WRITTEN QUESTION E-1456/00 by Francesco Turchi (UEN) to the Commission. Business activities in Tuscany held up.
Date: 2000-05-10
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EAGGF, Tuscany, development plan, rural development

20.3.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 89 E/45

Under current Community law, the placing on the market, including the import, of seeds consisting of, or
containing genetically modified material which has not been authorised in the Community under Council
Directive 90/220/EEC or under equivalent product specific Community provisions is prohibited. This
applies also to seed lots of conventional varieties, that contain impurities of unauthorized genetically
modified material.

The Commission has the intention to adopt, under the existing Community seed legislation, standards for
purity concerning the adventitious presence of genetically modified seeds as well as specific labelling
requirements for seeds in respect of genetically modified material (Annex to the Commission(cid:146)s white paper
on food safety (2), position 77). This would ensure that these standards and labelling requirements are
integrated in the official seed certification procedure established for seeds produced in the Community. The
same measures would also be included in the seed equivalence regime governing the requirements for
seeds imported into the Community.

Until such time, the Member States under their general obligation to monitor compliance with Community
law, have to assess the risk of the possible presence of unauthorized genetically modified material and, in
case of suspicion, to carry out appropriate testing with the aim to intercept contaminated lots and prevent
them from being marketed and used.

Member States can,
in addition to the mandatory checks required under the relevant Community
provisions, unilaterally include any other checks for compliance with Community law in the procedures
applicable to imports from third countries and take the appropriate action in case of findings confirming
non-compliance with Community law.

(1) OJ L 117, 8.5.1990.
(2) COM(1999) 719 final.

(2001/C 89 E/043)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1456/00

by Francesco Turchi (UEN) to the Commission

(10 May 2000)

Subject: Business activities in Tuscany held up

No answer has been received yet to the rural development plan for Tuscany submitted at the beginning
of July 1999 and drawn up in accordance with Regulations (EC) Nos 1257/1999 (1) and 1750/1999 (2) for
rapid approval in the first few months of 2000. This has created considerable problems for the provincial
administrations which, because they do not know when the RDP will be definitively approved, are not
issuing provisional authorisations for work to start. This has led, in turn, to a freeze on the funding of the
companies involved in work carried out since 1 January 2000, thereby holding up business activities in
Tuscany. Can the Commission say what the causes of the delay are?

(1) OJ L 160, 26.6.1999, p. 80.
(2) OJ L 214, 13.8.1999, p. 31.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(14 June 2000)

The rural development plan for the Region of Tuscany for the period 2000-2006 was communicated to
the Commission, in accordance with Article 44(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 of 17 May
1999 on support for rural development from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund
(EAGGF) and amending and repealing certain Regulations (1), in a letter dated 14 December 1999 and was
supplemented by incorporating essential elements under Article 43 of the aforementioned Regulation by
letters dated 30 December 1999 and 26 January 2000.

C 89 E/46

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

20.3.2001

The plan, which is complete following the latest additions, was received officially by the Commission on
1 February 2000. This date constitutes the starting point of the six-month period available to the
Commission for carrying out
the aforementioned
Regulation,
in order to achieve approval of the rural development plan as soon as possible in close
cooperation with the Italian authorities.

in accordance with Article 44(2) of

its appraisal

(1) OJ L 160, 26.6.1999.

(2001/C 89 E/044)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1487/00

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

(11 May 2000)

Subject: Effect of devolution in the UK on European Structural Funds

Following the recent creation of both the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly, to what extent
have these institutional changes in the system of government in the United Kingdom had an effect on the
administration and allocation of Structural Funds and the European Social Fund within the United
Kingdom?

Is the diversion of responsibility between the various governing bodies clear, and have any delays been
encountered which have hindered the effective implementation of the Structural Funds Programme?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(8 June 2000)

Scottish devolution has led to changes in the arrangements for the implementation and administration of
structural funds. Upon devolution in Scotland, the Scottish Executive assumed the administrative functions
which had previously been exercised by the Scottish Office. The day-to-day management of structural fund
programmes at government level has thus continued largely unchanged.

The principal change since devolution has been the establishment of the Scottish Parliament Europe
Committee. This has been able to provide increased democratic scrutiny of the preparations for the new
programming period at the regional level, in particular in the preparation of the plans under Objectives 1,
2 and 3, as well as the review of local programme management arrangements.

Similarly in Wales,
the National Assembly for Wales (previously the Welsh Office), has remained
responsible for the administration of structural fund programmes. However, the Wales European Pro-
gramme Executive (an independent company) has been replaced by the Wales European Funding Office
(an agency of the Assembly) to carry out the secretarial functions necessitated by the current programmes.

As in Scotland, the establishment of the National Assembly for Wales has meant that a more active
political interest is being taken in the programmes. Accordingly the Economic Development Committee of
the Assembly is kept informed of pertinent developments in programme matters.

These arrangements cannot be said to have given rise to delays in effective programme implementation.
Scottish and Welsh devolution has had no effect on the global allocation of Community resources to the
United Kingdom under the structural funds. With regard to the new Objective 2 programmes for the
United Kingdom, for the period 2000-2006, the same financial allocation per capita has been applied
across the United Kingdom.