ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0705/97 by Jean-Yves Le Gallou (NI) to the Commission (10 March 1997)

Subject: Operating appropriations of the European Institutions

With regard to heading B3-1006 would the Commission give figures for the total amount of appropriations allocated in 1996 to expenditure on:

- studies

- meetings of experts

- conferences and congresses

- information and publications.

Can the Commission also give figures for these four types of expenditure expressed as a proportion of the total appropriations allocated to the heading in question and state whether it considers this to be a reasonable proportion.

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0698/97, E-0699/97, E-0700/97, E-0701/97, E-0702/97, E-0703/97, E-0704/97, E-0705/97, E-0706/97, E-0707/97, E-0708/97, E-0709/97, E-0710/97, E-0711/97, E-0712/97, E-0713/97, E-0714/97, E-0715/97, E-0716/97, E-0717/97, E-0718/97, E-0719/97, E-0720/97, E-0721/97, E-0722/97, E-0723/97, E-0724/97, E-0725/97, E-0726/97, E-0727/97, E-0728/97, E-0729/97, E-0730/97, E-0731/97, E-0732/97, E-0733/97, E-0734/97, E-0735/97, E-0736/97, E-0737/97, E-0738/97, E-0739/97, E-0740/97, E-0741/97, E-0742/97, E-0743/97, E-0744/97, E-0745/97, E-0746/97, E-0747/97, E-0748/97, E-0749/97, E-0750/97, E-0751/97, E-0752/97, E-0753/97, E-0754/97, E-0755/97, E-0756/97, E-0757/97, E-0758/97, E-0759/97, E-0760/97, E-0761/97, E-0762/97, E-0763/97, E-0764/97, E-0765/97, E-0766/97, E-0767/97, E-0768/97, E-0769/97, E-0770/97, E-0771/97, E-0772/97, E-0773/97, E-0774/97, E-0775/97, E-0776/97, E-0777/97, E-0778/97, E-0779/97, E-0780/97, E-0781/97, E-0782/97, E-0783/97, E-0784/97, E-0785/97, E-0786/97, E-0787/97, E-0788/97, E-0789/97 and E-0790/97 given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission (5 May 1997)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will continue its findings as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0747/97 by Jean-Yves Le Gallou (NI) to the Commission (10 March 1997)

Subject: Operating appropriations of the European Institutions

With regard to heading B4-3209 would the Commission give figures for the total amount of appropriations allocated in 1996 to expenditure on:

- studies

- meetings of experts

- conferences and congresses

- information and publications.

Can the Commission also give figures for these four types of expenditure expressed as a proportion of the total appropriations allocated to the heading in question and state whether it considers this to be a reasonable proportion.

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0698/97, E-0699/97, E-0700/97, E-0701/97, E-0702/97, E-0703/97, E-0704/97, E-0705/97, E-0706/97, E-0707/97, E-0708/97, E-0709/97, E-0710/97, E-0711/97, E-0712/97, E-0713/97, E-0714/97, E-0715/97, E-0716/97, E-0717/97, E-0718/97, E-0719/97, E-0720/97, E-0721/97, E-0722/97, E-0723/97, E-0724/97, E-0725/97, E-0726/97, E-0727/97, E-0728/97, E-0729/97, E-0730/97, E-0731/97, E-0732/97, E-0733/97, E-0734/97, E-0735/97, E-0736/97, E-0737/97, E-0738/97, E-0739/97, E-0740/97, E-0741/97, E-0742/97, E-0743/97, E-0744/97, E-0745/97, E-0746/97, E-0747/97, E-0748/97, E-0749/97, E-0750/97, E-0751/97, E-0752/97, E-0753/97, E-0754/97, E-0755/97, E-0756/97, E-0757/97, E-0758/97, E-0759/97, E-0760/97, E-0761/97, E-0762/97, E-0763/97, E-0764/97, E-0765/97, E-0766/97, E-0767/97, E-0768/97, E-0769/97, E-0770/97, E-0771/97, E-0772/97, E-0773/97, E-0774/97, E-0775/97, E-0776/97, E-0777/97, E-0778/97, E-0779/97, E-0780/97, E-0781/97, E-0782/97, E-0783/97, E-0784/97, E-0785/97, E-0786/97, E-0787/97, E-0788/97, E-0789/97 and E-0790/97 given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission (5 May 1997)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will continue its findings as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2368/97 by Ulf Holm (V) to the Commission (1 July 1997)

Subject: Generalized system of preferences

The European Union has had generalized trade preferences since 1971 for finished and semi-finished industrial products from the developing countries.

