In due course the Parliament will have the opportunity to consider the technical details of this proposal, and the specific objectives set out for each policy sector.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0187/98 by Cristiana Muscardini (NI) to the Commission (5 February 1998)

Subject: Tourist offices

Tourism is of great economic importance as regards exploiting architectural attractions in the Community and also for creating jobs, which are needed to try to reduce the endemic unemployment worldwide.

Offices which provide tourist information and publicity therefore have a fundamental role to play.

Unfortunately the maladministration of these offices is the subject of widespread complaints and they have become, especially as far as Italy is concerned, exponents of an out-dated system, characterized by a waste of resources and the favouring of certain clients.

Can the Commission therefore draw up a directive on tourist information offices, regulating their work and laying down the official functions they must carry out in their public role of providing information at national level.

Answer given by Mr Papoutsis on behalf of the Commission (12 March 1998)

The Commission would like to remind the Honourable Member that the very nature of the tasks carried out by local and national tourist offices places them within the field of competence of the Member States, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity set out in Article 3B of the EC Treaty.

Consequently, all questions relating to the services offered by these offices are the sole responsibility of the authorities in question.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0224/98 by Christine Crawley (PSE) to the Commission (13 February 1998)

Subject: The impact of changing work patterns

Would the Commission provide information on the extent to which it is discussing the implications of changing work patterns?

Is it satisfied that coordination within Commission departments on the issues of changing work patterns such as education and training, the effects on social insurance and the ageing of the population, is conducive to a consistent Commission overview of the future of work patterns for our citizens?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (9 March 1998)

With the adoption of the green paper 'Partnership for a New Organisation of Work' ((COM(97) 128 final. )), the Commission initiated a debate on the implications of changing work patterns. The green paper has been widely distributed and a series of conferences and round tables held in Member States bringing together people in labour market organisations and from research, education and training institutes. This wide-ranging European debate will be concluded at a European conference to be held on 28-30 April 1998 in Glasgow, jointly organised by the United Kingdom Presidency and the Commission.

The importance and challenge of co-ordination across the relevant policy areas is fully appreciated by the Commission and the necessary inter-service collaboration has been put in place, to facilitate a coherent overview and approach.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0272/98 by Danielle Darras (PSE) to the Commission (5 February 1998)

Subject: Abolition of sales of duty-free products within the Community as from 1 July 1999

Can the Commission say whether it is thinking of carrying out an impact study as soon as possible to assess the economic and social consequences of abolishing duty-free sales?

As an elected member for Nord-Pas de Calais, I would point out to the Commission that that region is directly affected by the problem, since ferry traffic will be one of the worst-hit areas. The fact is that duty-free sales account for close to 60% of the turnover of some shipping lines (e.g. Sea France).

Furthermore, the Commission will doubtless be aware that about half of trippers who spend one or two days in France do so because their tickets are inexpensive. Abolishing duty-free sales will entail price rises of some 25 to 30% and a fall in traffic, however.

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (9 March 1998)

The decision to abolish intra-Community tax-free sales, taken by the Council in 1991 in the context of the establishment of the single market, allows such sales to continue until 30 June 1999, enabling all the economic sectors concerned to adjust gradually to the new situation over a transitional period of more than seven years.

In the Commission's view, the Council took this decision because tax-free sales constitute an anomaly in the single market. Such sales give rise to distortions of competition in the field of transport and relative to ordinary retail sales. Moreover, they confer an unjustified advantage on regular flyers and ferry passengers, who are subsidised at the taxpayer's expense. Furthermore, since rail transport and other services are being developed further, such anomalies will have an increasingly negative impact on these transport sectors. The Commission does not intend to call the Council's decision into question or to conduct an impact study to assess its economic and social consequences.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0066/98 by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Commission (29 January 1998)

Subject: Leonardo Programme

In the new version of the Leonardo Programme, aid to businesses has been increased and, at the same time, aid to non-governmental organizations has been abolished.

On what grounds was that decision taken?

Answer given by Mrs Cresson on behalf of the Commission (17 February 1998)

The future of the new generation of vocational training programmes of the Community is currently under internal discussion within the Commission. Hence, there can now be no statements about the future policy of support.

Within the frame of the current programme Leonardo da Vinci, the activities in support of enterprises, especially of small and medium size enterprises (SMEs), have had special emphasis. The reason for that is the orientation of the European training policy towards labour market and employment policy issues, which was confirmed by the European Council of Luxemburg in November 1997. The employment European Council and the subsequent employment guidelines of the Community stress the special role of SMEs in creating and stabilising jobs.

