ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1659/00

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

(26 May 2000)

Subject: Fisheries agreement with Morocco and Spanish Prime Minister Aznar's visit to Morocco

During Spanish Prime Minister Aznar's visit to Morocco, the Moroccan Prime Minister, Mr Yosoufi, was questioned by the media about the fisheries agreement between the European Union and the Kingdom of Morocco. In Mr Aznar's presence, the Moroccan Prime Minister said that he was awaiting the suggestions announced by Commissioner Fischler regarding a new agreement.

The Moroccan Prime Minister's remarks, coming five months after the expiry of the previous agreement and the resulting tying-up of the fleets in Galicia, Andalucia and the Canary Islands, illustrate the total absence of communication between the EU and Morocco, a problem which was not even raised during the visit by Mr Aznar, despite the fact that he is Head of Government of the EU State most seriously affected by the fleets' inactivity.

This regrettable situation is apparently due to the lack of interest shown by the Union, which admits that, in its relations with Morocco, it is negotiating fisheries issues separately from major economic and social issues, and a similar attitude on the part of the Spanish Prime Minister, who did not include fisheries among the many issues which took him to Morocco, such as political and social issues, tourism, agriculture, industry and telecommunications, especially with regard to the Telefónica company.

Given the above, will the Commission state what stage has been reached in negotiations with Morocco on the new Fisheries Agreement and what has been achieved by Mr Aznar's visit to the country?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(29 June 2000)

The Commission confirms that the possibility of establishing a new framework of fisheries relations between the Community and Morocco, remains the first priority of its action with regard to the common fisheries policy for 2000.

This position was expressed once again to the Moroccan authorities by the responsible Member of the Commission on the occasion of his visit to Rabat on 18 May 2000.

The Moroccan authorities confirmed their will to establish a new partnership with the Community in the fisheries sector, and they expressed their availability to open technical discussions in July 2000.

The Commission confirms the position which it has expressed over recent months in line with the directive for negotiation approved in October 1999 by the Council.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2575/00

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) and Arlindo Cunha (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(1 August 2000)

Subject: Rules governing the application of agro-environmental measures in Portugal

It appears that there are considerable loopholes in the implementation of some agro-environmental measures in Portugal, particularly those relating to the preservation of extensive methods of cultivating cork oak and holm oak and organic farming.

These loopholes exist at three main levels:

- a lack of preparation among the technical teams carrying out checks at regional level;

- the lack of a regulatory framework as regards supervision;

- the lack of prior information for farmers on the technical requirements to be met under the various measures.

As a result of these loopholes, there are frequent disparities as regards the interpretation of the legal and technical requirements for the correct implementation of the various measures and, consequently, farmers benefiting from these measures suffer unjust treatment.

Can the Commissioner responsible for agriculture and rural development provide detailed information on:

1. the legislation relating to the supervision of agro-environmental measures in Portugal;

2. the specific training provided for technical staff in the Portuguese Agriculture Ministry responsible for supervising agro-environmental measures;

3. whether it has recently carried out any inspections in Portugal in this connection?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(27 September 2000)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1998/00

by Didier Rod (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(21 June 2000)

Subject: DG I contracts involving subsidies to Brazilian NGOs

Three years ago the Commission (DG I) signed a number of contracts with Brazilian NGOs operating in the area of the environment. Since those contracts were signed, no further information and no funds have been forwarded to the intended beneficiaries (e.g. Ecotropica, an NGO operating in Mato Grosso State (Contract No BR97/023/B7-E201/04) and WWF Brazil, in Brasilia).

Can the Commission explain the reasons for this delay and give an account of its policy on environmental protection and NGOs in the countries of Latin America? Can it state what action it will take in honouring the above contracts?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(28 July 2000)

The Commission has not signed contracts with Brazilian environmental non-governmental organizations (NGOs) for any of the projects mentioned, or for others in the same package. Thus there is as yet no contractual obligation with the partner NGOs for the implementation of the project proposals.

The proposals in question were accepted in principle for financing. They form part of a package which includes the NGO projects and a technical assistance facility for co-ordination, the latter requiring a formal agreement with the Brazilian government. The unconventional design of the project has led to difficulties on both sides in finalising arrangements. The package will be re-examined in the near future by the Commission with a view to deciding the most appropriate course of action.

