ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1404/97 by Jean-Claude Pasty (UPE) to the Commission (22 April 1997)

Subject: Renault affair (European Union aid for a factory in Spain)

On 3 March 1997 Agence France Presse reported on the following comments attributed to Mr Karel van Miert:

I have informed my European Commission colleagues that I shall block this item until Renault behaves differently from how it is behaving now (in Vilvorde)... It is evident on this occasion that public-sector aid is to be used to assist with the transfer of a profitable undertaking to a different location in the European Union. It is absurd for a profitable factory like the one in Vilvorde (in Flemish-speaking suburban Brussels) to be closed down and public money used to support additional investment in Spain to improve the quality of cars when the quality of cars manufactured in Vilvorde is excellent.

1. Does the Commission not consider that in this particular instance the Belgian Member of the European Commission has, by openly taking sides with a Belgian factory against a Spanish one belonging to the same industrial grouping, failed in the duty of impartiality and objectivity to which he is bound by the Treaty?

2. On what objective criteria does the Commission Member base his position, tantamount as it is to supplanting the head of the undertaking, in asserting that one factory or another is profitable?

Answer given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission (12 June 1997)

As the Commission has had the occasion to recall in reply to written and oral questions by Members of Parliament (the Honorable Member is referred in particular to the answer by Mr Rey to Oral Question No 10/68 by Mr Habib-Deloncle, and Commission answers to Written Questions No 44/83 by Mr Gendebien and No 1682/85 by Mr Vandemeulebroucke) the Members of the Commission are politicians carrying out a political function, who, while honouring the obligations imposed by this function, remain free to express their personal opinions quite indepedently and on their own responsibility.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1376/97 by Giacomo Santini (UPE) to the Commission (21 April 1997)

Subject: The Province of Bolzano's Agricultural Research Centre

The Autonomous Province of Bolzano's Agricultural and Forestry Research Centre is located in the Leimburg area to the south of Bolzano in the South Tyrol (Italy).

The centre, which receives State funding, produces large quantities of fruit, only a small proportion of which is used for research and technical assistance purposes.

The actual figures are: 40 000 quintals of apples; 2 000 quintals of wine grapes; 1 000 quintals of kiwis; 300 quintals of pears; and smaller quantities of peaches, blackberries, redcurrants and chestnuts.

Most of the fruit produced is placed on the market and enjoys an unfair advantage over the fruit of private producers, who are obliged to bear their own costs, while the centre receives large public subsidies to cover its expenses.

Would the appropriate Commission department check whether the above practices are in breach of the Community competition rules and the directives governing the agricultural market?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (12 May 1997)

The Commission has noted the information provided by the Honourable Member. It will ask the Italian government to provide it with all the necessary information so that it can check whether the payments to the agricultural research centre referred to in the question constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 92(1) of the EC Treaty and, if they do, whether they are compatible with the common market within the meaning of the same Article.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1171/97 by Jaime Valdivielso de Cué (PPE) to the Council (2 April 1997)

Subject: Regulating the COM in potatoes

In response to numerous requests for a regulation of the COM in potatoes from agricultural cooperators and spokesmen for the sector, Commissioner Fischler himself has said that there is a need for a regulation to stabilize the market and guarantee minimum incomes for European potato growers.

The Commission submitted a proposal for a regulation (COM in potatoes) over five years ago, which Council has not yet approved; last November, it was one of the items to be dealt with on the Council's agenda, and was withdrawn because insufficient support was forthcoming. What measures has Council taken with a view to adopting, with all possible dispatch, a regulation (COM) on potato-growing?

Are contacts being made with the representatives of the Member States in order to ensure that this item is included on the Council's agenda? Does a study of any kind exist assessing farmers' losses as a result of the lack of a COM? Does Council intend to issue any instructions to the Commission with a view to information campaigns to make farmers aware of strategies with regard to diversifying production, etc.?

How does Council view the calls made on 4 February 1997 by the 'Coordination Paysanne Européenne' for a common organization of the market to guarantee that the market is properly supplied and producers enjoy decent levels of income, so that this crop can continue to be grown in areas where it is traditional, and production can be reduced where it is more intensive by cutting down on the use of pesticides and fertilizers?

Answer (14 July 1997)

As the Honourable Member has pointed out, a proposal for a Council Regulation on the common organization of the market in potatoes was presented to the Council by the Commission on 25 November 1992. It was placed on the Council's agenda and has been discussed a number of times in four years, most recently on 18 November 1996. At that meeting a fresh compromise suggestion was put forward by the Irish Presidency. The Council was, however, unable to reach agreement.

