WRITTEN QUESTION E-2497/01 by Giovanni Pittella (PSE) to the Commission. National operational programme (NOP) and SMEs.
Date: 2001-09-13
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Italy, State aid, investment aid, operational programme, regional policy, research and development, small and medium-sized enterprises

C 93 E/144

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

18.4.2002

(2002/C 93 E/173)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2496/01

by Paul Lannoye (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(14 September 2001)

Subject: Electromagnetic field

Council Recommendation 1999/519/EC (1) of 12 July 1999, on the limitation of exposure of the general
public to electromagnetic fields (0 Hz to 300 GHz), to provide a high level of health protection proposed
that reference levels be respected by which that objective would be achieved. For the frequency of 50 Hz,
used in the transport and distribution of electricity, magnetic flux density should never exceed 100 µT
(100 microteslas).

Many scientists regard this value as far too high, believing that the precautionary principle would require a
maximum level of 0.2 µT. The IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer) recently wound up its
consideration of the problem, on the basis of group analyses of original data from a number of properly
carried out studies, by concluding that there was a statistically significant and coinciding link between
childhood leukaemia and exposure to household ELF magnetic fields higher than 0.4 µT.

In fact the risk to a child constantly exposed to a field of 0.4 µT would be double. This new finding
coming from a body of uncontested scientific authority completely invalidates the Council’s recom-
mendation as regards public exposure to a type of pollution which is widely present in our everyday
environment. It also undermines the very approach in the present text, which ignores the precautionary
principle and confines itself to taking into account adverse effects on health. Does the Council intend to
amend its 1999 document without delay, in view of the possible implications for the quality of life of a
large proportion of the population of Europe?

(1) OJ L 199, 30.7.1999, p. 59.

Reply

(10 December 2001)

Council Recommendation 1999/519/EC (1) of 12 July 1999, on the limitation of exposure of the general
public to electromagnetic fields (0 Hz to 300 GHz) specifically invites the Commission to keep the matters
covered by the Recommendation under review, with a view to its revision and updating, taking into
account possible effects which are currently the object of research,
including relevant aspects of
precaution, and to prepare a report within five years which takes into account the reports of the Member
States and the latest scientific data and advice. The Council stands ready to consider any proposal which
the Commission may submit to amend the 1999 Recommendation in the light of the latest scientific data
and advice.

The Honourable Member will also be aware that Article 249 of
the EC Treaty clearly states that
Recommendations have no binding force. Moreover, the Recommendation’s preamble explicitly states that
Member States may, in accordance with the Treaty, provide for a higher level of protection than that set
out in the Recommendation.

(1) OJ L 199, 30.7.1999, p. 59.

(2002/C 93 E/174)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2497/01

by Giovanni Pittella (PSE) to the Commission

(13 September 2001)

Subject: National operational programme (NOP) and SMEs

The Italian Minister for the productive sector recently announced that a specific measure under the
Enterprise NOP was to be used to ensure that SMEs received adequate guidance.

18.4.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 93 E/145

Although of interest in itself, this initiative restricts the number of possible beneficiaries to the enterprises
listed in Law 448, under which, as is common knowledge, applications will be accepted from medium to
large-sized enterprises, which already have appropriate advisory support.

Would the Commission not agree that this restriction is contrary to the EU objective (restated in the NOP)
of promoting entrepreneurship, with particular reference to the emergence of micro-enterprises, by giving
companies that do not already have them the instruments they require to take a new approach in this
area?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(6 November 2001)

The national operational programme for local business development (Sviluppo imprenditoriale locale)
under the Community Support Framework for Objective 1 regions in Italy in the programming period
2000-06 is intended to provide financing for the general aid scheme for productive investment under
Italian Law No 488/92, and for integrated aid packages relating to capital
investment, research and
development, innovation, the purchase of real services, credit guarantees and improving workers’ skills.
Community aid allocated to this operational programme totals EUR 1 978.9 million.

The operational programme includes measures involving a contribution to the financing of guidance to
help small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) define and carry out investment projects of an innovative
nature. These measures are restricted to SMEs, which, unlike large companies, lack the resources to prepare
and implement this type of investment.

It is also worth noting that, following the first four calls for tenders issued under Law No 488/92, small
firms accounted for 60 % of the aid granted.

(2002/C 93 E/175)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2500/01

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(13 September 2001)

Subject: Greatly increased journey times as a result of poor coordination between the Netherlands and

Belgian railways and the advent of high-speed railway lines

Is the Commission aware that in the timetable for a period of at least 18 months from 10 June 2001
1.
to 14 December 2002 the hourly cross-border rail service between Brussels and Amsterdam no longer
provides normal connections between Belgium and the South and East of the Netherlands in either
direction. This is because trains from Brussels arrive at 57 minutes past the hour while the connecting
trains to Tilburg B Nijmegen B Zwolle leave one minute earlier and in the opposite direction trains arrive
at the Rosendaal junction at five minutes past the hour and the connecting train to Brussels now leaves
four minutes earlier at three minutes past the hour?

2.
Does the Commission not agree that the replacement of connections that have existed for years
allowing time to change trains with a timetable that allows no time to make the connection reflects
inadequate coordination between the Netherlands (NS) and Belgian (NMBS/SNCB) railways, which, for the
sake of timetabling their domestic train services easily, have imposed a waiting time of one hour in the
southern direction and half an hour in the northern direction for connections between the two countries?

3.
Does the Commission see any possibility of helping to find a speedy solution to this cross-border
problem and the irritation caused to cross-border train passengers by improving coordination between
train services in the Netherlands and Belgium, or does it accept a situation in which existing structures for
intensive cooperation in Europe do not prevent traffic bottlenecks of this kind, for which there is no
justification whatsoever, continuing or occurring again?