ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3513/00

by Niels Busk (ELDR) to the Commission

(8 November 2000)

Subject: Commission's Standing Group on Seeds

Can the Commission say why the Standing Group on Seeds, which comes under the Advisory Committee on Agricultural Product Quality and Health, has not held any meetings since 28 April 1999?

On what specific date does the Commission intend to convene the Standing Group on Seeds and what subjects does it intend to discuss with the sector concerned?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(11 January 2001)

The Commission is pleased to inform the Honourable Member that, as foreseen in Action 81 of the white paper on food safety, it is working on the preparation of a legal basis for a consultative committee on food safety(1). It aims to improve involvement of all stakeholders in the Community food safety policy by streamlining the existing consultative committees and their permanent groups including the advisory standing group on seeds. Such preparations, unfortunately, take time.

In the meanwhile, the Commission is also planning to organise a meeting of the existing standing group on seeds by February/March 2001. The main item of the agenda will be the outstanding issues for the amendments of the current seed Directives.

(1) COM(1999) 719 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3194/00

by Philip Bradbourn (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 October 2000)

Subject: Association of Citizens for the Promotion of European Currency

Could the Commission please indicate the annual cost to the European Union budget of the Association of Citizens for the Promotion of European Currency and how many individual members by Member State the group actually comprises?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(6 December 2000)

The Association of citizens for the promotion of European currency (Promeuro) received 10 000 on the 1998 budget (B3-306) and nothing on the 1999 and 2000 budgets.

According to Promeuro it has about 120 active members of which 77 pay subscriptions (Belgium 21, Denmark 2, Germany 6, Spain 5, France 15, Italy 10, Luxembourg 9, Austria 1, Finland 1, United Kingdom 5 and third country 2).
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3584/00

by Laura González Álvarez (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(13 November 2000)

Subject: Damaged British nuclear submarine HMS Tireless, docked in Gibraltar

The British nuclear submarine HMS Tireless has been docked at the British naval base in Gibraltar since 19 May 2000 for repairs to its damaged primary coolant circuit. The British authorities have given conflicting accounts regarding the extent of the damage, whilst the repair period, initially announced as lasting only three months, has now been extended to summer 2001. The Royal Navy prohibits repairs to nuclear-powered submarines in ports with facilities such as those in Gibraltar (Z-class ports) and only authorises such repairs in X-class bases such as those at Devonport and Faslane in the United Kingdom, which have medical equipment, evacuation plans and special machinery. This fact, together with the hypothetical danger of a radioactive leak to public health, has prompted requests from the Autonomous Government of Andalusia and the mayors of the areas of Spain bordering Gibraltar that the submarine be moved back to the United Kingdom.

Could the Council approach the British and Spanish authorities with a request that they provide the inhabitants of the Gibraltar area with precise, ongoing and comprehensive information as to the potential risks, the extent of the damage and the repair plans, that they guarantee permanent monitoring of radioactivity levels in the local water and air and, should the vessel undergo repair in Gibraltar, that they implement a nuclear emergency and evacuation plan, which the Gibraltar area currently lacks?

Could the Council recommend that the damaged submarine be moved back to the United Kingdom, where it could undergo repair at a specialised and safe base?

Reply

(8 March 2001)

The United Kingdom authorities have not referred the matter of the submarine docked in Gibraltar to the Council, which cannot therefore reply to these questions.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2737/00

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(1 September 2000)

Subject: WTO rules governing animal welfare

What restrictions are placed on animal welfare as a result of agreements signed by the European Union under the auspices of the World Trade Organisation, and what steps are being taken to ensure that farmers within the European Union who improve animal welfare do not suffer commercial disadvantage as a result, compared with farmers outside the European Union?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(17 October 2000)

The World Trade Organisation (WTO) does not prevent the Community from taking measures which are seen as essential for animal welfare, i.e. adopting high standards within its borders. In the Community a comprehensive set of legislation exists covering a wide range of issues relating to animal welfare. It is the Commission's view that the Community should not unilaterally impose its welfare-based production standards on third countries. The Community needs to respect other countries' sovereignty and their right to set their own national standards.

The Community tabled a paper on animal welfare at the last meeting of the WTO agricultural committee at the end of June 2000(1). In this paper, the objectives of the Community are clearly spelled out, namely ensuring that trade does not undermine our efforts in improving the protection of the welfare of animals, and avoiding trade protectionism.

The Community paper suggests several ways of addressing the issue in the WTO framework, which are not mutually exclusive. These are the development of multilateral agreements, appropriate labelling, accepting some sort of compensation to contribute to the additional costs.