The Commission has financed a large number of NGO activities in Latin America dealing with environmental actions, mainly through the tropical forests, environment and NGO co-financing lines. Last year over 22 million of NGO projects in Brazil were funded through the NGO co-financing line alone. The role of civil society in environmental protection and sustainable development is widely recognised in Latin America and in the Commission's policy. Amongst examples of projects funded by the Commission are the COAMA project in the Colombian Amazon (winner of the Right Livelihood award in 1999), and a project with a Brazilian NGO to protect the uncontacted Indians of the Javari area in Brazil.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1571/00

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(23 May 2000)

Subject: Greyhound racing

Given that it is the task of the individual Member States to find a solution to the ill-treatment of greyhounds, the Commission can only call upon responsible authorities to eliminate this ill-treatment (questions E-0826/00 and E-0919/00(1)).

1. What responsible authorities has the Commission called upon to ensure an end to the ill-treatment of greyhounds?

2. When did the Commission call upon them to do this (please provide a chronological list of dates)?

3. In what way did the Commission call upon these authorities to ensure an end to the ill-treatment of greyhounds (verbatim quotes, please)?

4. Will the Commission call upon these authorities once again to ensure an end to the ill-treatment of greyhounds? If not, why not, given that the ill-treatment of greyhounds continues?

(1) OJ C 26 E, 26.1.2001, p. 115.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(17 July 2000)

The Commission indicated clearly in its combined answer to the Honourable Member's Written Question E-0826/00 and Written Question E-0919/00 by Mr Ford(1) that the conditions under which greyhounds are kept and raced within Member States fall outside its competences. The welfare of these animals, except when they are being transported, is therefore a matter regulated solely by the national law of the Member States concerned.

Although the Commission deplores the infliction of unnecessary suffering on animals wherever it occurs it can only take action to alleviate such suffering where it has the necessary legal power.

In consequence, in its answer to the above-mentioned written questions the Commission made a public call for the elimination of the ill treatment of greyhounds which had been described by the Honourable Members concerned. However, the Commission has not taken the matter further with the individual Member States concerned because it currently has no legal basis which could be invoked to secure compliance with its views.

(1) OJ C 26 E, 26.1.2001, p. 115.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2195/00

by María Sornosa Martínez (PSE) to the Commission

(3 July 2000)

Subject: Valencia-Tarragona rail link: failure to comply with Directive 85/337/EEC as regards the Benicàssim-Oropesa section

In a parliamentary question tabled in January (E-0324/00)(1) I reported that, in the case of the new Valencia-Tarragona rail link (85 % of the construction cost of which is being met from the Cohesion Fund), a statutory environmental study had not been carried out in respect of the section between Benicàssim and Oropesa. In her reply of 29 March, Mrs Wallström, Commissioner, took the view that Directive 85/337/EEC(2) was applicable to the project and she announced that steps would be taken to ensure compliance with Community law.

It would appear that, in their response to the Commission enquiries, the Spanish authorities (in the form of the country's Foreign Ministry) maintain that:

- what is involved is a modification to the original project,

- an environmental impact study is not required for the construction work in question since such work is considered to be included in the general town planning scheme for Benicàssim, in respect of which such a study has been carried out.

The fact of the matter is that, on the one hand, the only thing that exists with regard to Benicàssim is a document described as an environmental integration study which does not meet the requirements of Community law and, on the other, the largest section of the track will affect the town of Oropesa, the general town planning scheme for which does not include any environmental impact assessment.

Can the Commission confirm whether or not the reply it has received from the Spanish authorities reflects the situation described above?

If so, what further steps is the Commission intending to take in order to ensure compliance with Directive 85/337/EEC on environmental impact assessment as regards the construction of the Benicàssim-Oropesa rail link?

(1) OJ C 330 E, 21.11.2000, p. 127.

(2) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(7 September 2000)

The Commission has indeed received a reply from the Spanish authorities regarding the project in question.

Considering that reply to be unsatisfactory, it has decided to deliver a reasoned opinion concerning the project.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2741/00

by Theresa Villiers (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(1 September 2000)

Subject: Cost of the changeover to the euro

1. Has the Commission made any estimation of the cost of joining the single currency to the 11 countries which are currently part of the eurozone and the expected costs to Greece when it joins in 2001? Could the Commission provide a breakdown of these figures?

2. Has the Commission make any estimation of the cost of joining the euro to Denmark, Sweden and the United Kingdom, if these countries expressed a wish to join?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(29 September 2000)

In the Commission's view, it is impossible to assess the cost of the changeover to the euro and existing estimates should be taken with a pinch of salt. Most of these estimates fail to take account of the positive effects of the creation of the euro.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1312/00

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(27 April 2000)

Subject: Omnipaque/Iohexol and arachnoiditis

Omnipaque (or Iohexol as it is also called) is a dye that is injected into patients to enable doctors to carry out a myelogram.

