ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0347/01

by Samuli Pohjamo (ELDR) to the Commission

(6 February 2001)

Subject: Delays in making exploratory award payments under the Craft programme for SMEs pursuant to the Fifth framework programme

Numerous delays have occurred in making exploratory award payments under the Craft programme for small SMEs, which forms part of the Commission's Fifth framwork programme. Procedures should be simplified, as more businesses would then be interested in applying for funding, and more and better applications would be received.

In my view, the appraisal results should be communicated direct to the coordinator when the appraisal has been completed. At present, results are notified 13 weeks after the date of application, although as a rule the appraisal is performed immediately after the application has been completed.

Payment documents relating to exploratory award payments should be simplified. At present a payment request form and a short report on activities are required. The latter document is pointless, as the Commission and the coordinator have concluded an exploratory award contract,

in which the coordinator undertakes to make the application in accordance with the contract. SMEs could be saved trouble and the Commission could be spared the need to receive and consider tens of thousands of pages of documents each year. The time taken to process payments could be reduced from the current 60 days to 30.

Applicants should be given a single fax number or e-mail address to which all inquiries about Craft matters could be sent, and these should be answered within seven days. The rules governing SME Specific Measures Cooperative Research (CRAFT) should be simplified and updated.

How will the Commission improve the above situation?

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(16 March 2001)

The Commission has already implemented steps to improve the situation with regard to several of the issues raised by the Honourable Member, and is actively pursuing further improvements.

Concerning the time delays in notifying proposers of the evaluation results, a Quick Information procedure was introduced in May 2000, by which proposers are informed of the results as soon as 6-8 weeks after the cut-off date.

To accommodate small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs') contacts with the Commission's research programmes, a Single Entry Point has been established. Its central help-desk is handling all requests, either directly or by sign-posting callers to the most appropriate services for the particular issue. This help-desk has a policy of responding within 24 hours.

With regard to the contractual deliverables of Exploratory Awards, an activity report is indeed needed to confirm that the contractual work has been executed or, if applicable, to explain any deviations from it. Nevertheless all efforts are made to minimise any additional work this may cause for the SMEs.

Further simplifications of SME-specific project types have a high priority in the preparation of new and improved measures for the upcoming Sixth research and technological development framwork programme.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0170/01

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(1 February 2001)

Subject: Establishment of city twinning network

Municipalities in Greece, Cyprus, France and regions in other countries linked through the City Twinning Programme have set up a common network of twinned cities and regions in the Mediterranean in a bid to develop cooperation under optimal conditions. Their purpose in setting up this network is, on the one hand, to pursue joint actions and cooperation with other local authorities at various levels in Mediterranean countries, with scientific centres and institutes, with the EU institutions and international organisations and, on the other, to explore the cultural identity of the Mediterranean peoples.

In view of the fact that the policies of the EU seek to promote decentralised cooperation between the Member States:

1. Do the EU institutions recognise the legal basis of a network of twinned cities in the Mediterranean? What preconditions and terms must it meet?

2. What scope exists for participation of the network in various EU programmes (City Twinning Programme, MEDA, Euromed Heritage, etc.)?

Answer given by Ms Reding on behalf of the Commission

(27 March 2001)

The Commission recognises the existence of networks of twinned cities and particularly welcomes the fact that they have been set up, because the objective of this type of measure, which is to bring European citizens closer together and to promote mutual understanding between them, is achieved far more effectively through multilateral cooperation between local authorities.

However, in order for the measures of these networks to be eligible for financial support from the Commission, all the municipalities that take part must be twinned with each other and the application for financial support must be submitted as laid down in the corresponding call for proposals.