The proposal for a Regulation in the sector is, nevertheless, still on the table for the Council, and the Commission has said that it is willing to collaborate with the Presidency in drawing up a fresh compromise effort after studying the technical aspects of the matter.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2025/97 by Anne McIntosh (PPE) to the Commission (11 June 1997)

Subject: Unemployment in the European Union's service sector industry

Would the European Commission not agree that, at present, the European Social Fund (ESF) is only helping deprived manufacturing sector areas, and that there is also a growing need to include assistance to those losing their jobs in the service sector industries?

Currently the ESF is administered under Objective 3 for young people entering the job market for the first time, those facing exclusion from the labour market and women returners to work. Could we not also help those who have lost their jobs and whose jobs may be at risk in the service sector industries?

Would the Commission therefore consider extending ESF programmes to the service sector, so that support can be targeted specifically at port-related activities and tourism sector unemployment?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (3 July 1997)

The position is that European social fund (ESF) support is available to all sectors.

Objective 3 interventions concern, as a first priority, the unemployed and in particular those exposed to long-term unemployment (Article 1 of European social fund Regulation (EEC) No 2084/93 ((OJ L 193, 31.7.1993. ))). Objective 3 operations promote equality of opportunity and support the occupational integration of the unemployed, of young people, and of those exposed to exclusion from the labour market in all sectors of activity, i.e. in the services sector as well as in manufacturing. Objective 3 interventions cover those in search of a first job as well as those who have lost their jobs.

Objective 4 is aimed at workers in employment, particularly those threatened with unemployment. The European social fund Regulation specifies that objective 4 covers 'the economy as a whole, without a priori reference to specific industries or sectors'. Moreover, 'objective 4 addresses the underlying causes of problems relating to industrial adaptation, including services'.

Of course, the ESF also contributes to the attainment of objectives 1, 2, 5b and 6 of the structural funds through the operational programmes put in place under these objectives.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1953/97 by Brendan Donnelly (PPE) to the Commission (4 June 1997)

Subject: Re-use of recycled radioactive metals in food containers

What safeguards and controls does the Commission operate to ensure that recycled radioactive metals used in the manufacture of containers for food and drink are completely safe for the consumer?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (1 July 1997)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its joint answer to Written Questions P-1650/97 and P-1654/97 by Mrs Jensen and other ((OJ C 373, 9.12.1997, p. 52. )).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1268/97 by Alessandro Danesin (UPE) to the Commission (11 April 1997)

Subject: Cancellation of the contribution for the 1996 Cartoons on the Bay festival

Those responsible for the Media Programme (DG X) have cancelled the contribution for the 1996 edition of the Cartoons on the Bay festival promised to SACIS at the end of last year and confirmed by the head of the Media Programme, Jacques Delmoly, when the application for the contribution to the 1997 edition was submitted last January.

Cartoons on the Bay has been an event of great international importance since the first edition was held, it is one of the most significant events of its kind and is therefore a credit to Europe. The festival is an important market initiative in the sector of animated films, in that it actively and positively supports the projects of independent European producers and distributors. It is precisely for this reason that it has had a high profile in the press and on television.

The cancellation of the contribution has caused problems for the overall budget for the festival since, on the basis of the assurances given, SACIS had arranged for the Media-Desk Italia to be set up, for the festival to be 'Europeanized' and for marketing initiatives to be organized for European independent producers and distributors. For all these reasons the decision to cancel the contribution is incomprehensible. It is particularly inconvenient that the decision should have taken effect only now, nearly a year after the contribution was granted and just before the latest edition of the festival is to be held. Furthermore, the decision was announced in a brief letter only six lines long.

This action on the part of DG X is having a detrimental effect on the sector, creating a precedent which jeopardizes its relations with the Directorate-General.

Can the Commission therefore state the reasons for this decision, which at present seems incomprehensible?

Answer given by Mr Oreja on behalf of the Commission (16 May 1997)

The difficulties facing SACIS outlined by the Honourable Member relating to the 1996 edition of 'Cartoons on the Bay' arose from a misunderstanding about the eligibility of certain expenditure for support from the Media programme. The misunderstanding between SACIS and the Commission has since been cleared up.

For seven years the Media programme had given priority to the animated films sector and will continue to allocate considerable funds in order to ensure the development and wider circulation of European animated cartoons. An important part of this strategy is based on the financial support which the Commission gives to events which encourage the promotion of these productions and gives them greater access to the market.

