ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0214/98 by Allan Macartney (ARE) to the Commission (11 February 1998)

Subject: Replacement of dry-cleaning machines and compensation

Is the Commission aware whether any steps have been taken to mitigate the costs for those dry-cleaners who have had to replace their 113 fluid machines? 113 machines are being/have been phased out, and it appears that the practice is to use distilled fluid until this runs out and them either to convert existing machines or buy new ones.

The costs involved, both for converting or replacing, are substantial, particularly for small businesses. It would therefore seem equitable to have some sort of compensation or grant allowance scheme in place to prevent small dry-cleaning businesses from facing financial ruin. As this conversion is required at the behest of the EC, could the Commission confirm, with due haste, whether compensation has been or will be made available?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (24 March 1998)

The Commission is not aware of any compensation or allowance schemes intended to help dry cleaners with the costs of conversion or replacement of dry cleaning machines which use chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) 113.

CFC 113 is an ozone-depleting substance. It is therefore subject to phasing out under the Montreal Protocol on substances that deplete the ozone layer. The Montreal Protocol has now been signed by over 165 parties, each of which is thereby committed to phase out the production and consumption of all ozone-depleting substances. Under the Montreal Protocol, developed countries had to phase out their production and consumption of CFCs by 1 January 1996, except for a few essential uses such as asthma inhalers. Under Regulation (EC) No 3093/94 on substances that deplete the ozone layer ((OJ L 333, 22.12.1994. )), phasing out was one year earlier in the Community.

Hence it is not the Commission which is requiring the conversion of dry cleaning machines using CFC 113. Rather the parties to the Montreal Protocol, including the Community and all its Member States, have collectively decided, as part of their commitment to ozone layer protection, that CFCs should no longer be produced and placed on the market for this use.

The decision to phase out the production of CFCs was first taken in 1990 at the second meeting of the parties to the Montreal Protocol. The date was subsequently advanced at the fourth meeting in 1992, in view of accelerated ozone depletion and the growing availability of alternatives. For dry cleaning, the Protocol's technical committee notes that the most widely used dry cleaning solvent, perchloroethylene, has been successfully used for over 30 years and represents a likely alternative to CFC 113.

Despite the availability of alternatives, there is nothing in the Montreal Protocol nor in Regulation (EC) No 3093/94 which prevents dry cleaners continuing to use recycled or stockpiled CFCs produced before the phaseout. By this means, many users throughout the Community have been able to plan their move out of CFCs in a way which avoids technical and economic difficulties, including financial ruin.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0484/98 by Richard Howitt (PSE) to the Commission (27 February 1998)

Subject: Transitional arrangements for KONVER areas losing eligibility after 1999

Given the fact that fifty per cent of the designated areas for the KONVER Community Initiative Europe-wide fall outside eligible areas under mainstream ERDF programmes, will the Commission consider funding transitional arrangements for such areas which are no longer eligible within the new Structural Fund programmes after 1999? If not, what explanation can the Commission give for treating such areas different from Objective 2 areas which lose eligibility but which are intended to benefit from transitional arrangements?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (31 March 1998)

The Commission guidelines on the Community Konver initiative, published in 1994 ((OJ C 180, 1.7.1994. )), permit Member States to propose areas not eligible for support under the Structural Funds - provided that the percentage of such areas does not exceed 50% of the total Community contribution.

In terms of the Community contribution, the published list of eligible areas ((OJ C 402, 31.12.1994. )) proposes only around 35% of areas not eligible for support under the Structural Funds.

Moreover, under the review of the Structural Funds, the Commission envisages permitting a transitional period only for areas which are currently eligible under Objectives 1 and 2 and which would no longer be so during the period 2000-2006. Thus eligibility is a prerequisite for a transitional period, and areas not eligible would not be entitled to such a period.

However, areas falling outside Objectives 1 and 2 could be covered by the new Objective 3 measures. The purpose of this Objective is to develop measures to modernise the labour markets in coordination with the multi-annual employment plans and the new chapter on employment in the Treaty of Amsterdam. Priority will also be accorded to measures aimed at adapting and modernising systems of education, training and employment with a view to increasing the Community economy's competitiveness and to providing support for the economic and social changes throughout the EU.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0732/98 by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Commission (2 March 1998)

Subject: EU funds for Rhineland-Palatinate and Saarland since January 1995

What projects and Funds have provided Community resources for Rhineland-Palatinate and Saarland since January 1995? Who were the beneficiaries and what sums were involved:-

1. for job promotion and combating long-term unemployment? From the European Regional Development Fund? The European Social Fund. The EAGGF and other EU funds?

