ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0665/95 by Peter Crampton (PSE) to the Commission (10 March 1995)

Subject: Commission proposals in the field of financial control, 1994

How many proposals for legislation and regulations in the field of financial control were put forward by the Commission in 1994?

Supplementary joint answer to Written Questions E-0662/95, E-0663/95, E-0664/95, E-0665/95, E-0666/95 E-0667/95, E-0668/95, E-0669/95, E-0670/95, E-0671/95, E-0672/95, E-0673/95, E-0674/95, E-0675/95, E-0676/95, E-0677/95, E-0678/95, E-0679/95, E-0680/95, E-0681/95, E-0682/95, E-0683/95, E-0684/95, E-0685/95, E-0686/95, E-0687/95, E-0688/95, E-0689/95, E-0690/95 and E-0691/95 given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission (15 November 1996)

Further to its answer of 10 April 1995, the Commission can now give the following information.

The table below gives the number of proposals for legislation transmitted by the Commission in 1994 for adoption in the various areas to which the Honourable Member's questions relate.

Some were designed to implement new measures and others to update earlier legislation. They may also relate to the management of certain common policies (for example, commercial policy, common agricultural policy, fisheries, customs union).

Consolidation proposals are also included. Proposals amending proposals transmitted earlier are not included.

The statistics and list are taken from the Commission's APC database, to which Members of the European Parliament can have access, like the other institutions and the public.

>TABLE>
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0686/96 by Jesús Cabezón Alonso (PSE) to the Commission (26 March 1996)

Subject: Driftnets

Why has the Commission, in the course of preparing a revision of the multiannual guidance programmes for the Community fishing fleets, abandoned the debate on the use of driftnets within the terms approved by Parliament?

Does the Commission not consider that the use of driftnets is harmful to species conversation and creates a significant distortion of competition between fishermen?

Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission (3 April 1996)

The debate on driftnets is not abandoned. Discussion continues in the Council on the Commission's proposal ((COM(94)131. )). While no majority has emerged in its favour, the Commission has made it clear that it is prepared to associate itself with solutions that would help break the deadlock.

The Commission has also actively cooperated with Member States in the control scheme set up in 1995 for this fishery by the Member States concerned. This ensured a generally high degree of compliance with the current rules in the Atlantic. The Commission is equally prepared to cooperate this year in a similar scheme.

The Commission continues to support the gradual phasing out of this type of fishing.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0508/96 by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Commission (1 March 1996)

Subject: Mochovce (Slovakia) nuclear power station project

1. Is it not a contradiction under current EU law that on the one hand the Mochovce nuclear power plant project could not be funded by EU money (1970s technology, first contract dated 27 November 1980), while on the other hand France and Germany are able at national level to guarantee long-term (15-year) suppliers' credits of up to 85% granted by export insurance companies such as Coface and Hermes?

2. What guarantees, credits or suppliers' credits are provided by the EU for the Slovak Republic with a view to replacing out-of-date nuclear and non-nuclear power plants and obsolete industrial installations?

3. What opportunities has the Commission to exercise technical and financial control over completion of the Mochovce project?

4. Is the EU supporting the current development of the Mochovce project, which now looks likely to take the form of a minimal variant with the help of German and French suppliers' credits?

5. Who is liable, and up to what amount, in case of accident and subsequent damage?

6. What opportunities does the EU have to prevent large sums of money from being squandered on the Mochovce project, and thus more positive developments for Slovakia from being held up?

7. Does the Commission not agree that this will lead to the creation of a poorhouse in the centre of Europe, with all the problems that will entail?

Answer given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission (23 April 1996)

The Community, in accordance with the recommendations of the 1992 G7 summit in Munich, is providing technical assistance to the Slovak Republic, through the Phare programme, in order to improve the safety of the operating nuclear installations, as well as to enhance the Slovak nuclear safety authorities.

As far as the possible financing of the completion of the Mochovce nuclear power plant through a Euratom loan is concerned, the procedure was stopped at the request of the Slovak government.

The completion of Mochovce is at present a project which is the responsibility of the Slovak government. The Community has currently no action under way to support the development of the Mochovce project. At the Community-Slovakia association committee of February 1995 and the Community-Slovakia association council of March 1996, the Commission pointed out, however, that it attaches the highest importance to the question of nuclear safety, which forms part of the pre-accession strategy.

The Slovak Republic has signed the Vienna Convention on nuclear liability, where the responsibility in case of accidents are clearly stated.