This dye is linked with arachnoiditis, a progressive, debilitating and extremely painful disease. The symptoms take a long time to manifest themselves, with the result that many patients do not connect them with the original dye. Indeed, many patients are mistakenly diagnoses as having arthritis.

In 1997/1998 Senator Traficant put a bill before the House of Representatives in the USA to have this dye banned, stating that it had been proven to cause arachnoiditis.

Will the Commission indicate whether it has received details of other cases relating to the after-effects of this dye?

Will the Commission also indicate what investigations, if any, it has carried out into this dye and its after-effects. If the Commission has not as yet carried out any investigation into this dye, does it intend to do so in the near future?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(8 June 2000)

Omnipaque is a medicinal product whose active substance is iohexol. It is an iodised contrast agent used in various radiological examinations. Authorisations to place it on the market have been granted by the national authorities, which are thus also responsible for its follow-up, including pharmacovigilance.

The pharmaceuticals rules relating to pharmacovigilance require any undesirable effects linked to medicinal products to be notified to the competent authorities.

The Commission has no jurisdiction in respect of medicinal products authorised by the national authorities, except in the cases indicated by Council Directive 75/319/EEC of 20 May 1975 on the approximation of provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action relating to proprietary medicinal products(1) in which a referral procedure leads to evaluation and an opinion from the scientific committee of the European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products and a decision by the Commission.

To date, no referrals have been made to the Agency concerning Omnipaque. However, the Agency will be informed of the Honourable Member's question.

(1) OJ L 147, 9.6.1975.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2025/00

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(21 June 2000)

Subject: Budgetary contributions of Member States

Can the Commission indicate the net contributions or receipts of each of the Member States for the last financial year?

Answer given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(24 July 2000)

The latest year for which data on budgetary balances are available is 1998.

The estimates for 1999 will be reported in tandem with the 1999 Report on the Allocation of EU Expenditure, which is currently being prepared. As in any other year, the report will probably be available at the beginning of autumn. This report is a public document and will also be available on the Commission Internet page.

Data on budgetary data related to previous years (in particular 1992-1998) can be found in the 1998 allocated expenditure report entitled Allocation of 1998 EU operating expenditure by Member State. This report is available at the following address:

http://europa.eu.int/comm/budget/pdf/agenda2000/statdepenses98.pdf.

Despite the availability of estimates of budgetary balances by Member State, it is to be noted that there exists no optimal way to measure net contributions. The Commission has also consistently argued against the use of such measures when intended to evaluate the budgetary benefits and costs of Union membership. These issues are extensively discussed in the Commission report on the operation of the own resources system, of October 1998, and in particular in Annex 3. This report is available at the following address:

http://europa.eu.int/comm/budget/fr/agenda2000/a2000rp.htm.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1487/00

by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 May 2000)

Subject: Effect of devolution in the UK on European Structural Funds

Following the recent creation of both the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly, to what extent have these institutional changes in the system of government in the United Kingdom had an effect on the administration and allocation of Structural Funds and the European Social Fund within the United Kingdom?

Is the diversion of responsibility between the various governing bodies clear, and have any delays been encountered which have hindered the effective implementation of the Structural Funds Programme?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(8 June 2000)

Scottish devolution has led to changes in the arrangements for the implementation and administration of structural funds. Upon devolution in Scotland, the Scottish Executive assumed the administrative functions which had previously been exercised by the Scottish Office. The day-to-day management of structural fund programmes at government level has thus continued largely unchanged.

The principal change since devolution has been the establishment of the Scottish Parliament Europe Committee. This has been able to provide increased democratic scrutiny of the preparations for the new programming period at the regional level, in particular in the preparation of the plans under Objectives 1, 2 and 3, as well as the review of local programme management arrangements.

Similarly in Wales, the National Assembly for Wales (previously the Welsh Office), has remained responsible for the administration of structural fund programmes. However, the Wales European Programme Executive (an independent company) has been replaced by the Wales European Funding Office (an agency of the Assembly) to carry out the secretarial functions necessitated by the current programmes.

As in Scotland, the establishment of the National Assembly for Wales has meant that a more active political interest is being taken in the programmes. Accordingly the Economic Development Committee of the Assembly is kept informed of pertinent developments in programme matters.