There is no policy of reducing or cutting support for non-governmental organisations within the current programme Leonardo da Vinci. Moreover, an aim of European vocational training policy is to initiate or support transnational co-operation and partnership structures between as many actors as possible. The support for non-governmental organisations and co-operation structures also stems from the awareness that these organisations play an important role in the labour market.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0166/98 by James Fitzsimons (UPE) to the Commission (2 February 1998)

Subject: Legislation in EU Member States on bicycles

Will the Commission indicate what safety measures are applied to bicycles in each of the Member States to improve safety for their users and to other road users?

Will the Commission advise if insurance is required for bicycle users in any of the Member States and, if so, will it provide details?

Have any Member States introduced taxes on bicycles?

Can the Commission provide details on the number of bicycles involved in accidents in the Member States and the causes of these accidents?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission (12 March 1998)

In the highway codes of all Member States the cyclist is considered to be a road user on a par with drivers of motor vehicles. All road users are expected to use the road without endangering others.

The following Member States have specific rules for cyclists: Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Spain, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Austria, Finland, Sweden, the United Kingdom.

The following Member States have specific rules for drivers to ensure cyclists' safety: Belgium, Germany, Spain, France, Italy, Austria, Sweden, the United Kingdom.

The Commission is not aware of any Member State requiring insurance for bicycle users.

The Commission is not aware of any Member States taxing the riding of bicycles but of course, VAT is customarily levied on the purchase of bicycles.

The most recent available data is the 'Statistical Report on Road Accidents in 1992'. This was produced by the European Conference of Transport Ministers. It gives the numbers of people killed but not the causes of the accidents.

Because of this and similar deficiencies of useful data, the Commission is developing a comprehensive Europe wide database on accident statistics.

The Commission has published a report on 'Progress with the project and its future prospects - CARE - Community Database on Road Traffic Accidents' ((COM(97) 238 final. )).
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0194/98 by Antoni Gutiérrez Díaz (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (28 January 1998)

Subject: Illegal construction activity with EU funding

In a concession of 19 February 1997, the Spanish Ministry of the Environment made over the use of a publicly-owned coastal site in the Catalan municipality of Llançà, in the area of Alt Empordà, to the Catalan regional government (Generalitat) for the purpose of construction work on the Grifeu promenade. This concession provided for compensation for the compulsory purchase of land and other private rights affected by the project.

The Directorate-General for Ports and Coasts of the Department of Planning Policy and Public Works of the Generalitat proceeded to carry out the construction work on the promenade, without receiving final approval of the plan from the municipality of Llançà and without the existence of the necessary planning project - despite both being necessary prior conditions for the work to take place.

Since then, the Court of First Instance No 8 of Girona (Gerona) has delivered Judgment No 247/97 of 12 December 1997, which states that the action of the Directorate-General for Ports and Coasts of the Department of Planning Policy and Public Works of the Generalitat was carried out in a 'de facto fashion', and therefore rules the occupation of the land illegal and orders the property concerned to be returned to its rightful owners.

The execution of this judgment will entail the demolition of the promenade construction and the associated buildings, which have already cost some Ptas 75 m. Of this sum, 50% was contributed by the Generalitat and 25% by the municipality of Llançà, while 25% came from EU funds - specifically, from the Community's INTERREG initiative.

Is the Community aware of this investment and of the fact that EU funds were used for a project which was carried out illegally and whose end-products will now have to be demolished following the court decision?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (26 February 1998)

The Commission will not fail to obtain information from the Spanish authorities on the outcome and consequences of the state of affairs referred to by the Honourable Member. Subject to verification, it suspects that, if this is the Interreg IIA programme, the project in question could be Project No 48 (road and beach access development stage 2 - Llança in Catalonia), which received 50% Community part-financing, i.e. a contribution of ECU 150 000.

If it receives official confirmation that the court decision is final and irreversible, the Commission will take all appropriate measures under the circumstances.

In particular, it will be forced to withdraw its part-financing owing to the failure of the project to materialise and, at the next monitoring committee meeting, propose a reallocation of the funds originally committed.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0517/98 by Paul Rübig (PPE) to the Commission (2 March 1998)

Subject: 8th European Development Fund

Under the Lomé IV Convention the eighth European Development Fund was to have been launched at the end of 1997. It is to be used for financial and technical cooperation in removing structural imbalances in the countries benefiting from the Lomé Convention. The emphasis has been placed on poverty alleviation, training and industrialization, but also on health, the improvement of competitiveness and agriculture. For the first time Austria was also to participate in this programme.

However, it proved impossible to launch the eighth European Development Fund on the appointed date, and its launch continues to be delayed because not all the Member States on the European Council have ratified the plan.

Can the Commission describe the substantive reasons for this delay?

When, in the Commission's view, is the plan likely to be finally ratified?