The cities may, in principle, take part in other Community programmes, subject to the conditions governing each of the programmes concerned and provided that this does not lead to double funding of the subsidised activity.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0086/01

by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(29 January 2001)

Subject: Accidental death of twelve immigrants from Equatorial Guinea in the Murcia region of Spain

On 3 January 2001, in the Murcia region of the Spanish state, twelve immigrants from Equatorial Guinea were run over by a train at a level crossing as they were being transported to their workplace in an overcrowded bus. These twelve people were employed on a farm illegally, without decent housing, regular pay or welfare benefits, and were deprived of their legitimate civic and trade union rights. These tragic deaths serve to remind us that the Mediterranean region of Spain is now home to some 20 000 Latin American immigrants employed as agricultural workers, who do not have legal resident status under the Law on Foreigners adopted by the Spanish government in implementation of the EU rules, if the Spanish government's statements are to be accepted. Is there any basis in EU law that allows the Spanish government to maintain immigrants from Equatorial Guinea and other countries in working and housing conditions of this nature and to deprive them of their civic rights?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(22 March 2001)

The Commission has learnt with regret about the accidental death of twelve illegal residents, who were run over by a train at a level crossing as they were being transported to their workplace in an overcrowded bus. As with other sad incidents of this nature, this accident shows that persons who are employed illegally do not always share the same treatment as legal workers. It is therefore crucial to develop policies at Union level to deal with issues of illegal immigration and illegal employment. The Union has the competence to do so according to Article 63(3)(b) (ex Article 73K) of the EC Treaty.

For the time being no binding rules have been adopted. The Commission intends to present a communication on a common fight against illegal immigration in the near future.

The Commission adopted a communication on illegal work in 1998. This communication aimed to initiate a debate in the Member States and among the social partners on the most appropriate strategy to fight illegal work. A study to examine what Member States have done in response to this communication has recently been completed.

Moreover in the recent Commission's Communication on a Community Immigration Policy(1) it is pointed out that there is a need for immigration in certain sectors of the economy and that immigration might contribute coping with demographic decline. New admission policies could therefore also have an positive effect on the reduction of the number of illegal migrants.

(1) COM(2000) 757 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1589/01

by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission

(1 June 2001)

Subject: Causes of the increased incidence of tumours

The annual Tumour Register meeting held in Alghero (in the province of Sassari) revealed an increase of approximately 0,5 % in the incidence of

tumours worldwide. This increase is cause for concern and raises questions about the possible causes. It suggests the hypothesis that leukaemia and lymphomas may be linked to various forms of pollution, possibly including electromagnetic pollution.

In the light of this, can the Commission say:

1. whether it already knows about this;

2. whether any studies and research are being carried out in Europe to ascertain the increase and the possible links with electromagnetic pollution, in order to prevent the situation from deteriorating further and, if so, whether it can communicate the results?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(3 September 2001)

The Honourable Member expresses concern about the slight increase of the global cancer incidence reported on the instance of an annual meeting of a regional Tumor Registry in Alghero, Italy. These figures most likely derive from the World health organisation (WHO)/IARC Globocan/Cancer in five Continents database, of which the European figures are provided for by the European Network of Cancer Registries (ENCR) with the support of the Europe against Cancer Programme.

The Commission's support to the ENCR, to the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC), and to a multitude of research institutions funded under the Research Programmes, aims at narrowing down the causes of cancer to finally prevent cancer, or to improve survival and the quality of life of cancer stricken Europeans through an improvement of early diagnosis and treatment.

In addition, numerous scientific studies into the health effects of electromagnetic fields are under way as part of the Fifth framework programme for research and technological development (Quality of Life Programme, Key Action 4: Environment and Health), which is funding 5 projects for a total of approximately 9 million. These projects, essentially looking into carcinogenic risks potentially associated with radiofrequencies, were launched at the start of 2000 and will bear fruit over the next 4 years. To augment these studies, other calls for proposals published within the same framework will explore possible biological health effects such as headaches or disturbed sleep patterns.

In parallel, the Commission has recently asked its Scientific Committee on Toxicity, Ecotoxicity and the Environment to deliver an update of its previous opinion published in June 1998 on health risks associated with electromagnetic fields regarding new technological developments and conditions of exposure. This will be published during the autumn of 2001 and used, if necessary, to elaborate new Community legislative proposals in the field.