2. to promote research and development? In the universities and colleges? In the private sector?

3. to promote relations and trade with the countries of Central and Eastern Europe?

4. from the youth programmes?

5. from the education and training programmes?

6. for women's projects?

7. for cultural projects?

8. What is the EU's assessment of the success of the measures?

9. How many jobs was it possible to create and for which occupational groups?

10. Are these jobs temporary or long term?

Answer given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission (19 March 1998)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0069/98 by Gerhard Botz (PSE) to the Commission (30 January 1998)

Subject: Possible investigations into the use of plant protection products and their impact on human fertility

In connection with the dramatic decline in the numbers of small game in intensively-farmed regions in recent years, I have received an increasing number of approaches from members of hunting clubs and nature protection societies bringing to my attention the scientific investigations recently carried out.

Apart from residues of herbicides and fungicides, those investigations also concern chemical substances which adversely affect, for example, oestrogen levels in wild hare and significantly diminish fertility. Since it is highly probable that the dicarboximides, which have Vinclozolin as their active ingredient and are frequently used in plant protection products, adversely affect mammals, the question naturally arises as to whether the 'final consumers' - human beings - are at risk.

I should therefore like to know whether the Commission is aware of such investigations and whether it has carried out any investigations itself in order to assess the possibility of such potential danger for consumers, and/or what possible countermeasures have already been taken?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (25 March 1998)

Vinclozolin as an active substance used in plant protection products is currently undergoing detailed scientific evaluation in the framework of Regulation (EEC) No 3600/92 of 11 December 1992 ((OJ L 366, 15.12.1992. )) laying down the detailed rules for the implementation of the first stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Council Directive 91/414/EEC concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market ((OJ L 230, 19.8.1991. )). The evaluation report of the rapporteur Member State has been received by the Commission and will be submitted to review by specialised experts (peer review) from March to July 1998.

Studies on mutagenicity, carcinogenicity, reproductive toxicity, neurotoxicity, together with other toxicological and ecotoxicological data are being duly investigated by them.

After the peer review the examination will be finalised in the standing committee on plant health. On the basis of the evaluation a decision will be taken. If it were concluded that the risks posed by this substance are unacceptable for humans, animals or the environment, its use will be restricted or forbidden.

The Commission has been active in substantial research on the identification and assessment of endocrine disrupting substances. It is also involved in research coordination with Member States and with third countries such as the United States and Japan.

In addition the Commission and the Member States are active in developing new test strategies and new test methods on international level. The results of these activities will be published in internationally available data banks and if necessary be used in the context of an amendment of the data requirements for plant protection products laid down in Council Directive 91/414/EEC.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0347/98 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission (17 February 1998)

Subject: Framework for Community action in the field of water policy

The Commission has drawn up a proposal for a Council Directive establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy (COM(97)0049 - 97/0067(SYN)) ((OJ C 184, 17.6.1997, p. 20.)). To help determine the possible ways of achieving the aims of transnational water plans involving non-Union countries, will the Commission organize or intensify:

1. official international conferences to discuss objectives and policies to be pursued above Community level;

2. measures to deal with more specific pollution problems by strengthening voluntary agreements concluded outside the Community framework with sectors of industry, official bodies, users, and so forth?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0344/98, E-0345/98, E-0346/98, E-0347/98 and E-0348/98 given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (18 March 1998)

The Parliament has scheduled its discussions on the Commission's proposal for a Council directive establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy ((COM(97)47. COM(97)614. COM(98)76. )) for the March 1998 and April 1998 meetings of the environment committee. The Commission will address the questions raised by the Honourable Member during those meetings.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0018/98 by Klaus Lukas (NI) to the Commission (29 January 1998)

Subject: Cost of the Commission representation in Vienna

The Commission's reply to question E-3151/97 ((OJ C 134, 30.4.1998, p. 77. )) only partially answered the questions concerning expenditure on the Commission representation in Vienna.

An answer to the following questions would therefore be appreciated:

How many more staff does the Commission representation in Vienna now have than it had before Austria's accession?

Are there any plans for further increases in its staff? If so, how many more are to be recruited?

How much bigger is the head of the representation's office than that of President Santer?

How often are conferences held at the representation with 100 people in attendance?

The Commission itself says that the figures on numbers of visitors to the Commission representation in Vienna are estimates. If the visitors are therefore not counted exactly, how did the Commission arrive at the impressive figure of more than 10 000 people in a period of 12 months?

What was the degree of utilization of the storage space at the Commission representation in Hoyosgasse?

What is the degree of utilization of the storage space at the Commission representation in Kärntnerringhof?