The Community believes that detailed examination in the WTO of these approaches would allow the issue of animal welfare to be addressed adequately within the WTO without conflicting with the long-term objective of trade liberalisation in agricultural and food products.

According to Article 8 of Council Directive 98/58/EC of 20 July 1998 concerning the protection of animals kept for farming purposes(2), the Commission should submit a report to the Council on certain provisions on the protection of farm animals in the Community and in third countries. This report will include appropriate proposals for obtaining wider acceptance of the Community principles related to farm animal welfare.

(1) Doc. G/AG/NG/W/19.

(2) OJ L 221, 8.8.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3224/00

by Robert Evans (PSE) to the Commission

(17 October 2000)

Subject: Bonded labour in Nepal

In January 2000, the Government of Nepal indicated its intention to ratify the International Labour Organisation's (ILO) Convention No 29 which prohibits bonded labour, and it reiterates this intent in a declaration in July 2000.

In the light of this, can the Commission:

1. ascertain how the Government of Nepal intends to ensure that its declaration of 17 July 2000, which prohibits bonded labour, is enforced, and whether it will now ratify ILO Convention No 29 on bonded labour, and

2. provide an update on the rehabilitation programmes available to bonded labourers who are now free under the declaration and the action being taken to ensure that former bonded labourers do not find themselves expelled from their land without any means of subsistence?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(7 November 2000)

The Constitution of Nepal (1990), Article 20, guarantees the right against exploitation. It declares traffic in human beings, slavery, serfdom or forced labour in any form is prohibited and any contravention of the provision shall be punishable under law.

It may be noted that Nepal has already ratified four out of eight fundamental International Labour Organisation (ILO) conventions.

As pointed out by the Honourable Member, the practice of bonded labour has come to an end with the decision of the Government of Nepal on 17 July 2000.

The Government of Nepal has constituted a nine-member central co-ordination and monitoring committee under the chairmanship of the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Local Development at the central level and an eleven-member co-ordination and monitoring committee at the district level for the identification of those freed from bonded labour and their rehabilitation.

Records of both government owned land as well as uncultivated land have been collected with a view to facilitating development initiatives of government agencies or non-governmental organisations for the rehabilitation of those freed (training, food for work programme, settlements on government land).

In order to achieve effectiveness in relief and rehabilitation works as well as to maintain co-ordination and to supervise ongoing activities, a six-member team has been constituted under the convenorship of a Joint Secretary in the Ministry of Land Reforms and Management. The team has already started its work.

Finally, as regards ratification of ILO Convention 29 on forced labour by Nepal, the Nepalese authorities have state that the Convention will be submitted to the next winter session of the Parliament for approval.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4053/00

by Ulpu Iivari (PSE) to the Council

(15 January 2001)

Subject: Right of disabled people to take guide dogs in taxis

A visually impaired guest who had been taking part in a disabled people's art exhibition at the European Parliament's place of work in Brussels was not permitted to take his guide dog in a taxi. He asked six different taxis, but they all refused to take the guide dog in the car.

Guide dogs which assist blind and physically handicapped people are indispensable to their owners. It is absolutely essential that disabled people should be able to travel in as trouble-free a way as possible. They should not therefore be hindered in their use of public services.

Do taxi drivers have the right under Belgian law to refuse to take guide dogs on board? How does the Council propose to ensure that disabled persons have the right to take a guide dog with them in a taxi?

Reply

(7 May 2001)

The Council is aware of the type of situation raised by the Honourable Member but does not have any powers to deal with the matter.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3296/00

by Bernd Lange (PSE) to the Commission

(25 October 2000)

Subject: Harmonisation of motor boat skippers' licences

At present varying provisions are in force in the Member States regarding the use of motor boats. In Germany, for example, a pleasure boat licence is required for persons wishing to skipper a motor boat with an engine of 5 HP or more, whereas this provision does not exist in (for example) the Netherlands, Sweden or the United Kingdom.

What measures does the Commission propose to take to avoid distortions of competition, particularly in the tourism sector? When will the rules be harmonised at a European level?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(6 December 2000)

The Commission is aware that there are differences between Member States' legislation concerning any requirement for a driving licence for using propeller driven motor boats with an engine of 5CV and above.

Without underestimating the internal market dimension of the issue raised, the Commission is of the opinion that the differences in requirement mentioned have essentially a local and regional impact.

In these circumstances and considering the present work programme of the Commission essentially focused on maritime safety for merchant vessels, the Commission does not envisage, in the short term, to address the question of harmonizing licences for this type of boat.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3476/00

by Mario Mastella (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(8 November 2000)

Subject: Reform of the fruit and vegetable sector

In July of this year the Commission submitted a proposal to reform the fruit and vegetable sector that will entail palpable disadvantages for the sector and Italian products in particular.