For additional information the Honourable Member is referred to the reply given by the Commission to her Written Question E-507/96 ((OJ C 185 of 25.6.1996, p. 67. )).
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 111/96 by Clive NEEDLE to the Council. Council employees



Official Journal C 185 , 25/06/1996 P. 0037



WRITTEN QUESTION E-0111/96 by Clive Needle (PSE) to the Council (30 January 1996) Subject: Council employees What is the total number of people directly employed by the Council at 1.1.1996? Reply (20 May 1996) STAFF SITUATION AT 1.1.1996 >TABLE> Language teachers: 19 under employment contracts governed by Belgian law Special adviser: 1
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0681/96 by Thomas Megahy (PSE) to the Commission (26 March 1996)

Subject: Penal reform in Cuba and elsewhere

According to reports in the British press, Commissioner Manuel Marin recently held a ten-hour meeting with President Fidel Castro of Cuba. The purpose of the meeting was to promote economic cooperation. Commissioner Marin is said to have raised the subject of 'reforms to the island's penal system'. Is it now Commission policy to raise penal reform in connection with trade and if so has it done so with each of the ACP countries, almost all of which have more political prisoners kept under worse conditions than those in Cuba, with the Turkish Government, with which the Union has recently concluded a Customs Union agreement, and which presides over a well-documented regime of systematic torture, or with the Government of the People's Republic of China, a country in which forced labour is routine? Will the Commission also consider raising other human rights issues with prospective trading partners? (Examples might be infant mortality, access to health care, availability of education and consequent rates of literacy).

Answer given by Mr Marín on behalf of the Commission (18 April 1996)

On his recent visit to Cuba Mr Marín did indeed raise with the Cuban authorities the subject of possible modernization of the penal system, pointing out that such an initiative would undoubtedly be helpful in fostering closer EU-Cuba relations and dialogue.

The Madrid European Council (15-16 December 1995) called on the Commission to prepare and lay before the Council a draft negotiating mandate for an EC-Cuba cooperation agreement, noting that the Council would consider the draft in the light of domestic developments in Cuba.

In the light of the guidelines laid down by the European Council, Mr Marín considered it timely to raise with the Cuban authorities the issue of their penal code.

All cooperation agreements must explicitly invoke a basis in respect for human rights and democratic principles, and penal law, particularly the procedural aspects, has an obvious bearing on these fundamental issues.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0560/96 by Mary Banotti (PPE) to the Commission (11 March 1996)

Subject: Radiation risk experiments

The introduction to the Nuclear Fission Safety work programme states 'Improved radiation protection of man and the environment will be achieved by research aimed at a better understanding of the mechanisms of radiation actions for improved quantification of risks from exposure to low doses...'.

Could the Commission explain why research on human cells and on the key mechanism of genomic instability which operates at low doses is not being funded, when large amounts of tax-payers' money is being spent on mouse research? This is largely irrelevant to human cancer and certainly irrelevant to quantitative estimations of risk, given the genetic, environmental and lifespan differences between laboratory mice and humans.

How does the Commission choose its advisers and who decides what research work is relevant and what research work is irrelevant?

Answer given by Mrs Cresson on behalf of the Commission (11 April 1996)

Research on human cells is well supported within the radiation protection research areas of the nuclear fission safety programme, especially in the areas dealing with repair of desoxyribosenucleic acid (DNA) damage and to a lesser extent radiation oncogenesis. Genome instability is listed in the information package of the nuclear fission safety programme as a priority area for concerted actions. Carefully selected animal models are used in the study of the early events in radiation carcinogenesis because the multi-stage carcinogenic process occurs at the level of the organism and not at the cell level.

In the preparation of the 1994-1998 framework programme of the Euratom activitites in the field of research and technological development ((OJ L 115, 6.5.1994. )) advice on the choice of priorities was obtained in particular from senior, internationally recognised, scientists deeply involved in radiation protection research and the members of the management and coordination advisory committee (CGC) on radiation protection.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0231/96 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (9 February 1996)

Subject: Repercussions of the implementation of the single currency

According to the trade union associations of EU bank employees, the adjustment of the banking and business sectors to the single currency will cost between ECU 8 and 10 bn; moreover, it is estimated that more than 100 000 bank employees will lose their jobs.

Will the Commission say whether it has calculated the cost of the introduction of the single currency and the repercussions for bank employees, and if not, does it intend to take swift action to draw up a practical study devoted to this problem?

