WRITTEN QUESTION E-2597/99 by Ari Vatanen (PPE-DE) to the Commission. EU Youth Programme.
Date: 2000-01-11
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU programme, conciliation procedure (part of ordinary legislative procedure), interinstitutional relations (EU), operation of the Institutions, young person

8.8.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 225 E/179

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(25 January 2000)

All the Members of the new Commission, including Mr Prodi, have made public declarations of their
financial and other interests. All this information, including details of the professional activities and any
assets of the Members(cid:146) spouses which could create a conflict of interest, has been available on the Internet
since 27 August 1999 at
http://europa.eu.int/comm/commissioners/interests/
index_en.htm).

the following address:

These declarations have also been widely reported in the press.

(2000/C 225 E/198)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2595/99

by Daniel Hannan (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 January 2000)

Subject: Support for IGC report

What was the nature, financial and material, of the support provided by (a) the British Government and
(b) the Commission to the Von Weizs(cid:228)cker-Dehaene-Simon Group while they were drafting their report on
the IGC?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(25 January 2000)

The Commission has no information regarding any possible financial or material support provided by the
British government to the group (cid:145)Von-Weizs(cid:228)cker (cid:129) Dehaene (cid:129) Simon(cid:146).

In order to prepare its report, the group held four meetings in Brussels. For these four meetings, the
Commission financed the travel expenses to Brussels, the hotel expenses in Brussels when required, and the
luncheons. The Commission also financed the fees of the group(cid:146)s (cid:145)rapporteur(cid:146) and provided secretariat
support.

(2000/C 225 E/199)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2597/99

by Ari Vatanen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 January 2000)

Subject: EU Youth Programme

The Commission has submitted a proposal for a new EU Youth Programme, to be launched at the
beginning of 2000. The proposed programme relates mainly to young people in the 15-25 age bracket,
and combines the activities of the youth programmes which finish at the end of 1999, Youth for Europe
and European Voluntary Service for Young People. Parliament proposed a budget of EUR 980 million for
the 7-year programme at second reading. The Council has not approved Parliament(cid:146)s opinion and does not
intend to begin the conciliation procedure this year. That being so, the decision on the programme will
not be taken in time before the end of the year.

How does the Commission propose to ensure the continuation of the EU(cid:146)s youth programmes after the
current programmes finish at the end of 1999 and when the new programme has not yet been launched?

How does the Commission propose to prevent the proposed programme being dropped and to encourage
the rapid taking of a decision on the programme?

C 225 E/180

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

8.8.2000

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(4 February 2000)

At this stage, the Council and Parliament have not yet reached a final compromise concerning the Youth
programme. The first meeting of the Conciliation Committee was held on 27 January 2000, under the
Portuguese Presidency. The Commission is confident that the new programme will be adopted. In so far as
the conciliation procedure is to be concluded during the first quarter of the year 2000, all possible steps
have been taken to ensure that the programme continues.

(2000/C 225 E/200)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2601/99

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(11 January 2000)

Subject: Testing the effects of pesticides on environmental management and on pollution

1.
Is the Commission aware that the Netherlands is playing a pioneering role in the EU in reducing
pollution of the environment by toxic substances in agriculture in that the Dutch authority responsible for
the approval of pesticides has banned, with effect from 2000, 42 pesticides still being used in agriculture?

2.
Is the Commission also aware that this step forwards puts Dutch farms at a competitive disadvantage
compared with similar farms in other EU Member States in that the ban on these 42 substances makes it
extremely difficult, if not impossible, for Dutch farmers to grow potatoes, bulbs, onions, grass seed, flax
and beans? Dutch farmers (cid:129) who are already under considerable pressure (cid:129) are put in such a difficult
position that the result is bankruptcies; one step forwards is tantamount to one step back.

Can the Commission say to what extent other Member States are adopting the measures taken by the

3.
Netherlands and, if so, when?

4. What action has been taken, or is being taken, to (further) limit the adverse affects of poisonous
substances in agriculture, even if this is at the expense of further intensification and increases in scale in
the agricultural sector?

5.
Is the Commission prepared to combine the desire for reducing pollution of the environment with
counteracting distortion of competition by working towards the introduction of a directive on pesticides
applicable to all EU countries which is at least as stringent as the rules currently in force in the
Netherlands?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(14 February 2000)

The Commission is aware that the Netherlands have reviewed recently the authorisation of a number

1.
of active substances.

2.
Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products
on the market (1) provides conditions under which Member States can grant authorisations for plant
protection products. This Directive provides for a gradual re-evaluation of all the active substances which
were on the market in July 1993. This re-evaluation is under way. The Commission intends to adopt in
early 2000 a new regulation to speed up this review.

3.
The Commission has no information to which extent other Member States have taken or will take
the same measures as the Netherlands. The Commission is however aware of the fact that other Member
States are also reviewing the authorisation of certain plant protection products as provided in the
Directive. It should be noted that the active substances on which the Netherlands have acted are not
necessarily all authorised in all the other Member States.