The Commission shares the Honourable Member's keen interest in the 'Cartoons on the Bay' festival. In addition to the financial support given for the organization of the event this year, a Commission representative was present at Amalfi, where he presented a prize for the best European cartoon film, 'The Sun is a Yellow Giraffe' by Antonia Ringbom of Finland.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1256/97 by Cristiana Muscardini (NI) to the Commission (11 April 1997)

Subject: Inadequate safeguards in the nuclear industry

When subjected to careful scrutiny, the radiological protection afforded to external and auxiliary staff in the nuclear industry prompts considerable bewilderment. Medical certificates change hands every three years and are forwarded late, thus preventing a doctor administering treatment from ascertaining the exact quantity of radiation to which an employee has been exposed.

Will the Commission issue:

1. a Directive to protect the health of persons working at nuclear installations by prohibiting government authorities from delegating responsibilities for radiation protection to service companies;

2. a Directive whereby the various types of firms authorized to carry out maintenance work in the nuclear industry would have to be entered in special registers?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1243/97 and E-1256/97 given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (16 May 1997)

The fundamental principles governing the operational protection of workers occupationally exposed to ionising radiation are given in Council Directive 96/29/Euratom of 13 March 1996 laying down the basic safety standards in radiological protection of workers and the general public ((OJ L 159, 29. 6. 1996. )).This Directive has to be brought into force before 13 May 2000 and replaces, inter alia, the 80/836/Euratom ((OJ L 246, 17. 9. 1980. )) basic safety standards Directive which still forms the legal basis for the national radiation protection legislation currently in force.

In recognition of the particular situation of occupationally exposed workers not permanently employed by the operator of a nuclear facility, the Council adopted Directive 90/641/Euratom ((OJ L 349, 13.12.1990. )) on the operational radiation protection of outside workers during their activities in controlled areas. The Directive is based on the need to define clearly the obligations of outside undertakings and operators with respect to the specific working conditions of outside workers, without prejudice to the contribution they themselves have to make to their own protection.

Both the basic safety standards Directive and the complementary Directive on outside workers oblige the Member States to establish adequate radiological monitoring systems including individual medical and dose records.

The Commission has taken many initiatives and will continue to make all possible efforts in supporting and assisting the Member States in the practical implementation of the respective requirements in order to assure best radiation protection for all occupational exposed workers to ionizing radiation.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1284/97 by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Council (10 April 1997)

Subject: Chlorine content of water in swimming pools

1. How does the Council assess the health risk posed by trihalogenmethane - (THM) - levels in swimming pools?

2. When does it intend to introduce common limit values at EU level for the chlorine content of swimming pools, and how high will these limit values be set?

3. How does it intend to combat the health risk facing the staff of swimming pools due to chloroform pollution at the surface of water in swimming pools?

4. How does it view the use of anti-mould products based on chlorine to remove mould from walls?

Answer (14 July 1997)

The Council is aware of the risk to human health which can be posed by the trihalogenmethane (THM) and chlorine content of swimming pools as well as by the use of anti-mould products based on chlorine to remove mould from the walls of swimming pools.

The Council has not, however, at this stage been informed of any Commission proposal to introduce Community limit values for these substances for the purpose indicated by the Honourable Member.

The Council would nevertheless draw attention to the fact that:

- the substances to be used in disinfection products will in future, once the Directive concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market ((Common position of the Council of 20 December 1996.(OJ C 69, 5.3.1997, p. 13).)) has been adopted, have to be included in a positive Annex to that Directive following assessment of the risks they may pose in particular to human health, and

- the proposed amendment to the Directive concerning the quality of water intended for human consumption ((OJ C 131, 30.5.1995, p. 5.)) includes the new parameters bromodichloromethane and chloroform because of their carcinogenic properties and makes them subject to binding parametric values.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1385/97 by Mark Watts (PSE) to the Commission (22 April 1997)

Subject: Disabled access and TENs funding

Has the Commission given consideration to making future TENs funding conditional on full access for people with disabilities?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission (10 June 1997)

The Parliament and the Council adopted Community guidelines for the development of the trans-European transport network (TEN) on 23 July 1996 (Decision 1692/96/EC) ((OJ L 228, 9.9.1996. )). According to these guidelines the aim of the network is to ensure sustainable mobility of people and goods within an area without internal frontiers under best possible social and safety conditions and to offer users high-quality infrastructure on acceptable economic terms. This objective applies also to people with disabilities.