Answer given by Mr de Silguy on behalf of the Commission (1 March 1996)

The Commission has taken note of the various estimates - and these differ widely - of the cost to the banking sector of adapting to the introduction of the single currency and of the effects this will have on employment in the sector.

It is, of course, attentive to the sectoral repercussions of economic and monetary union.

It is also aware that monetary union is expected to lead to a substantial increase in the volume of financial transactions in Europe. The growth in the volume of financial transactions in European securities, coupled with the attraction of the euro as a reserve currency, should make for an environment particularly conducive to the development of the banking sector in Europe.

Accordingly, the Commission takes the view that prime emphasis should be placed on a comprehensive approach to tackling the consequences of the single currency. Monetary union, which is the necessary complement to the single market and can count on the existence of a stable macroeconomic framework, must contribute to securing strong and lasting growth in the economy. The financial sector as a whole can only benefit from such growth.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0545/96 by Christine Crawley (PSE) to the Commission (11 March 1996)

Subject: Chinese orphanages

Would the Commission report on the outcome of its talks with Chinese authorities at the human rights dialogue in Beijing, and specifically on the issue of orphanages that was to be raised at this meeting?

Would the Commission also report on the investigation it is carrying out on the subject, and on what steps it plans to take to ensure that living conditions in Chinese orphanages are improved?

Answer given by Sir Leon Brittan (28 March 1996)

The Commission has been funding the activity of non-governmental organizations (NGO) in Chinese orphanages since 1995.

The issue of orphanages was raised in the framework of the last meeting of the bilateral dialogue on human rights between the Community and China held in Beijing on 22-24 January 1996. On this occasion the Chinese authorities reacted favourably to the Commission's offer to open talks on a further programme of cooperation aiming at improving the situation in many orphanages in China. This situation does not seem to result from a determined policy of the central authorities but rather from serious deficiencies in both infrastructure and staff.

The Commission is currently studying the latest assessment of the situation by European NGOs, with a view to deciding how best to structure activity, which could in the short term cover humanitarian assistance such as providing medicine and improving the medical infrastructure and, in the long term, cooperation programmes to train personnel and to improve the management methods of the orphanages.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0485/96 by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission (1 March 1996)

Subject: Free movement of goods within the EU

CS Gas is freely available in some Member States, but illegal in others.

What steps does the Commission intend to take to ensure harmonization of the rules across Europe?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (15 April 1996)

CS gas (tear gas) is not the subject of any Community harmonization measure. Since there is no obvious need for a Community initiative in this connection, the Commission does not consider it expedient to propose that the national rules in force be harmonized. However, it should be noted that, where there no specific provisions on the safety of products exist, Directive 92/59/EEC on general product safety ((Council Directive 92/59/EEC of 29 June 1992 (OJ No L 228, 11.8.1992). )) applies.

It is up to the Member States, therefore, to regulate the marketing of CS gas in accordance with the EC Treaty, and in particular the provisions on the free movement of goods. In other words, a Member State may restrict or even prohibit the sale of this type of product within its territory on one of the grounds listed in Article 36 of the Treaty or in order to satisfy certain mandatory requirements, such as consumer protection; this is the case even if the product in question is freely marketed in another Member State, provided that the restrictions on sales are justified and proportionate to the stated objectives.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0405/96 by Ian White (PSE) to the Commission (22 February 1996)

Subject: Breast cancer and the pesticide 'Lindane'

Following the reply given by the Commission to Written Question P-0860/95 ((OJ C 179, 13.7.1995, p. 57. )) by Mrs Waddington, has the Commission yet carried out its programme for re-evaluation, and does it intend to take any necessary measures to ensure the safety of human health and the environment?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (16 April 1996)

Since 1988 the Commission's Scientific Committee on Pesticides has been evaluating the possible effects of lindane, but has not identified any link between that product and any possible increase in rates of breast cancer.

Nevertheless, lindane is among the 90 active substances included in a pesticide re-evaluation programme. The results of this re-evaluation, upon which the measures to be proposed by the Commission will depend, are to be submitted to the Commission by the Member State acting as rapporteur by November 1996, in the form of an evaluation report. On the basis of this report the Commission will then have to fund an examination together with the Member States, under the umbrella of the Standing Committee on Plant Health. This means that a decision can be expected in the course of 1997.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0727/96 by Salvador Garriga Polledo (PPE) to the Commission (26 March 1996)

Subject: National measures to combat wastefulness and the misuse of Community resources

Can the Commission make available the comparative analysis of the reports supplied by the Member States on national measures taken to combat wastefulness and the misuse of Community resources, which also takes stock of progress in applying Article 209a of the EC Treaty, which the Commission forwarded to the Council on 17 November 1995?