The reform proposal is calling for a substantial reduction in the financial resources earmarked for fruit and vegetable producers and their organisations and especially for operating plans, industrial tomatoes, nuts, and citrus fruits.

The fruit and vegetable sector accounts for 23 % of the value of Italian farm produce. The expectations are that the reform should be adopted by the end of the year, a fact which suggests that the need to restore a financial balance in favour of Mediterranean products has not been taken into consideration.

Will the Commission take steps to avert such a sharp cut in funding for the fruit and vegetable sector?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(13 December 2000)

The Council of agriculture ministers arrived by qualified majority at a political compromise on the reform of the fruit and vegetable sector on Tuesday, 21 November 2000. The main points in this agreement are the simplification of the financial rules for producer organisations, an increase in the ceiling on financial aid towards operational programmes introduced by producer organisations, higher thresholds for various Mediterranean products, in particular industrial tomatoes, citrus fruit and peaches, and a rise in aid for industrial tomatoes.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4118/00

by Vitaliano Gemelli (PPE-DE), Michl Ebner (PPE-DE), Guido Bodrato (PPE-DE) and Mario Mantovani (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 January 2001)

Subject: Future of the Common Research Centre

Would the Commission and more particularly its President, Mr Romano Prodi, and Commissioner Philippe Busquin state

- with regard to the Common Research Centre (CRC), a very effective instrument of Community research, which not only brings together scientific expertise from the various branches of European academia, but examines scientific activities being pursued in the Member States for their possible implications in every area of interest (environmental, economic, social, etc.);

- that there have been plans in the past to scale down the role of the CRC by a corresponding scaling down of research activities, including cutting the establishment plan by 200 posts;

- it now appears that once again there are plans to reduce the number of staff by a further 200 posts, despite the Council of Ministers having agreed in 1998 to maintain the establishment plan at 2 080 posts in accordance with the Fifth framwork programme;

whether reports of the establishment plan being reduced by 200 posts are true, whether the aim really is to rationalise research and whether, in the event of the JRC being scaled down, the Petten and Ispra centres would pass from Community control to that of the Member States where they are situated?

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(28 February 2001)

The latest review of the establishment plan of the Joint Research Centre (JRC) dates from the 1999 budget and maintained the same number of staff by increasing the number of A posts (+120) by reducing the number of B and C posts in consequence.

As part of its priority review exercise launched at the beginning of 2000, the Commission adopted the recommendations of the Peer Group at its meeting held on 26 July 2000.

Within this context the Commission asked the Commission Member responsible to instruct the JRC to carry out a feasibility study on the closure of the Petten site and alternatively to envisage the elimination of 200 posts by reducing activities throughout the departments of the JRC.

The feasibility study on the closure of the Petten site has been completed and the conclusions of the study presented to the Commission in the form of a communication adopted on 22 January 2001(1). The study concludes that the Petten site should be retained and its activities, notably those of the nuclear sector, be concentrated within it. This would lead to a redeployment of posts within the JRC, giving rise to a total saving of 40 posts.

The other departments of the JRC are also being audited, the conclusions of which will be available at the end of March 2001.

The Joint Research Centre being what its title suggests, there are no plans to transfer Community competences to the Member States.

(1) COM(2001) 125.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4109/00

by Ilka Schröder (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(11 January 2001)

Subject: Annual report of the EMCDDA pill testing

The annual report of the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction refers on page 9 to pill testing. The procedure is also known as drug checking. It is used in Austria, the Netherlands and Germany, for instance. The Centre says that the implementation of these preventive measures is becoming more professional.

How does the Commission view drug checking?

Does it share the Centre's assessment? What role should permissive drug prevention measures of this kind play in the Commission's preventive strategy?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(28 February 2001)

First, it should be stressed that drug checking, also referred to as on-the-spot toxicological pill tests, falls within the competence of the Member States. The Commission is not involved in the implementation of such measures.

The Union Action Plan on Drugs (2000-2004)(1) encourages the Member States and the Commission to further develop innovative approaches to the prevention of the abuse of synthetic drugs, taking into account the specificity of synthetic drug users. Although not mentioned in the plan, on-the-spot toxicological pill tests may form a part of a preventive approach provided that it is allowed by the legislation of the Member States.

The Commission is aware of both positive and negative arguments as to whether on-the-spot toxicological pill tests contributes to reducing the risks and increasing responsible behaviour among users. It is essential that such testing occurs in combination with the provision of information and on-the-spot counselling in order to achieve a positive outcome, thereby addressing the risks involved with the use of drugs in general rather than drawing a distinction between safe and dangerous drugs.

