WRITTEN QUESTION P-1558/01 by Esko Seppänen (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Number of MEPs and enlargement.
Date: 2001-05-17
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European Parliament, European election, European electoral system, Member of the European Parliament, Treaty of Nice, accession to the European Union, interpretation of the law

11.12.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 350 E/189

Use of genetically modified fish or products derived from it as or in food requires authorisation under the
Novel Foods Regulation (Regulation (EC) No 258/97 of the Parliament and of the Council of 27 January
1997 concerning novel foods and novel food ingredients (2)). Under this regulation, genetically modified
food must not present a danger or mislead the consumer or differ from conventional foods to such an
extent that their normal consumption would be nutritionally disadvantageous for the consumer.

The Commission is currently part-funding one project concerning transgenic technology in experimental
fish, the objective of which is to assess and reduce the risks that could emerge from fish genetically altered
by recombinant DNA technology. This is FAIR project 3482 of 1997 (Fourth framework programme of
Research and Technological Development) which started in January 1999 and is to be completed in
December 2001. The project is co-ordinated by Julius-Maximilian Universit(cid:228)t W(cid:252)rzburg, Germany and has
partners in Spain, France, Italy, United Kingdom, and Norway; € 924 000 Community funding has been
approved. The Commission has also part-funded four research projects involving genetically modified fish
in the past but these are now terminated. Two of these were purely concerned with biosafety aspects while
two had potential commercial applications.

Currently research is being conducted into controlling integration and expression of introduced genes and
improving the methods for analysing transgenic fish. It is not the aim of the project to produce transgenic
fish with altered characteristics, to genetically modify commercial species or to release genetically modified
organisms into the environment. Research of this kind can contribute in the future to risk evaluation and
detection of genetically modified fish on the market.

(1) OJ L 106, 17.4.2001.
(2) OJ L 43, 14.2.1997.

(2001/C 350 E/204)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1558/01

by Esko Sepp(cid:228)nen (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(17 May 2001)

Subject: Number of MEPs and enlargement

In replying to my question H-272/01 (1), the Commission representative interpreted the Treaty of Nice as
meaning that, if no accession agreement has been signed by 1 January 2004, the same number of MEPs
will be elected in 2003 from the 15 Member States as at present. This interpretation is undoubtedly
correct, but it brings with it a new interpretation problem if, for example, only one accession agreement
has been signed. In the Commission(cid:146)s interpretation, how many MEPs from the Member States would be
elected in that case?

(1) Written answer of 3 April 2001.

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(18 July 2001)

Under Article 2(2) and (3) of the Protocol on the enlargement of the European Union annexed by the
Treaty of Nice to the Treaty on European Union and the Treaties establishing the European
Communities (1), the exact number of representatives to be elected in each Member State to Parliament in
2004 is to be determined by a Council Decision.

To determine this number,
it will first be necessary to add to the total number of representatives of
the current 15 Member States (specified in Article 190 of the EC Treaty, as amended by Article 2(1) of the
Protocol, i.e. 535 representatives) the number of representatives of the new Member States arising from the

C 350 E/190

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

11.12.2001

accession treaties signed by 1 January 2004. If the total number of representatives is less than 732, which
could be the case if all the applicant countries have not completed negotiations and signed an accession
treaty by 1 January 2004, the Council will increase the number of representatives to be elected in each
Member State in 2004 to be as close as possible to 732. The number of representatives to be elected in
2004 will be corrected on a prorata basis; without the number of representatives to be elected in a Member
State being higher than that currently provided for.

(1) OJ C 80, 10.3.2001.

(2001/C 350 E/205)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1561/01

by Robert Sturdy (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(28 May 2001)

Subject: Incineration vs. rendering in the UK

In the UK, full entitlement to EU reimbursement under the Over Thirty Month Scheme is only payable
when a carcass is incinerated (although an 80 % advance may be given upon rendering). The UK is
therefore losing interest on claimable money because of the policy of the Intervention Board to render
rather than use direct incineration. Is this a result of a change in the European Commission(cid:146)s or the UK
Government(cid:146)s policy?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(20 July 2001)

Under Commission Regulation (EC) No 716/96 of 19 April 1996 adopting exceptional support measures
for the beef market in the United Kingdom (1), the Community shall co-finance the expenditures incurred
by the United Kingdom for the purchase of Over Thirty Month (OTM) animals for destruction. The co-
financing which is limited to a fixed amount per animal is due after the animal has been fully incinerated
but the Regulation provides for an advance equal to 80 % of the Community contribution upon rendering.

Due to lack of capacity for direct incineration of OTM-animals, the bulk of the animals under the scheme
has been rendered into tallow and meat-and-bone meal which are products relatively easy to store until
their incineration can be made. It is the Commission(cid:146)s impression that the problem of incineration capacity
still to-day is the basis upon which the United Kingdom is deciding whether to render the animals or to
incinerate them directly.

(1) OJ L 99, 20.4.1996.

(2001/C 350 E/206)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1563/01

by Patricia McKenna (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(28 May 2001)

Subject: Construction of a sports centre at the Cecebre reservoir, municipality of Avegondo, Spain

The Deportivo de La Coruæa football club wishes to build a sports centre extending over more than
100 000 m2 beside the Cecebre reservoir, an area belonging to the Natura 2000 network. In addition to the
immense environmental importance of the site (it is a bird habitat/resting area; the species to be found
there include migrant birds, ducks and mud dwellers, herons, lesser egrets, the kingfisher, otters, newts, the
osprey, falcons, the kestrel, the goshawk, the Spanish frog, the smooth snake, the stag beetle, the fox, and
the shrew; and the site is a bird nesting area, an international bird migration observation and monitoring
area, an area of special botanical interest, an Atlantic woodland area, and a natural landscape area (1)), its
state of conservation also determines the cleanliness of the water supply for human uses for the city of La
Coruæa and its outskirts (400 000 people). In the area there are several other possible sites for the