ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2300/01

by Lord Inglewood (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(31 July 2001)

Subject: Foot-and-mouth disease recovery plan

If the UK Government made a request for a financial allocation for a recovery plan in areas affected by foot-and-mouth disease (for both agricultural and non-agricultural sectors), would the Commission give a positive response?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-2300/01 and E-2301/01given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(15 October 2001)

As the Commission indicated in response to the Honourable Member's Written Question E-1407/01(1), there is a degree of flexibility in the use of Community support under the respective Rural Development Plans which may be able to assist any recovery plans and, depending on the nature of the proposals, these may require Commission approval. However, the Commission has not received any proposals from the British authorities for financing its recovery plans for rural areas affected by foot-and-mouth disease.

If such proposals are submitted to the Commission, these will be examined on their merit prior to giving any response. There have been a number of proposals to modify existing state-aid schemes, partly in order to target resources on sectors most badly affected by foot-and-mouth. These are in the course of being approved.

For British Rural Development Plans, the Commission will work within the financial parameters established by Commission Decision 2000/426/EC of 26 June 2000 amending Decision 1999/659/EC fixing an indicative allocation by Member State of the allocations under the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) Guarantee Section for rural development measures for the period 2000 to 2006(2) in which the annual allocation of EAGGF Guarantee resources for all Member States was determined.

The Commission is aware of decisions made by some of the Programme Monitoring Committees of the relevant British Objective 1 and 2 programmes to ensure a fast-track approval of projects in the worst-off areas and to ensure that adequate resources are made available to assist with the economic recovery in those areas.

(1) OJ C 364 E, 20.12.2001, p. 104.

(2) OJ L 165, 6.7.2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2873/01

by Professor Sir Neil MacCormick (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(19 October 2001)

Subject: Asylum-seekers

Is the Council aware that, in at least one Member State, asylum-seekers are given vouchers negotiable in particular stores for food and other necessities rather than being supplied with money to meet their needs? This practice applies pending a decision on the merits of the asylum-seekers' application for asylum. There is evidence that this makes asylum-seekers particularly readily identifiable and vulnerable to ill-treatment.

Will the Council therefore consider initiating measures designed to eliminate this practice on the grounds that it undermines asylum-seekers' human rights?

Reply

(12 February 2002)

In May 2001 the Commission submitted a proposal for a Directive on minimum standards on the reception of asylum seekers in the Member States. That proposal ensued from the mandate in Article 63 of the EC Treaty, the conclusions of the Tampere European Council in October 1999 and the conclusions reached by the Council on 30 November 2000 on the reception conditions for asylum seekers.

The Council is pressing ahead with its work on the proposal and is awaiting the Opinion of the European Parliament on the matter with a view to early adoption, in order to comply with the objectives set forth in the Treaty.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3082/01

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(13 November 2001)

Subject: Cost of developing migration control measures for the Schengen zone

How much has it cost the Schengen countries to step up migration control measures in connection with implementation of the Schengen Agreement? What is the cost of other measures that are required to implement the agreement, such as the creation of registers and increased staffing?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(14 December 2001)

The Commission has no data on the costs incurred in putting the Schengen Implementing Convention into practice in the Union. The responsibility lies with the Member States, particularly in the area of visa policy and checks at external borders, to set up their administrative and inspection organisations with adequate material and human resources in line with the national regulations, while at the same time complying with Community/Union legislation and taking account of the interests of all the Member States participating in the establishment of an area in which there are no checks on persons at internal borders. This is also applicable with regard to creating or networking national files such as the national components of the Schengen Information System (SIS), SIRENE and VISION.