Finally, on-the-spot toxicological pill tests can give a rapid indication of what substances and ingredients are present on the black market and are being used in particular settings. Such information is of value for epidemiological purposes and/or as the basis for specific warning measures.

Research is insufficient but the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction has commissioned a study on on-site pill-testing interventions in the Community. This research will draw up an inventory of existing on-site pill-testing programmes and examine their objectives, target groups, methods and pitfalls to assess how prevention and risk-reduction measures can be tied in with drug checking work. The results of the study are expected soon.

(1) COM(1999) 239 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4097/00

by Albert Maat (PPE-DE) and Marianne Thyssen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(10 January 2001)

Subject: Implementation of common organisation of the market in flax and hemp fibre

Implementation of the new market organisation for flax and hemp grown for fibre (Regulation (EC) No 1672/2000(1)) is having a drastic effect on the original flax-growing regions in the Netherlands, Belgium and northern France. In particular, compulsory set-aside is seriously affecting the output of flax-growing arable farms.

Now that, as a result of the ban on meat-and-bone meal, the European Union is not growing enough vegetable protein products, will the Commission offer flax-growers the chance of using set-aside land to cultivate plant crops containing protein?

(1) OJ L 193, 29.7.2000, p. 16.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(20 February 2001)

In accordance with the commitment it gave at the Council meeting on agriculture of 4 December 2000 concerning bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) and at the explicit request of the Nice European Council, the Commission is carrying out a thorough analysis of supply and demand for oleaginous and protein plants. Suggestions from all parties concerned will be considered in the course of that analysis.

The problems mentioned by the Honourable Members cannot be seen in isolation from the whole question of arable crops.

The Commission will apprise Parliament and the Council of its conclusions as soon as they have been finalised. As the Council and the European Council requested, those conclusions will cover all hypothetical cases, in compliance with the Berlin Agreements and the Community's international commitments.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3301/00

by Eryl McNally (PSE) to the Commission

(25 October 2000)

Subject: Light pollution

Light pollution is caused by stray light that escapes from residential and industrial developments, prevents city dwellers from seeing the night sky and increases global warming. The use of lower powered bulbs and shields to prevent this light from escaping would reduce CO2 emissions and give a better view of the stars. Is the Commission planning to take any legislative measures to prevent light pollution?

Supplementary answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(26 March 2001)

The Commission has no plans at this time to take any legislative measures regarding light pollution.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3441/00

by Heinz Kindermann (PSE) to the Commission

(7 November 2000)

Subject: Union structural policy measures in the period from 2000 to 2006

On 24 and 25 March 1999 the Berlin European Council decided to earmark 260 billion for the Union's structural policy measures in the period from 2000 to 2006.

The Council issued the regulations on the various Funds on 21 June 1999.

The Structural Funds are used to finance programmes to promote economic and social development in the fifteen Member States. The activities financed under them are intended to make for relatively high concentration of resources in financial and geographical terms, decentralised management, more effective supervision, and greater efficiency.

Especially in the light of the last point, can the Commission say:

- what assistance operations are already under way; and

- which areas have yet to receive payments?

To clarify the previous question, can it supply tables indicating:

- when the Member States submitted their draft operational programmes; and

- the time taken for the Commission to reach the necessary decisions?

While the Commission was taking its decisions, were there any instances of failure to meet the five-month time-limit laid down in Article 15 of the general Structural Funds Regulation? If so, why?

Could the Commission also supply tables specifying:

- when the Member States submitted their draft national guidelines; and

- when the Commission took the necessary decisions?

Supplementary answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(19 July 2001)

The Commission is sending direct to the Honourable Member and to the Parliament Secretariat tables showing the date of submission by the Member States of Community support frameworks, single programming documents and operational programmes under Objectives 1 and 2 of the European Regional Development Fund and the actual or expected date of adoption by the Commission.

Most of these decisions were taken after expiry of the five-month period laid down in Article 15 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds(1).

The reasons for this delay are mainly the result of the considerable effort of adaptation required from the Member States and the Commission in preparing, negotiating and approving each document because of the arrangements and requirements of this new Regulation, particularly as regards the systems for implementation and surveillance, the establishment of new structures for these purposes and the strengthening of partnership and the incorporation of environmental aspects. In view of the budgetary commitments and the length of the new programming period, the Commission preferred to concentrate on the adoption of programmes which fully conformed with the new Regulation and the Community policy guidelines.

(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.