The Commission will react to any new scientific evidence regarding health risks not already taken into consideration.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1588/01

by Adeline Hazan (PSE) to the Commission

(1 June 2001)

Subject: Right to family reunification

On 28 and 29 May 2001, the forthcoming Council of Ministers of Justice and Home Affairs will debate the proposals for a European Union directive on the right to family reunification.

This text is crucial for the achievement of a normal family life, as laid down in Article 8(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights which stipulates that: Everyone has the right to respect for his [private and] family life.

There are serious concerns at present about the fate of this proposal since, although it marks the first material and courageous step forward along the road towards the communitarisation of the third pillar, some Member States want to backtrack and make substantial changes to it by:

- extending to more than one year the waiting period before the end of which third-country nationals may not apply for family reunification;

- limiting strictly the number of family members eligible for family reunification, excluding relatives in the ascending line, unmarried couples and dependent children who have reached the age of majority;

- not granting family members the right to work immediately upon arrival in the host Member State;

- allowing Member States to withdraw residence permits for reunified families if, in the two years following reunification, the required conditions are no longer met.

The Commission's draft directive, as amended by the European Parliament, is a significant text which must receive firm and uncompromising backing from the Community institutions.

What strategy does the European Commission intend to adopt in the light of this incomprehensible hue and cry? What is its unequivocal and precise position on this issue?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(19 July 2001)

The wide differences of opinion still remaining between the Member States prevented them from reaching an agreement on the proposal for a directive on family reunification at the Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) Council on 28 and 29 May 2001. The Ministers concluded that negotiations should continue in working parties under the Belgian Presidency.

It is true that the proposals given as examples by the Honourable Member were presented during the negotiations. However, none of them was supported by all the Member States.

During the negotiations the Commission defended its proposal as amended by Parliament's opinion, without standing in the way of an acceptable compromise. It will also ensure within the limits of its powers that the final text will have a real legal and political bearing. It has maintained repeatedly that once persons are admitted they should be automatically integrated into the host country. Family reunification is a powerful tool for persons already resident in a Member State, and persons admitted for that purpose should be guaranteed adequate rights.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1206/01

by Francesco Turchi (UEN) to the Commission

(19 April 2001)

Subject: Models of privatisation and the case of Alenia Marconi Systems

The issue of privatisation has drawn attention to the serious shortcomings of the State, and has ended up dismantling its areas of influence, leaving the responsibility for seeking and maintaining employment to a market economy indebted to the interests of shareholders.

In the case of public-sector undertakings such as Finmeccanica, improvised privatisations and cooperation agreements have in practice violated the procedures laid down and regulated by government, as in the specific case of Alenia Marconi Systems.

Can the Commission confirm whether the agreements promoted by Alenia Marconi Systems in a key sector such as defence comply with the procedures laid down by Segretarmi, the body reporting directly to the Minster of Defence and the President of the Council, bearing in mind also the fact that the predominant British shareholding could have undermined the security features that the production of military hardware entails?

Can it also confirm whether the change of company status of Alenia Marconi Systems, which involved a foreign shareholding of 50 %, came about with the proper authorisations required and regularly granted by the four ministries responsible, those for industry, defence, foreign affairs and home affairs?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(14 June 2001)

The Commission takes the view that it has no jurisdiction in this matter.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0770/01

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(13 March 2001)

Subject: The Commission's criticism of the Irish government's fiscal policy

Does the Commission accept the view of the European Central Bank that inflation is essentially a monetary phenomenon, and, if so, does it accept that the current level of inflation and overheating of the economy in Ireland is due not to the Irish government's fiscal policy (accepting that fiscal policy can alter the balance between the private and public sectors and, therefore, the efficiency in the allocation of resources and the future productive capacity of the economy) but to the inappropriateness of the one-size-fits-all interest rate within the eurozone area which would pose significant problems for the U.K. were it to join the euro?

Could the Commission also explain why it chose to criticise Ireland, which, by common consent, has one of the most successful economies in the eurozone, and not France which has very high levels of public expenditure or Spain, which has a higher rate of inflation than Ireland?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(16 May 2001)

The Commission believes that fiscal policy can contribute positively or negatively to economic stability, including price stability. Moreover, the lack of a national monetary policy in monetary union implies that economic policy tools that remain under the independent authority of national governments, such as fiscal policy, must be used more actively to achieve macro-economic stabilisation.