Answer given by Mr Oreja on behalf of the Commission (11 March 1998)

The staff in the Commission representation in Vienna has increased by four people.

In principle there will be no further increases in staff, but during the second half of 1998, during Austria's European Union Presidency, two additional people will be employed on a limited basis only for the second half of 1998.

Considering the particularity of the room in which the head of representation works, a comparison with the offices at headquarters is not possible. Indeed, the diverse configurations of buildings occupied by the Commission in Brussels also prevent any meaningful comparison being made between them. The Community runs approximately 120 delegations in third countries and 23 representations and antennae in Member States, all with different architectural layouts.

Four events with 100 people and more were held at the representation in Vienna.

In a three week period this year which was chosen at random, precise records were kept of all callers to the Representation. The number of visitors, both individuals and groups came to 680. A simple extrapolation would indicate an annual total of well in excess of 10,000 visitors to the Representation.

The storage space in Hoyogasse was not only completely used, but in addition, several meters of bookshelves had to be installed in the corridors to store brochures, printed information material and so on.

Approximately 95% of the space dedicated to storage at the representation in Kärntnerringhof is being used.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0524/98 by Susan Waddington (PSE) to the Commission (2 March 1998)

Subject: The promotion of certain foodstuffs

Current dietary advice urges us to reduce our meat, milk, fat and sugar consumption and increase our fruit and vegetable consumption. In view of this, recent press reports in the UK have raised concern that a portion of the CAP budget is used to promote the consumption of meat and dairy products, and yet not to promote the consumption of fresh fruit and vegetables. These reports argue therefore that the CAP fails to promote the consumption of a balanced diet. Are these press reports accurate, and if so, what measures will the Commission be taking to encourage the consumption of fresh fruit and vegetables in the future?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (12 March 1998)

The Commission would like to point out to the Honourable Member that the Community budget for promoting agricultural products is used in particular to encourage consumption of certain fruit and vegetables. Promotion schemes have been adopted by the Council for apples, citrus fruit, dried grapes and nuts, covered respectively by Regulations (EEC) No 1195/90 ((OJ L 119, 11.5.1990. )), (EEC) No 1201/90 ((OJ L 119, 11.5.1990. )), (EC) No 399/94 ((OJ L 54, 25.2.1994. )) and (EC) No 2200/96 (Article 54) ((OJ L 297, 21.11.1996. )). In addition, since the reform of the fruit and vegetable sector in Regulation (EC) No 2200/96, the Commission has been granting financial aid for operational programmes run by producer organisations, which may include promotion schemes.

A considerable share of the Community budget devoted to promoting agricultural products is thus spent on fruit and vegetables. These promotion campaigns normally consist of stressing the health benefits related to consumption. The same applies to promotion of the consumption of olive oil, which revolves around the nutritional advantages of a Mediterranean-style diet, in which both olive oil and fruit and vegetables play an important part.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0028/98 by Nikitas Kaklamanis (UPE) to the Commission (29 January 1998)

Subject: Strange arrangements for staffing the European Environment Agency (EEA)

Exercising my right as a full member of Parliament's Committee on Budgets to raise the question of funding for and the use of Community resources by the EEA, I return once more to the question of the staffing of the Agency and would ask for a clear answer in the hope that I shall not be compelled to bring the matter before plenary and ask the Commissioner herself to make a statement.

1. How many candidates of Greek nationality were invited to interview in competitions EEA/A/97/1, EEA/A/97/2 and EEA/A/97/3 for the recruitment of staff and who were they?

2. How many candidates of Greek nationality passed the interview and were ultimately recruited by the EEA and who were they?

3. What is the exact number of Greek officials recruited by the EEA since its inception - a criterion to establish whether all scientists in the EEA Member States are afforded equal opportunities?

I would also point out that the Commission's answers hitherto have not been particularly enlightening, in contrast to the marked clarity of its documents applying to Parliament's Committee on Budgets for EU funds on behalf of the EEA.

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (2 March 1998)

The Honourable Member will be aware that Regulation (EEC) No 1210/90 ((OJ L 120, 11.5.1990. )), which governs the European environment agency (EEA), gives the Agency independent status. The Commission is represented on the management board of the Agency, but is not involved in the administration, functioning or operations of the Agency. The Commission, therefore, has no competence in the area of staff recruitment to the Agency but has instead asked the Agency to provide the information requested.

The European environment agency has passed on the following information on the number of candidates of Greek nationality who have applied to enter competitions for recruitment to the agency.

Competition EEA/A/97/1 - 11 candidates Competition EEA/A/97/2 - 12 candidates Competition EEA/A/97/3 - 7 candidates.