Answer given by Mr Pinheiro on behalf of the Commission (27 March 1998)

The Commission shares the Honourable Member's concerns over the delay in the start of the 8th EDF, which is the Community's main source of aid funding for the ACP countries for the period 1995-2000.

The launch of the 8th EDF requires ratification by at least two thirds of the ACP states (i.e. 47 countries) and all the Community Member States of the agreement signed in Mauritius on 4 November 1995 to review and supplement the fourth Lomé Convention half way through its lifetime.

From the information in the Commission's possession on 1 March, 56 ACP countries and 13 Member States had ratified the agreement.

The Commission does recognise that purely domestic factors are to blame for the delays in some Member States, but has nevertheless attempted to point out at every stage of their constitutional ratification procedures what the consequences of such delays will be. Although it cannot at this point say exactly when ratification will be completed, it has every expectation that its approaches to the Member States, which are in some cases already paying off, will shortly help to ease the log-jam referred to by the Honourable Member.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0400/98 by Dominique Souchet (I-EDN) to the Commission (24 February 1998)

Subject: Community aid for the supply of the most remote regions: livestock farming

There has been a sharp decrease in Community aid for the supply of cereals to the most remote regions over the last two years. This has led to a significant increase in the cost of animal feed and placed the whole livestock production chain in a very precarious situation.

Would the Commission explain how it is possible, under one and the same POSEIDOM programme, to encourage and provide financial support for the expansion and development of the livestock production system while simultaneously increasing production costs by reducing the subsidies for cereals intended for processing into animal feed?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0288/98, E-0289/98, E-0324/98 and E-0400/98 given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission (17 March 1998)

The Honourable Members are requested to refer to the Commission's answer to written question P-327/98 from Mr Souchet ((See page 78. )).
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0760/98 by Peter Truscott (PSE) to the Commission (5 March 1998)

Subject: CAP funding

Would the Commission please explain the redress available to a farmer from my Hertfordshire constituency, who inadvertently made a mistake in completing his IACS forms? As a result, according to MAFF, he will now receive no payment for the area in question and still faces a 20% penalty on those areas correctly filled out, under EEC rules. Is there no leeway in EEC rules in cases of genuine errors, which can lead to underpayment?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (23 March 1998)

Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3887/92 of 23 December 1992 laying down detailed rules for applying the integrated administration and control system for certain Community aid schemes ((OJ L 391, 31.12.1992. )) provides for sanctions in cases where farmers over-declare the area of land for the purpose of obtaining a subsidy or where certain other rules have not been respected.

Notwithstanding, this, the Commission has accepted the need for flexibility in some cases. Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3887/92 as well as the working document VI/646/96 (a copy is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat) provides for Member States to allow claims of area aid to be adjusted without sanctions in cases of genuine errors which have to be recognised as such by the Member State. As the responsibility lies with the Member State, the Commission is unable to take position on a particular case.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0397/98 by Nikitas Kaklamanis (UPE) to the Commission (24 February 1998)

Subject: Laundering of Illegal Funds in Northern Cyprus

Northern Cypress which is occupied by Turkey has become a financial centre for international crime. Reports have appeared in the European press to the effect that the occupied territory of Cyprus has become a paradise for illegal trafficking in drugs, chemical wastes, weapons and illegal immigrants. In the last 1/2 years alone 18 new casinos have been opened in Northern Cyprus. Over the last three or four years 36 offshore banks and 29 bank agencies have been established there. These establishments were used to launder funds from illegal trafficking from heroin, weapons, chemical wastes and illegal immigrants towards Europe.

What action does the Commission intend to take on the information which has recently come to light with a view to remedying this situation which is in fact under the control of a country, Turkey, associated with the EU under a customs agreement?

Answer given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission (6 April 1998)

The Commission does not have specific information on the alleged illicit activities to which the Honourable Member refers.

The Commission recalls its support for progress towards a just and viable solution to the Cyprus problem and towards Community accession and trusts that this will help create conditions in which such issues can be addressed effectively.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0740/98 by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (18 March 1998)

Subject: Flooding on the island of Lesbos

In view of the widespread destruction caused by the recent heavy rainfall on Lesbos (January 1998), will the Commission say how many - and which - drainage and flood prevention schemes it has funded on the island since Greece's accession to the European Union, how much funding has been provided, how many of these schemes have been completed so far and how much work remains to be done on those that are still uncompleted?

Will the Commission also say whether it intends to provide financial assistance if the relevant Greek authorities submit applications for structural aid so as to meet the cost of urgently-needed infrastructure investments, principally flood prevention schemes, but also sewage networks in various villages on Lesbos?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0491/98 and E-0740/98 given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission (27 March 1998)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Members to the answer to written question E-440/98 by Mr Alavanos ((See page 105. )).