WRITTEN QUESTION E-3455/00 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Unexpected situations with regard to authority and ownership discouraging cross-border tourism in the European Union (taking Manchester as an example).
Date: 2000-11-07
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European social policy, North West (England), United Kingdom, access to information, competence of the Member States, parking area, tourism policy

C 151 E/174

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

22.5.2001

(2001/C 151 E/199)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3455/00

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(7 November 2000)

Subject: Unexpected situations with regard to authority and ownership discouraging cross-border tourism

in the European Union (taking Manchester as an example)

I recently received a complaint from a Netherlands citizen who suffered a surprising and disappointing
experience last summer in the United Kingdom. Whilst on holiday in Manchester, he parked his car on a
section of a public road (Princess Street) with no identifiable indication of a ban on parking. Subsequently,
this turned out to be private land owned by security firm (cid:145)Checquemade Security(cid:146). The firm in question
tows away parked cars, and can only be contacted during office hours on work days. In this case, this
meant that the person concerned had to extend his stay in Manchester and pay GBP 180 in order to get his
car back. Bystanders described this state of affairs as (cid:145)daylight robbery(cid:146). However, the local police said that
the procedure was regarded as legal. The experience has left the tourist in question feeling astonished and
outraged, and he will not be returning to Manchester in a hurry.

The Commission:

1. Does it agree that, whilst, within the European Union, it lies within the competence of local, regional
and national authorities to lay down very different rules governing such situations for their area, this
may well lead in cases such as the one referred to here to visitors from other areas suffering an
unpleasant surprise, to their detriment, in a way which cannot be foreseen, making them feel very
uncertain when visiting areas with unfamiliar rules?

2. Does it regard such a state of affairs as compatible with the aim of increasing tourism between

Member States?

3.

Is it prepared to take steps to see to it that a list is drawn up setting out the rules laid down by the
authorities and the possibility of rules laid down by private owners not identifiable as such, which can
cause visitors from outside the area an unpleasant surprise,
in
consultation with the competent authorities, whether any adjustment or harmonisation is called for?

in order to be able to examine,

4. How can it contribute to improving the provision of information to tourists concerning the possibility
that, when visiting other Member States, they may find themselves the victim of unexpected and
inexplicable rules?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(12 December 2000)

The question of the establishment and operation of parking and similar rules and regulations is a matter
for each individual Member State, following the principle of subsidiarity. Although this might make it
difficult for visitors to be aware of all local rules, the Commission has no plans or authority to examine the
need for the adjustment or harmonisation of such rules in the context of tourism. It believes that this
situation has no measurable impact on European tourism in general, even if in individual cases, it can
cause problems.

Recent Commission studies into the integrated quality management (IQM) of rural, coastal and urban
tourist destinations have pointed out that people travel in order to see and experience Europe(cid:146)s diversity,
but that it is also important that visitors should be provided with sufficient local information to make their
stay a pleasant one. The Commission is ensuring a wide dissemination of the results of these studies, which
are intended to provide a management tool for those responsible for tourism development at the local
level. Summaries of the recommendations on implementing an IQM approach in each type of destination
are available in all Community languages.

The Commission is also currently supporting the work of four sub-groups of the tourism advisory
committee, formed of experts nominated by the Member States, one of which is looking specifically at

22.5.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 151 E/175

information needs and provision in the context of tourism. The Commission(cid:146)s (cid:145)progress report on the
follow-up to the conclusions of the Council on Tourism and Employment(cid:146) (1) is based on the interim
findings of these groups. The report has been adopted recently and is available on the Commission website
homepage.

(1) COM(2000) 696 final.

(2001/C 151 E/200)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3456/00

by Cecilia Malmstr(cid:246)m (ELDR) to the Commission

(7 November 2000)

Subject: Regulations on tooth amalgam

Environmental and public health issues have gained an increasingly prominent position in the EU(cid:146)s
legislation in recent years. At the Cardiff European Council in June 1998 a decision was also taken to
step up efforts to integrate the environment and sustainable development into all Community policies. The
Commission(cid:146)s plans to submit a proposal for a strategy on chemicals this year must be seen as part of this
trend.

Will the Commission(cid:146)s work in this area also include a proposal for Community regulations on the use of
tooth amalgam?

Or does the Commission consider that the issue of mercury in general, and tooth amalgam in particular,
should be dealt with at national
level, with Member States having the opportunity to notify the
Commission of national bans?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(9 January 2001)

The Community has addressed for quite some time the issue of mercury products in order to minimize
risks to human health and the environment related to the use of mercury. Several Directives concerning
several mercury-containing products have been adopted (1). The legislation concerning mercury is under
constant review in order to address potential remaining risks in the light of new evidence. The recent
proposal for a Directive on the restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and
electronic equipment (COM(2000) 347 final of 13 June 2000) foresees a phase-out of mercury in electrical
and electronical equipment with few exceptions.

1.
The specific issue of amalgam waste from dental care has been addressed in Decision 2000/532/EC
replacing Commission Decision 94/3/EC establishing a list of wastes pursuant to Article 1(a) of Council
Directive 75/442/EEC on waste and Council Decision 94/904/EC establishing a list of hazardous waste
pursuant to Article 1(4) of Council Directive 91/689/EEC on hazardous waste. This Decision includes an
entry for (cid:145)amalgam waste from dental care(cid:146) which is considered to be hazardous waste and therefore has to
comply with the requirements of Directive 91/689/EEC on hazardous waste. This constitutes a way to
minimise the release of mercury into the environment by avoiding these residues from being released via
the sewage systems in the clinics and laboratories.

2.
As regards the use of dental amalgams, the Commission follows attentively, in close co-operation
with Member States and other interested parties, the development of substitutes for the use of mercury in
dental amalgam and their impact on health.

3.
If Member States intend to introduce stricter rules on mercury in an area covered by Community
legislation based on Article 95 of the Treaty, they can only do so under the specific conditions and
notification requirements provided for in this Article. In the areas not harmonised or in areas covered by