Answer given by Mrs Gradin on behalf of the Commission (3 May 1996)

The Commission is sending direct to the Honourable Member its synthesis document and comparative analysis ((COM(95)556 final. )). This document has been sent to the Parliament.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0552/96 by Anita Pollack (PSE) to the Commission (11 March 1996)

Subject: Sweeteners

When will the Commission's study into the level of labelling of sweeteners in Member States be ready?

Is the Commission aware that much packaging of children's crisps, soft drinks, etc. in the UK is able to label words such as 'sugar-free' or 'reduced sugar' in very large print, but the amount of sweeteners in these products is only labelled in very small print under the ingredients list, thus constituting misleading labelling?

Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission (22 April 1996)

The Council has recently adopted a directive on the labelling of foodstuffs containing sweeteners ((Directive 96/21/CE of the Council, 29.3.1996 - OJ L 88, 5.4.1996. )). This includes an obligation to indicate the statement 'with sweeteners' near the name under which the product is sold, in order to provide better consumer information.

Indication of the quantity of the sweeteners used in a foodstuff is not currently mandatory under the Community legislation and the Commission has no plans to impose such an obligation in future.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0973/96 by Raymonde Dury (PSE) to the Commission (22 April 1996)

Subject: Living on campsites and weekend residential parks

In Belgium, and in the Wallonia region in particular, poor people are currently to be found living on campsites and in weekend residential parks.

This is a very worrying problem to which solutions are being sought as part of efforts to combat social exclusion.

1. Does the same problem exist in other EU countries and, if so, which ones?

2. Have any studies been made of the problem?

3. Should the Commission not look into the matter so that anti-poverty programmes can take account of it?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (15 May 1996)

The Commission is not aware of any specific studies on poor people living on campsites and weekend residential parks. However, this issue has been dealt with in reports by non-governmental organisations, for example in the reports of the European Observatory for the Homeless coordinated by the European Federation of National Organisations Working with the Homeless (FEANTSA), to which the Commission provides regular financial support.

The subject of housing for excluded persons will be discussed at the informal meeting of housing ministers of the Member States which will be held in October 1996 in Ireland.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0064/96 by Yannos Kranidiotis (PSE) to the Council (30 January 1996)

Subject: Meeting in Bonn between the Foreign Ministers of five EU Member States and the Foreign Minister of Turkey

On 22 November 1995 in Bonn, the Turkish Foreign Minister met the Foreign Ministers of five Member States of the European Union: Germany, the UK, France, Italy and Spain. This meeting was a follow-up to similar meetings held in Ankara and London.

Such meetings are contrary to the spirit and the principles of the Treaty on European Union and are reminiscent of the clandestine gatherings of a bygone era held in pursuit of covert objectives. The five members of the EU are under an obligation pursuant to the EU Treaty to inform and exchange views with the other members of the Union and, where possible, to coordinate their policies and adopt common positions within the framework of the common foreign and security policy (CFSP). The EU has established a political dialogue with Turkey and there is no reason to discuss the same issues aired in the context of the CFSP at gatherings such as the Bonn meeting of 25 November 1995 outside the Union's institutional framework unless issues are being discussed and positions adopted which are not in line with the agreed Community position. This appears to have been the case in Bonn where, according to press reports - which have not been denied - the five EU Foreign Ministers put the view to the Turkish side that a condition of Cyprus' membership of the EU was the prior settlement of the conflict on the island. This position is not, of course, the position adopted by the Union at the European Council in Cannes which made no link between the accession of Cyprus to the EU and a settlement of the Cyprus conflict.

How does the Council explain the holding of such meetings on matters concerning the fundamental policies of the Union?

Reply (3 June 1996)

The Council's position on the question of Cyprus is well known and has often been stated.

Naturally Member States are bound by it. The Council has no reason to believe that Member States, in meetings which they may hold individually or jointly with third countries outside the institutional context of the Union, do other than support the Union's external and security policy actively and unreservedly in a spirit of loyalty and mutual solidarity, in accordance with the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article J5 thereof.