Has there been a request with respect to Pakistan for the removal of GSP? If so, what was the Commission's reaction? Could the Commission please make its decision public?

Why did the Commission establish a procedure for the withdrawal of preferences?

What results does the Commission expect from the removal of such preferences?

Answer given by Mr Marín on behalf of the Commission (18 July 1997)

The Honourable Member is referring to a complaint under Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 3281/94 applying a four-year scheme of generalized tariff preferences (1995 to 1998) in respect of certain industrial products originating in developing countries ((OJ L 348, 31.12.1994. )). This complaint seeking the withdrawal of generalised tariff preferences has been the subject of consultations within the Committee for the Management of Generalized Preferences under Article 10 of the Regulation. Consultations are the first - confidential - stage of the procedure laid down in the Regulation; they are followed by an investigation and, if called for, a decision withdrawing preferences.

In view of the steps taken in the right direction, and in particular the stepping-up of efforts by the government of the country concerned to abolish the practices that gave rise to the complaint (forced child labour), the Commission feels it is enough at the moment to follow developments closely, without moving on to the second stage of the procedure.

The decision to withdraw generalised tariff preferences is taken by the Council, not the Commission, under a rigorous procedure aimed at ensuring that complaints are handled with all due legal guarantees of equity and impartiality.

The overriding objective of the procedure, during which contacts are established with the authorities of the countries concerned, is to bring about progress on the ground by encouraging the countries concerned to pursue a qualitative social development, a process the Community backs up with complementary schemes. Preferences are withdrawn as a last resort, if the first two stages have come to nothing.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1887/97 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission (2 June 1997)

Subject: Promotion of combined transport

With reference to the Commission's 'Communication concerning an action programme to promote the combined transport of goods' and the 'Proposal for a Council Regulation (EC) concerning the granting of Community financial assistance for actions to promote combined goods transport' (COM(96) 0335 final - 96/0207 SYN) ((OJ C 343, 15.11.1996, p. 4. )),

the Union must establish and guarantee an efficient goods transport system which meets users' mobility requirements. Combined transport is a key element in such a system as it enables transport resources to be used more efficiently.

In its resolution of 30 October 1990 on the creation of a European combined transport network, the Council emphasized the need for the best possible management of Community resources in the transport sector as well as the need to protect the environment. One of the means for achieving this goal was to be the increased use of combined transport.

Will the Commission continue to pursue and encourage the radical reform of the organization and structure of the Community's railways which was launched with Council Directive 91/440 (EEC) ((OJ L 237, 24.8.1991, p. 25. )) of 29 July 1991 and the two implementing directives 95/18/EC ((OJ L 143, 27.6.1995, p. 70. )) and 95/19/EC ((OJ L 143, 27.6.1995, p. 70. )) and will it, in particular, grant private operators access to Europe's rail networks?

Will it also listen to the users of transport services, as well as operators and other firms offering services, with a view to removing the legal and economic barriers impeding the further development of combined transport?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission (11 July 1997)

The Honourable Member can be assured that the Commission will do its utmost to continue its policy to improve the performance of the railways, which will also benefit the performance of combined transport.

The Commission is also engaging in dialogue with providers and users of transport in order to develop practical solutions to the problems facing combined transport. One recent example of this approach is the Commission communication on the trans-European Rail Freight Freeways ((COM(97) 242. )), which suggests, on the basis of wide consultation, ways of enhancing the attractiveness of Rail Freight by opening access to rail infrastructure to all licenced train operators and by making the use of rail infrastructure less burdensome.

The Pilot Actions for Combined Transport (PACT) programme is an excellent instrument to shape policy in direct response to market requirements. It is the market which comes with ideas and propositions and, through the pilot actions, the Commission is gaining valuable insight into the real problems in the market place. In this way it can develop policies in close co-operation with market participants which can contribute to the further development of combined transport.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1700/97 by Ulf Holm (V) to the Commission (20 May 1997)

Subject: Commission delegations

For several years, the Commission has had a number of offices (delegations) around the world.

1. Can it supply a list of all current EU delegations?

2. How many delegations there were altogether in 1980, 1985, 1990 and 1995 respectively?

3. How many people does each of them now employ?

4. What does each of them cost to run?

5. What did the delegations cost to run, overall, in 1980, 1985, 1990 and 1995 respectively?

Answer given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission (24 June 1997)

For points 1 and 3, the Commission would refer the Honourable Member to the answer already given to written question 1107/97 ((OJ C 319, 18.10.1997, p. 230. )).