These arrangements cannot be said to have given rise to delays in effective programme implementation. Scottish and Welsh devolution has had no effect on the global allocation of Community resources to the United Kingdom under the structural funds. With regard to the new Objective 2 programmes for the United Kingdom, for the period 2000-2006, the same financial allocation per capita has been applied across the United Kingdom.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1170/00

by Arlindo Cunha (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(10 April 2000)

Subject: Milk quota in Portugal

1. The amount of milk collected in Portugal has been rising sharply, particularly in 1999. This increase, and the consequent rise in production, affects specific regions, including the Azores Autonomous Region.

2. There is reason to believe that for 1999/2000, the amount of milk collected will exceed the reference quantity for Portugal, with some operators claiming the surplus could be as much as 100 000 tonnes.

3. Strangely enough, the Portuguese Government did not seek to resolve this problem within the Agenda 2000 CAP negotiations, unlike other governments, given that it was already apparent that Portugal had a major problem with its milk quota.

4. On 13 March 2000, the Private Office of the Secretary of State for Agricultural Markets and Food Quality issued a statement on behalf of the government stating that pursuant to Article 299(2) of the TEU the Commission had been asked, within the framework of the special arrangements for ultra peripheral regions, to increase the milk quota for the Azores Autonomous Region to 125 000 tonnes, without prejudice to the current national quota laid down for Portugal.

Has the Portuguese Government approached the appropriate Commission services with a view to negotiating an increase in the Portuguese quota?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(4 May 2000)

Reports of an overrun of the 1999/2000 Portuguese milk quota, due inter alia to increased production in the Azores, have reached the Commission. It is unlikely however that any precise figure will be available before the time set by the rules for Member States to send the Commission 1999/2000 final figures, i.e. 31 August 2000 at the latest.

The Azores are in a special situation, as the only outermost region to produce surpluses far in excess of their internal consumption that are exported to the mainland, where there is a real risk of intervention buying-in using the Community's budget resources. All the other outermost regions are net importers and their total production does not reach one twentieth of the Azores'.

In November 1999 and March 2000 the Portuguese Government sent the Commission documents on adjustment of the Poseima arrangements and application of Article 299(2) (formerly 227) of the EC Treaty but these did not discuss milk quotas. The topic was not raised other than on the occasion of contacts with Members of the European Parliament until in early April the Commission received an official request from Portugal for an increase in the quota for the Azores. This is being examined.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1150/00

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(11 April 2000)

Subject: White Paper on Food Safety and the European Food Authority

The White Paper on Food Safety (COM(1999) 719 final) was published in January 2000. Chapter 4 is concerned with establishing a European Food Authority (EFA). Chapter 5 considers legislation on food safety.

The Commission says the procedure for authorising the marketing of novel foods should be clarified and made more transparent. Exemptions need to be reviewed. The Commission is to adopt an implementing regulation to clarify the procedures of the novel food regulation. It will also present a propoisal to improve that regulation in accordance with the revised regulatory framework of directive 90/220/EEC. The labelling provisions for novel foods also need to be completed and harmonised.

1. In what respect will the authorisation process for novel foods change?

2. Will more products come within the scope of the regulation? If so, which ones?

3. What will be the role of the Food Authority in assessing novel foods?

4. In future will identical ingredients from GMOs appear on the label?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1122/00, E-1127/00, E-1128/00, E-1140/00, E-1141/00, E-1142/00, E-1143/00, E-1144/00, E-1145/00, E-1146/00, E-1147/00, E-1148/00, E-1150/00, E-1151/00, E-1152/00, E-1153/00, E-1155/00, E-1156/00, E-1157/00, E-1158/00, E-1160/00, E-1161/00 and E-1162/00 given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(9 June 2000)

The issues raised by the Honourable Member are being studied with a view to bringing forward proposals for legislation according to the time scale set out in the white paper on food safety.

It would be inappropriate at this stage to anticipate the details of each proposal.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2054/00

by Marielle De Sarnez (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(27 June 2000)

Subject: Teaching of architecture in primary schools

With a view to the development of the European Union's cultural policy, various heritage associations have expressed concern at the lack of interest shown by national authorities and the European institutions in the teaching of architecture in primary schools. Is this subject taught in primary schools in other EU Member States, and what are the Commission's views on the matter?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(25 July 2000)

As provided for in Article 149 (ex-Article 126) of the EC Treaty, the Member States have responsibility for the organisation of their education systems and for the content of the teaching.

However, the Commission has managed to obtain some relevant information from Eurydice the Information Network on Education in Europe. No response was obtained for Belgium or Ireland. As for the other Member States, architecture is not taught in primary schools as a subject in its own right, but it does feature as an element in other subjects such as environmental awareness. More detailed information, given purely as a rough guide, will be sent to the Honourable Member and to the Parliament Secretariat.