The Agency takes the view that the names of these candidates should rest confidential and should not be published in answer to this question.

No candidates of Greek nationality were subsequently recruited by the Agency. Since the inception of the EEA, one official of Greek nationality has been recruited by the Agency.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0441/98 by Anna Karamanou (PSE) to the Commission (27 February 1998)

Subject: Bad weather in Greece and the tragic consequences on Lesbos and Samos

In the light of the devastation caused by the bad weather on the islands of Lesbos and Samos on 2 February 1998, the loss of human life - two children and a woman - the total destruction of crops, the drowning of dozens of animals, the incalculable material damage and economic consequences, what measures will the Commission take to make Community resources available to assist the regions affected?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0440/98 and E-0441/98 given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission (27 March 1998)

The Commission deplores the damage caused by the recent bad weather to the islands of Samos and Lesvos in Greece, but it must emphasise that the role of the Structural Funds is not to provide assistance in the event of a natural disaster. The Funds' objectives and scope are defined in the Council regulations adopted in December 1988 and revised in July 1993 and concern the financing of investment and infrastructure in underdeveloped regions, regions in industrial decline and rural regions. Only indirect support can therefore be given, where the regional authorities decided that the areas damaged by the bad weather should enjoy priority access to aid to infrastructure and investment for economic development.

With regard to emergency aid to disaster victims, the Commission recalls that this form of symbolic intervention is no longer possible due to the deletion of the item (B4-3400) from the current year's budget.

As far as the European Agriculture Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) Guidance Section is concerned more particularly, Regulation (EEC) No 4256/88 ((OJ L 374, 31.12.1988. )) provides for restoring and prevention measures in case of natural disasters. However, due to the advanced stage of implementation of the relevant operational programmes, EAGGF amounts are almost totally allocated to concrete projects and actions, so there is practically no margin of available unallocated credits. Nevertheless, given the emergency of the situation created by the natural disasters and to the extent that the responsible authorities address a request to the Commission redirecting the priorities within the programmes, the Commission should not be opposed to examine positively this request, provided that the eligibility rules and other implementation provisions of the structural funds are respected. However, it should be clear that a possible EAGGF intervention, if any, would be quite exceptional and limited.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0707/98 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) and Salvatore Tatarella (NI) to the Commission (18 March 1998)

Subject: Injury prevention

This question concerns the proposal for a European Parliament and Council Decision adopting a programme of Community action from 1999 to 2003 on injury prevention in the context of the framework for action in the field of public health (COM(97) 178 final - 97/0132 COD ((OJ C 202, 2.7.1997, p. 20. )).

With regard to product safety, could the Commission establish a solid link between injury prevention and Directive 92/59/EEC ((OJ L 228, 11.8.1992, p. 24. )) on general product safety?

We would stress the measures proposed (cf. the subject of injury prevention capacity) for the purpose of developing the public health aspects of other Community policies aimed at preventing injuries, as in the above-mentioned directive.

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0704/98, E-0705/98, E-0706/98 and E-0707/98 given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (16 April 1998)

The proposed programme on injury prevention aims at the systematic collection of progressively improved information on injuries and their prevention, the sharing of expertise in the selection and adaptation of the best prevention interventions and improvements in the epidemiology of injury. As such, it does not duplicate the health monitoring programme, which seeks to establish health indicators in certain areas as a tool for the overall definition and evaluation of national and Community health policy, but will complement the latter by providing the background material on which appropriate selection of indicators can be made. Moreover, the programme on injury prevention will support the evaluation and dissemination of best practice as regards protective measures, and will promote the drawing up of effective policies. As regards the future development of health policy, present activities judged to merit priority status will feature prominently in future proposals of the Commission.

On 3 November 1997 the Council confirmed its support for the continuation and improvement of the Europe home and leisure accident surveillance system (Ehlass). On 11 March 1998, the Commission accepted, to a large measure, the amendments of the Parliament in first reading related to the integration, development and extension of the former Ehlass system in the proposal for a programme on injury prevention. The proposal of the Commission on this programme is being modified accordingly.

The proposed decision provides that the Commission shall ensure consistency and complementarity between actions to be undertaken under the proposed programme and those implemented under other relevant Community programmes and actions. As such, an appropriate cross link with Directive 92/59/EEC on general product safety ((OJ L 228, 11.8.1992. )) is already provided. Furthermore, as regards the injury prevention capacity, activities will be supported to increase the use which public health bodies can make of other Community policies for injury prevention.

An amount of 14 MECU for 5 years will be proposed for the actions under the programme between 1999 and 2003.