It must, however, be pointed out that removing internal borders, gradually standardising visa procedures and external border checks, and closer cooperation in police and legal matters should, in principle, lead to economies of scale in terms of costs. In addition, some forms of expenditure, such as expenses relating to the development of SIS II, are already covered by the Community budget.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2002/01

by Concepció Ferrer (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(6 July 2001)

Subject: Arrangements for assessing projects relating to developing countries

In paragraph 33 of its resolution on the Third UN Conference on the Least-Developed Countries (B5-0246/2001), the European Parliament urges the Member States, the international organisations and the Commission to take due account of the aspects relating to peace-making, peace-building and peace-keeping at all stages (planning, execution and assessment) of programmes in countries which have recently emerged from an armed conflict or in countries in process of emerging from such a conflict and still having to deal with displaced persons and refugee populations. Since it is important for peace-making, peace-building and peace-keeping measures to be applied comprehensively, can the Commission explain what action it has taken or is intending to take in connection with paragraph 33 of the European Parliament's resolution?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(6 September 2001)

The Commission is currently implementing a number of the proposals and recommendations it put forward in its recent Communication on conflict prevention(1). Some of those recommendations concern countries in post-conflict situations or in the process of emerging from conflict, such as those referred to by the Honourable Member. Furthermore, following its Communication on linking relief, rehabilitation and development(2), the Commission is considering a range of measures to facilitate donor coordination and to increase its flexibility and rapidity for mobilising funds in order to improve its contribution to post-crisis situations.

One of the main recommendations of the Communication on conflict prevention is to integrate better this dimension (and thus also peace-making, peace-building and peace-keeping aspects) into its strategies vis-à-vis partner countries and its external cooperation programmes. The current review of Country Strategy Papers for all cooperation partner countries provides an opportunity to do this.

For countries in conflict, the Country Support Strategy (CSS) will focus on the Community's role in peace building and resolution. Where appropriate, the Commission will engage more in activities supporting democratic institutions, civil society, reform of the security sector as well as, in the specific case of countries in post-conflict situation, rehabilitation programmes and demobilisation disarmament and reintegration programmes. It will also give greater attention to the situation of children affected by war.

Other recommendations of the communication aim at improving the efficiency of actions targeting specific causes of conflict (such as drug trafficking, spread of small arms, conflict diamonds, etc.), the Union's capacity to react quickly to nascent conflicts and the international cooperation with all the Union's partners (partner countries, non governmental organisations, international organisations).

(1) COM(2001) 211 final.

(2) COM(2001) 153 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3290/01

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

(27 November 2001)

Subject: Social inclusion in Member States

What EU funds are available to promote social inclusion in Member States? How much has been allocated and under what budget line(s) do they fall?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(21 January 2002)

The European Social Fund (ESF) is an important source of Community funds to promote social inclusion in Member States. The ESF Regulation(1) outlines the five policy fields through which ESF will support the development of the labour market and human resources. One of these policy fields aims to promote equal opportunities for all in accessing the labour market, with particular emphasis on those exposed to social exclusion. Following negotiations between the Commission and Member States, over 9 billion of ESF will go to promote social inclusion across the Community during the period 2000-2006.

Funded by the ESF, the Community Initiative EQUAL will test new ways of tackling discrimination and inequality experienced by those in work and those looking for a job. EQUAL will co-finance activities in all Member States. The Community will contribute around 3 billion to EQUAL over the period to 2006. As with all ESF spending this will be matched by national funding. EQUAL differs from the European Social Fund mainstream programmes in its innovative dimension and in its emphasis on active co-operation between Member States.

In addition, the programme of Community action to encourage co-operation between Member States to combat social exclusion may provide financial support to transnational activities of exchange of good practice in the field of social inclusion. This programme is part of the open method of coordination to combat social exclusion launched at the Lisbon Council in March 2000. It was agreed by the Parliament and the Council at conciliation on 18 September 2001 and the decision was published in the Official Journal on 12 January 2002. It starts on 1 January 2002. Its budget amounts to 75 million over five years (2002-2006). It is composed of three strands: improving the understanding of social exclusion and poverty; organising policy co-operation and mutual learning in the light of the national action plans to combat poverty and social exclusion; developing the capacity of actors to address social exclusion and poverty at Community level.

(1) Regulation (EC) no. 1784/1999 of the Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 1999 on the European Social Fund, OJ L 213, 13.8.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3202/01

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(20 November 2001)

Subject: Aerospace Industry's recovery from the terrorist attacks of 11 September

What representations has the Commission received from the aerospace industry about the downturn they are suffering after the terrorist attack on 11 September?