Point 2: there were 64 delegations and offices in 1980, 82 in 1985, 94 in 1990 and 122 in 1995.

It is impossible to give the cost of each individual delegation since the relevant appropriations are entered in chapter A6 of the Commission's budget, where spending is broken down by item.

Pre-1988, cost breakdowns were spread over the whole budget and cannot therefore now be isolated. Since 1990, the costs have been entered under chapter A6; they totalled ECU 112 million in 1990 and ECU 191 million in 1995. The increase was due largely to the opening of new Commission delegations in eastern Europe.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1754/97 by José Valverde López (PPE) to the Commission (27 May 1997)

Subject: Common organization of the market in potatoes

In the 1996 farming year, the price of potatoes fell by up to 30%. The various State interventions are causing major distortions, while uncontrolled imports from eastern European and other third countries are causing additional imbalances.

We need a COM in potatoes to ensure balanced supplies of the market and decent income levels for producers.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (13 June 1997)

The Commission considers it essential to set up a market organization for potatoes. In the context of the single market, there is no justification for a product as important as potatoes being governed by unconcerted national policies.

In 1992 the Commission accordingly sent the Council a proposal on a common organization of the market in potatoes ((COM(92) 185. )) and, following its examination by Parliament, sent the Council a new amended text in May 1993.

The amended proposal did not secure a majority in the Council, certain delegations being against the establishment of market organization and others preferring a market with a larger budget.

The Commission considers that the proposal it has formulated represents the best possible compromise between the divergent interests of the Member States.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1871/97 by Gerardo Fernández-Albor (PPE) to the Commission (30 May 1997)

Subject: Safety in children's play areas

Children's play areas in Spain are not as safe as they should be, according to the Spanish Ombudsman, who has just produced a study showing that the child mortality rate in Spain as a result of accidents at home and during leisure activities is 9.4 per thousand among the under-fourteens. This is the highest rate in the European Union.

The study recommends that the games and safety environment in play areas be standardized. It says that if the efforts of the European committee to achieve standardization do not bear fruit, Spain should adopt mandatory standards to ensure the safety and hygiene of its play areas.

What is the current position regarding the proceedings of the EU committee in question and what initiatives could the Commission put forward on this matter, so as to prevent, or at least reduce, the grave shortcomings identified by the Spanish Ombudsman in this area?

Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission (10 July 1997)

An extensive working programme for standardisation of playground equipment has been carried out by the European committee for standardisation (CEN) one of the three recognized European standardisation organizations, for a number of years. The work is now almost finalized. The general standard for safety requirements and test methods (prEN 1176-1) will most likely be finalized after a meeting in June 1997 and the standards for additional requirements and test methods for certain specific types of equipment (carousels, swings, rocking equipment, slides and runways) are to be finalized within a few months thereafter. Voting will take place during the autumn of this year.

The work has been carried out with consumer-representation coordinated through the European association for the co-ordination of consumer representation in standardisation (ANEC). According to ANECs assessment the standards will provide for a satisfactory level of safety.

Moreover on 14th May 1997, the Commission adopted a communication ((COM(97) 178 final. )) and a proposal for a Parliament and Council decision adopting a programme of Community action on injury prevention in the context of the framework for action in the field of public health. This programme will be aimed at reducing the number of injuries in key areas, including home and leisure accidents involving children, young adults and elderly people.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1693/97 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE) to the Commission (20 May 1997)

Subject: Reform of the COM in fisheries and aquaculture products

The Commission is looking into a new proposal on the COM in fisheries and aquaculture products.

Has the Commission assessed the impact the proposal is likely to make on the regions and on economic and social cohesion?

What are likely to be its repercussions on employment?

What would be the consequences for the European Union's fishing regions, and especially Galicia?

Can the Commission say what budgetary amount it is proposed to allocate to the new COM?

Can the Commission put forward an indicative timetable for adoption of the new COM?

Whatever the legal form of the new text,

XXXXX does the Commission intend to back up the new proposal with a study not only of the impact on the producers and processing industries but also on the expected growth of the market in fisheries and aquaculture products?

Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission (3 July 1997)

The common organisation of markets in fishery and aquaculture products has the primary role of attaining the goals given in Article 39 of the EC Treaty in this particular sector.

Basically, the market organisation provides encouragement to producers to organise their marketing and contains instruments for regulating the market to deal with cyclical fluctuations. The aim is to support producers' incomes by means of price stabilisation, in a market which is highly internationalised.

The Commission believes that the efficiency of the market organisation in fishery products needs to be measured against the goals referred to above; such an analysis means taking into account forecast market trends in the products concerned.