As regards the co-financing of TEN transport projects of common interest under Council Regulation (EC) 2236/95 laying down general rules for the granting of Community financial aid in the field of trans-European networks ((OJ L 228, 23.9.1995. )), it should be noted that there are no particular conditions imposing full access for people with disabilities. The decision to build transport infrastructure projects, including the selection of the technical standards, is primarily the responsibility of Member States.

However, improved access to the transport TEN for people with disabilities should be considered when the existing instruments are evaluated prior to their revision.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1902/97 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission (4 June 1997)

Subject: Green paper on Education - Training - Research: The obstacles to transnational mobility

With reference to the 'Green Paper on Education - Training - Research: The obstacles to transnational mobility' (COM(96)462 final),

the programmes promoting language learning for young people and adults are pointless unless we think of the future. Efforts must be concentrated on the youngest children, by encouraging the teaching of the Community languages in schools throughout the Community and respecting, as far as possible, freedom of choice of the languages to be learned by pupils.

In addition to facilitating the learning of Community languages at school, will the Commission also offer pupils the opportunity of studying subjects which promote European construction and integration?

A possible new line of action would be the introduction, in every school throughout the Community, of a specific subject on the general lines set out above which would be common to and identical for all pupils in the Community.

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1900/97, E-1901/97, E-1902/97, E-1903/97 and E-1904/97 given by Mrs Cresson on behalf of the Commission (22 July 1997)

In view of the length of its answer, the Commission is sending it direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1371/97 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE) to the Council (18 April 1997)

Subject: Community Reference Laboratories and the work of the Commission

In preparing its work the European Commission has the opportunity of obtaining advice from the Community Reference Laboratories.

What is the Council's opinion of the quality of the work carried out by the reference laboratories set up to advise the Commission?

On the basis of what criteria does the Council authorize the creation of reference laboratories?

Has it considered the possibility of setting up other reference laboratories in the future to provide the Commission with more and better advice?

How is it ensured that the Commission follows the recommendations made by the reference laboratories which advise it?

What steps can the Council take if the Commission does not follow the recommendations of the reference laboratories?

Can the Council say what the procedure is for requesting the creation of a new reference laboratory?

Answer (14 July 1997)

Criteria for reference laboratories used by the Commission to assist in its work are a matter for that institution, as are decisions on whether to follow their recommendations.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1634/97 by Johanna Maij-Weggen (PPE) to the Commission (14 May 1997)

Subject: Ratification by Kenya of the Convention against Torture

Can the Commission confirm that Kenya has recently ratified the UN Convention against Torture?

Is the Commission aware that NGOs are still reporting instances of torture by the Kenyan police?

Is the Commission prepared to call, via its delegation, for the Convention to be incorporated into Kenyan legislation with effective means of monitoring?

Answer given by Mr Pinheiro on behalf of the Commission (10 June 1997)

The Commission can confirm that Kenya became a signatory to the United Nations (UN) Convention against torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment.

The Commission, in close co-ordination with Member States, is actively pursuing all opportunities to emphasise to the Kenyan government the importance the Commission attaches to the close link between development policy and cooperation and the respect for fundamental human rights, the recognition and application of democratic principles, the consolidation of the rule of law and the strict abidance of good governance procedures.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1816/97 by John Corrie (PPE) (28 May 1997)

Subject: ACP resolution on great apes and destruction of tropical forests

What has been the Commission's response to the resolution on hunting and killing of great apes and destruction of tropical forests in Central and West Africa, adopted at the ACP-EU Joint Assembly in March 1996?

What action does the Commission intend to take in support of the aims of the resolution and to ensure that its recommendations are given full and proper consideration?

Answer given by Mr Pinheiro on behalf of the Commission (30 June 1997)

The consumption of monkey meat is a traditional part of life of the people living in the forests of Central Africa. Practically speaking, the suppression of illegal hunting is particularly difficult because of the inaccessibility of the area and the large size of the region.

However, between 1992-1996, the Commission, along with the governments of Central African countries, within the framework of regional cooperation with Central Africa, has implemented the first phase of the Ecofac programme - which to date has received 26.5 MECU in support under the 6th European development fund (EDF) ('Conservation et utilisation rationnelle des écosystèmes forestiers d'Afrique Centrale').

The project established six protection zones which aim to preserve animal species which are particularly threatened, such as great apes. Further, specific awareness campaigns and instructive publications were prepared for use with local populations, raising the issue of threatened species.

Furthermore, in 1996, the Commission funded a project to farm game in Gabon, to ease pressure on wild stock.

Begun in early 1997, the second phase of Ecofac has received 16 MECU to continue and deepen these actions.