Is the Commission considering any package of measures to assist the industry?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(9 January 2002)

The Commission has received information from industry sources about the effects of the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001 on individual

aerospace manufacturers, notably in relation to the downturn in the air transport sector. It is not considering any package of measures to assist the aerospace industry following the attacks, nor has it received representations from the European aerospace industry to request any such package. Nevertheless, the Commission recalls the importance of creating an economic and political framework within which the competitiveness of this industry can be fostered. In that context, prior to the recent downturn in air transport and aerospace, an Advisory Group on Aerospace STAR 21 was launched, comprising the interested Members of the Commission, the Union's High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy, key aerospace industry Chairmen and Members of the Parliament. The group, which is expected to report in the first half of 2002, will analyse the adequacy of the existing political and regulatory framework for aerospace in Europe, highlight deficiencies, and make proposals for further improvement.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3018/01

by Caroline Lucas (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(29 October 2001)

Subject: Transport and health in the Alpine countries Austria, France and Switzerland

A recent WHO study, published in the UK health journal The Lancet, showed that in Austria, France and Switzerland in 1996, circa 22 000 people died as a result of transport's negative health effects. Almost 300 000 children below the age of 15 developed acute bronchitis and more than 150 000 children suffered from asthma.

Is the Commission aware of this and other studies, and what conclusions does the Commission draw for the future of European transport policy, especially for sensitive areas, such as the entire Alpine transborder region?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(21 December 2001)

The Commission is aware of the World Health Organisation (WHO) study and a wide range of similar studies, some financed by the Commission itself, examining the considerable social costs of transport.

The World Health Organisation (WHO) study provides valuable new data on the health impacts of one of the most important sources of air pollution and contributes to the significant body of research findings concerning health effects that are being built up as a result of national, Community and other internationally supported research projects. The Community is currently supporting 10 projects under the 5th Research and Technological Development (RTD) Framework Programme, with a funding contribution of approximately 12,5 million. (In addition a number of other projects are also being supported in the fields of allergy and asthma.) These air pollution and health projects are to be further co-ordinated with the developing Clean Air For Europe (CAFE) policy initiative, through a thematic network (Airnet) structurally linked to the policy development framework. The main author of the WHO study is included in the network as one of the partners.

In its White Paper European transport policy for 2010: time to decide(1) of 12 September 2001, the Commission pays a particular attention to the problems encountered by sensitive areas and gives a priority to shifting the balance between modes and to resolving problems of congestion, particularly by clearing bottlenecks. This issue goes beyond the Alpine region and constitutes a sensitive problem for the whole European Union.

The Commission will thus use the results of the studies in developing and implementing its policies to address the negative effects of transport especially in the sensitive areas. In this context, priority will be given to the implementation of the range of general measures planned, including major investments, introduction of instruments to better reflect transport costs and financing programmes such as the new Marco Polo financial assistance scheme.

(1) COM(2001) 370 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3344/01

by Luciano Caveri (ELDR) to the Commission

(3 December 2001)

Subject: Mountain guides

Professional mountain guides have existed since people first started climbing in Europe, and the profession itself has grown and developed as mountain climbing has become more popular over the years. It is already covered by Community legislation on professions and the freedom of movement of workers. With a view to ensuring in particular that clients can have confidence in their guides, the International Federation of Mountain Guide Associations long ago established a set of uniform training standards which ensure that guides have the necessary technical skills for each type of ascent and the thorough practical knowledge of the terrain required, in particular, to ensure safety at all times.