Accordingly, the Commission plans by the end of this year to launch discussions about the market in fishery products and the market organisation itself involving the Council, Parliament and other forums and relevant trade circles, on the basis of a discussion document which is now being prepared. The necessary studies have been or will be undertaken and the document will also contain budget estimates.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1865/97 by Lis Jensen (I-EDN) to the Commission (27 May 1997)

Subject: Radioactive scrap metal in cans

According to a note from the Danish Environment and Energy Ministry, the Commission has decided to serve a letter of formal notice concerning lifting of the Danish ban on the marketing of beer and soft drinks in metal packaging.

The waste-reprocessing company, British Nuclear Fuels, decontaminates and recycles radioactive scrap metal and, in its own view, keeps below the 400 Bq per kg limit value for metal which may be used in the manufacture of cans.

In view of its wish to see the Danish ban lifted, will the Commission take account of the potential risk of radiation from metal from such sources and incorporate this factor in any assessment of the impact on health and the environment which it might undertake?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (18 July 1997)

Will the Honourable Member please refer to the joint answer given by the Commission to his written question P-1650/97 and Mr Schörling's P-1654/97 ((OJ C 373, 9.12.1997, p. 152. )).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1923/97 by David Bowe (PSE) to the Commission (4 June 1997)

Subject: UNECE Sulphur Protocol

What does the Commission propose to do to encourage Member States to ratify the UNECE sulphur protocol?

Does not the Commission agree that speedy ratification by Member States would greatly contribute to the attainment of its acidification reduction targets?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (2 July 1997)

The Commission agrees that speedy ratification of the 1994 sulphur protocol of the Convention on long range transboundary air pollution would assist delivery of the environmental quality target for acidification. This is also being stressed in the acidification strategy, in which it is stated that one of the first steps of an ambitious policy to combat acidification should be to ratify the 1994 sulphur protocol.

There are several reasons for ratification. The Community should demonstrate its commitment with regard to existing international undertakings. Ratification by at least 16 signatory parties is necessary to make the protocol operational. The protocol contains provisions for future reviews which provide the opportunity for more far-reaching commitments that could further contribute to meet the environmental quality targets of the Community. Ratification by the Community would encourage those Member States that have yet not done so to ratify the protocol.

In light of the above the Commission has submitted a proposal for a Council decision on the conclusion by the Community of the 1994 sulphur protocol. This proposal was attached to the acidification strategy ((COM(97) 88 final. )).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1826/97 by Concepció Ferrer (PPE) to the Commission (28 May 1997)

Subject: Management of the Ecos-Ouverture programme

The Ecos-Ouverture programme allows projects to be submitted for cooperation between regional and local authorities in the EU and local authorities in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe, the newly independent states of the former Soviet Union and the countries of the Mediterranean basin. The programme has been managed through the Council of European Municipalities and Regions and the Assembly of European Regions.

However, it appears that, as from this year, the programme is to be managed by a private body designated by the Commission, to the detriment of the above two organizations.

Can the Commission say whether this information is correct and, if so, what reasons led to this change in the programme's management and what advantages will this change have by comparison with the previous situation?

What procedures will the Commission follow in selecting the body which will be entrusted with the programme's management?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (3 July 1997)

With regard to the way technical assistance under the ECOS-Ouverture programme will be structured in future, the Commission is examining about 60 proposals received after publication in the Official Journal of a call for expressions of interest in this regard.

The network of local authorities that until now was responsible for monitoring the ECOS-Ouverture programme also submitted a proposal.

The proposals will be examined in strict accordance with current procedures. The Commission intends to take a decision before the end of the year.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1670/97 by Anita Pollack (PSE) to the Commission (20 May 1997)

Subject: Solar energy

Is it true that there is no European production at present of silicon, which is an important component in the production of photovoltaic cells? Is this because this element does not exist in Europe or because its extraction has not been developed? From where does the EU obtain its supplies of silicon?

Answer given by Mrs Cresson on behalf of the Commission (26 June 1997)

Silicon is one of the most abundant elements on earth - sand is essentially an oxide of silicon - so there is no shortage of silicon in Europe.

Chemically pure silicon cannot be used for solar or electronic applications. It must be further purified to become 'solar grade' (i.e. useful for photovoltaic solar cell production) and, even more, if it is to be used for transistors, integrated circuits and other electronic devices.

Solar grade silicon is produced by several European companies and research and development (R& D) work in view of more cost effective production of such silicon is presently funded by the non-nuclear energy programme, in order to secure European supply of all appropriate categories of solar grade silicon (amorphous, crystalline, thin film).