WRITTEN QUESTION E-3276/02 by Daniel Hannan (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Isle of Wight.
Date: 2002-11-19
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU programme, Structural Funds, United Kingdom, economic development, eligible region, island, less-favoured region

C 137 E/184

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

12.6.2003

on the development of on-board diagnostic (OBD) systems, giving its opinion on the need for an extension
of the OBD procedure and on requirements for the operation of an on-board monitoring (OBM) system.
On the basis of the report the Commission will submit, a proposal for measures to enter into force no
later than 1 January 2005 to include the technical specifications and corresponding annexes in order to
provide for the type-approval of OBM systems ensuring at least equivalent levels of monitoring to the
OBD system and which shall be compatible with these systems.

The Commission is fully aware of the content of Directive 98/69/EC and the many tasks that are laid down
in this area. The subject of OBD is one of continuous evolution and this has been reflected in the
amendments to the basic prescriptions for OBD that are laid down in Directive 98/69/EC. On the basis of
a Commission proposal, the Parliament and the Council decided on Directive 2001/1/EC (2). In addition,
(1999/102/EC (3) and 2002/80/EC (4)) have been agreed through the
two Commission Directives
comitology procedure to clarify the application of OBD to gas fuelled vehicles and introduce several
technical amendments to enhance the practical application of OBD.

The Commission is presently preparing another amendment to the OBD requirements to introduce the
OBD threshold limits applicable to vehicles equipped with petrol engines from 2005 and to further
improve the application of OBD with respect to annual roadworthiness testing. This proposal should be
presented to the legislators in the first half of 2003.

On the specific issue of OBM systems, the Commission has not submitted the report called for in the
second sub-paragraph of Article 4(1) of Directive 98/69/EC as it is still reviewing the state of development
of OBM, which has not been as strong as was foreseen when Directive 98/69/EC was agreed. It is presently
of the opinion that there is no device or system that could be regarded as providing an OBM capability
that would complement an OBD system in a cost effective manner. It has had discussions with major
suppliers of OBD systems and exhaust gas sensors who have clearly stated that the development of new
sensor technology, some of which are already being applied on new vehicles, already constitutes an
effective OBM capability, within the constant evolution of OBD systems.

As part of the review of the state of development, the Commission has also had several discussions with
certain parties seeking to develop OBM systems and seen demonstrations of their OBM systems. While the
developments are notable, the Commission is of the opinion that such developments still have a long way
to go and certainly do not provide a basis on which to make any justifiable and cost-effective proposal to
the Parliament and Council.

However, in order to partly fulfil its obligation at this time the Commission will soon present the results of
its discussions with relevant stakeholders in an interim report to the Parliament and Council.

(1) OJ L 292, 28.12.1998.
(2) OJ L 35, 6.2.2001.
(3) OJ L 334, 28.12.1999.
(4) OJ L 291, 28.10.2002.

(2003/C 137 E/208)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3276/02

by Daniel Hannan (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 November 2002)

Subject: Isle of Wight

Could the Commission please say how much aid the Isle of Wight is eligible for under the NUTS 2
programme and, also, why the Commission and the British Government have decided that it should be
ineligible for structural funds under Objective II?

12.6.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 137 E/185

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(20 December 2002)

The European Union supports programmes for economic development in predefined eligible areas under
Objectives 1 and 2 of the Structural funds. It also operates an number of other programmes and initiatives
where there are no predetermined eligible areas.

According to Article 3, §1 of Council Regulation 1260/1999, ‘The regions covered by Objective 1 shall be
regions corresponding to level II of the Nomenclature of Territorial Statistical Units (NUTS II) whose per
capita GDP, measured in purchasing power parities, and calculated on the basis of Community figures the
last three years available on 26 March 1999, is less than 75 % of the Community average’. For Hampshire
and the Isle of Wight, the relevant NUTS 2 region in this context, the data revealed a GDP per head of
97,2 % of the Community average, and accordingly, the region was not included on the list of regions
covered by Objective 1 of the Structural Funds for the period 2000-2006.

With regard to Objective 2 of the Structural Funds, the preparation of the list of eligible areas was
undertaken in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, giving Member States the initiative to propose
areas. The Commission’s role was to check for consistency with the regulations in order to ensure that the
areas selected were those facing the most serious problems. In the event, the UK authorities did not
propose to include the Isle of Wight among its Objective 2 areas, and the region did not therefore feature
on the final list published on 30 March 2002.

While the Isle of Wight is not eligible to receive structural support under Objective 1 or Objective 2 for
the period 2000-2006,
it is eligible for support from the Structural Funds in the context of other
programmes and initiatives operating during the current period. These include the human resources pro-
grammes under Objective 3, the Interreg Community Initiative and the Innovative Actions programmes. In
addition, the region is also eligible for support under the rural development programme for England which
has a financial allocation of EUR 615,2 million from the Common Agricultural Policy for the period
2000-2006.

(2003/C 137 E/209)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3280/02

by Ian Hudghton (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(19 November 2002)

Subject: Industrial fisheries (cid:1) sandeels

Given the record catches of sandeel fisheries being recorded by Danish fishermen (in April this year, the
previous record from 1994 of 72 000 tonnes was broken when 78 000 tonnes were landed), how can the
Commission provide reassurances that the already threatened white fish stocks of the North Sea are not
being adversely affected by these catches?

Why has the Commission not reduced radically the catches of industrial fisheries in light of the closures
and reduced quotas being faced by the fishing industry in relation to fish for human consumption?

Can the Commission justify its nonchalant approach towards allowing industrial fisheries in light of the
obvious detrimental effect on the marine ecosystem, and obvious impact on other fisheries crucial for the
survival of fisheries-dependent communities located around the North Sea?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(23 December 2002)

According to the information available to the Commission the Danish fishermen landed 178,000 tonnes of
sandeel in April 2002 and 245,000 tonnes in May 2002.