The spectacular growth rates of the Irish economy have recently led to overheating, with a positive output gap, a tightening labour market and high inflation. In the Broad Economic Policy Guidelines (BEPGs) for 2000, the Irish authorities committed themselves to gearing budgetary policy to the objective of economic stability, which, given the extent of overheating, should be interpreted as the need for a neutral, or preferably, tighter fiscal stance.

The stability/convergence programmes and the implementation of budgetary plans in all EU member states are examined closely by the Commission and the Council, which may decide to issue and publish recommendations whenever it deems there is inconsistency with the adopted BEPGs.

In the Commission's and Council's view, Irish budget plans for 2001, announced in December 2000, are stimulatory and pro-cyclical and therefore inconsistent with the BEPGs. The Council therefore issued, for the first time, a recommendation to end the inconsistency with the BEPGs.

The situations of the French and Spanish economies are different and policy is not construed as having contradicted the BEPGs. The French economy has one of the lowest inflation rates in the euro zone. Moreover, French fiscal policy cannot be considered as pro-cyclical. Spain is indeed currently experiencing a high rate of inflation, but fiscal policy has been and continues to be restrictive and also therefore is not pro-cyclical.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0619/01

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(2 March 2001)

Subject: Democratic control of European commercial policy

There is in effect no democratic control of the EU's commercial policy. The real power and decision-making centre is located in the fifteen national civil servants of the 133 committee. This committee is named after Article 133 of the EC treaty and was set up by the Coumcil to support the Commission.

Commissioner Lamy has proposed a substantial increase in Parliament's say in terms of commercial policy (P-3674/00)(1). He is aware that referring to the role played in the Council by the governments which are accountable to their own national parliaments is no remedy for the lack of democratic control.

This is why Mr Lamy has called for parliamentary control at European level. This would increase not only the duty of responsibility with regard to commercial policy but also the effectiveness of that policy, because the trading partners would then realise that the Commission has full support in its negotiations from the democratically elected representatives of the European people.

Does the Council subscribe to the Commission's view that parliamentary control at European level would not only increase the duty of responsibility with regard to commercial policy but also the effectiveness of that policy, because the trading partners would then realise that the Commission has full support in its negotiations from the democratically elected representatives of the European people?

- If so, what action will the Council take to ensure full parliamentary control of European commercial policy?

- If not, what is the Council's reason for not seeking full parliamentary control at European level despite the Commission's arguments?

(1) OJ C 163 E, 6.6.2001, p. 190.

Reply

(30 May 2001)

The Council would refer the Honourable Member to the reply it gave to his Written Questions E-4034/00, E-4036/00 and E-4037/00.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1278/01

by António Seguro (PSE) to the Commission

(2 May 2001)

Subject: Prepayment at filling stations

Prepayment facilities are increasingly available at petrol pumps. Will the Commission state whether it is legal for prepayment to be the only possible form of payment at filling stations?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(15 June 2001)

The matter in question does not come within its jurisdiction of the Commission.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1034/01

by Esko Seppänen (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(3 April 2001)

Subject: Common security and defence policy

The structures of the EU's new security and defence policy (ESDP) are very complicated and the decision-making process is unclear. It appears that the Member States are delegating political leadership to their own special representative at the Council's secretariat. Has it been decided what will be the Commission's role in the preparation of the ESDP, and how will decisions be made about the deployment of rapid reaction troops when the time comes?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(11 May 2001)

The Commission is fully involved in the common foreign and security policy (CFSP), of which the security and defence policy (ESDP) forms part, and it takes part in the deliberations in the context of the second pillar of the Union, notably in the Political and Security Committee.

The Commission is very active in the prevention and management of civil crises but is not directly involved in the development of military structures and capacities.

The arrangements for the deployment of rapid reaction troops are the responsibility of the Council so the Commission feels that this question should be put direct to the Council.