When the current directives are revised, how does the Commission intend to ensure that the specificities of mountain guiding are accorded proper recognition?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(14 January 2002)

The Commission would like to inform the Honourable Member that it has just completed a consultation exercise with professional associations in order to seek their opinions on drawing up a new directive in the field of the recognition of qualifications. It has also received contributions from the Commission européenne des accompagnateurs en montagne (European mountain leaders committee) and the Syndicat National français des Guides de Montagne (French national mountain guides union). The Commission is at the stage of analysing the results of the consultation and drawing up proposals. In accordance with the timetable set, the Commission will adopt a position before the Barcelona European Council in spring 2002.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2894/01

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(22 October 2001)

Subject: Overrun of original cost of building Attiki Odos

The Greek press reports that the cost of building the Attiki Odos (northern Athens ring road) has exceeded Drs 1 trillion, whereas the contract signed in 1996 put the cost at Drs 420 billion plus Drs 150 billion in compulsory purchases.

Has the cost of building the Attiki Odos actually increased? If so, for what reasons?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(14 December 2001)

On the basis of information given by the Greek authorities, the contract signed in 1996 between the Greek State and the concessionaire for the construction of the Athens ring (Attiki Odos) provided for a price of 450 billion drachmas (bn Drs).

The project had to be modified subsequently to take into account decisions of the Greek courts to improve environmental conditions in numerous cases (municipalities of Agia Paraskevi, Vrilissia etc). A number of measures had to be taken (more tunnels, etc) which increased the cost and the construction time. A further cost increase was the use of the Attiki Odos line by the railway and the metro in order to ensure an enhanced rail connection with the new Spata airport, because of the 2004 Olympic Games.

In total, the additions to the initial contract amounted to Drs 288 billion. Fees paid to the concessionaire to compensate for delays due to the above mentioned court decisions added up to Drs 67 billion. Expropriations cost the Greek State Drs 277 billion (all the above figures are in current prices). This explains why the budget for this project indeed reaches Drs 1 082 billion.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3123/01

by Karin Riis-Jørgensen (ELDR) to the Commission

(14 November 2001)

Subject: Directive 98/34 notification 2001/0267/NL

On 20 June 2001 the Dutch authorities submitted a draft Decree of the Minister of Housing, Planning and the Environment laying down rules for copper-based wood preservatives pursuant to Directive 98/34/EC(1) (notification 2001/0267/NL). The decree seeks to prohibit the import and use of wood treated with copper-based preservatives in the Netherlands.

Can the Commission answer the following:

- Does it take the view that the implementation of this decree of the Dutch authorities as described in Notification 2001/0267/NL would mean that timber treated with copper-based wood preservatives could no longer be imported or used in the Netherlands?

- Does it regard a prohibition on import and use of this kind as a barrier to trade and thus an infringement of the rules governing the internal market?

(1) OJ L 204, 21.7.1998, p. 37.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(17 December 2001)

The notification mentioned by the Honourable Member 2001/0267/NL seeks to prohibit the import, use and supply to third parties of wood treated with copper, copper/chromium or copper/chromium/arsenic compounds for use in the Netherlands, as well as the keeping of stocks for commercial purposes for the Dutch market.

Germany, Portugal, Finland, and the United Kingdom have submitted detailed opinions on this draft. The issue of these detailed opinions has obliged the Dutch authorities to postpone the adoption of this text until 21 December 2001. The Commission and Sweden have sent the Dutch authorities comments under the terms of Article 8 (2) of Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations(1). In its comments, the Commission considered that a prohibition of this type is certainly likely to considerably restrict the volume of imports of this type of product, and that the draft could, once adopted, create barriers to the free movement of goods, under the terms of Articles 28 (ex-Article 30) and 30 (ex-Article 36) of the EC Treaty.

However, it should be stressed that a measure of this nature may, in certain cases, be justified by overriding requirements of general public importance, provided that it is in proportion to its legitimate objective. In its comments, the Commission indicated that an initial examination of the scientific evidence provided by the Dutch authorities did not make it possible to reach a conclusion on the justification they had given for the proposed measures. As a result, the Commission asked the Dutch authorities to postpone adoption of the draft so that it could lay the scientific evidence transmitted by them before the Scientific Committee on Toxicity, Ecotoxicity and the Environment (SCTEE), to hear its opinion about the scientific soundness of the planned ban.

(1) OJ L 204, 21.7.1998.