WRITTEN QUESTION E-1463/03 by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission. Cotton growing in the Alqueva irrigation area.
Date: 2003-04-29
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Portugal, aid to agriculture, common agricultural policy, cotton

C 65 E/82

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

13.3.2004

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(26 May 2003)

The attention of the Honourable Member is drawn to previous answers made by the Commission on
similar or related issues where additional information can be found (H-0398/01 by Mr Fitzsimons during
question time at Parliament’s May 2001 session (1), E-3277/01 by Mrs Breyer (2), H-0501/02 by
Mr Fitzsimons during question time at Parliament’s July 2002 session (3) and P-1904/02 by Mrs Doyle (4)).

transport of radioactive material

legislation, such as the
International
‘International Maritime Organisation (IMO)’ rules in the case of transport by sea, Community legislation
and by the legislation and procedures of the sender, receiver and transit countries concerned.

is governed by international

In addition, Council Directive 93/75 EEC of 13 September 1993, concerning minimum requirements for
vessels bound for or leaving Community ports and carrying dangerous or polluting goods (5), imposes an
obligation on the operator of such vessel to notify before departure the competent authority of the
Member State about the destination, the intended route and the nature of the dangerous goods transported.

While in the United Kingdom, the mixed oxide (MOX) fuel will be subject to regulatory control under the
safeguards regime. The Commission must ensure through Euratom Safeguards the implementation of the
safeguards regime.

Safety and security arrangements for this type of shipment must respect international and national
regulations concerning the transport of radioactive material. It is up to the National Authorities to ensure
compliance with these regulations.

The Office of Civil Nuclear Security (OCNS) in the United Kingdom is responsible for the regulation by
civil nuclear operators for the secure transport of ‘sensitive categories’ of nuclear material. In this context,
the Office is the United Kingdom’s designated national authority under the Convention on the Physical
Protection of Nuclear Material, for shipments to and from overseas destinations.

The security arrangements for shipments of MOX between Japan and the United Kingdom were also
reviewed by the United States and Japanese regulatory authorities. All the security authorities were satisfied
that the security arrangements were ‘amply robust to deal with any potential threat’.

In the light of the above, it appears that adequate security and safety measures are in place or shipments of
MOX fuel to and from the United Kingdom.

(1) Written reply of 15.5.2001.
(2) OJ C 172 E, 18.7.2002.
(3) Written reply of 2.7.2002.
(4) OJ C 277, 14.11.2002.
(5) OJ L 247, 5.10.1993.

(2004/C 65 E/092)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1463/03

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(29 April 2003)

Subject: Cotton growing in the Alqueva irrigation area

In the same way as in other Member States (Spain and Greece), the new Alqueva irrigation area will enable
cotton to be grown in Portugal. (Cotton is one of the target crops already identified and the subject of
major investment plans).

Will the Commission’s proposals be such as to enable Portugal to develop cotton growing on a similar
basis to the other two Member States mentioned above? Could the Commission give details in support of
its answer?

13.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65 E/83

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(5 June 2003)

The Commission is aware of progress with this basin and the potential for crop development.

However, given the cotton aid reform put in place by Regulation 1051/2001 (1) (cid:1) aimed mainly at
discouraging any increase in cotton production that damaged the environment (cid:1) and the budgetary
implications of aid per hectare, it is hard for the Commission to envisage new legislation at this stage
aimed at expanding cotton production.

That said, it is the Commission’s intention nevertheless to undertake a review of the future of cotton aid.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1051/2001 of 22 May 2001 on production aid for cotton, OJ L 148, 1.6.2001.

(2004/C 65 E/093)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1508/03

by Gabriele Stauner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

Subject: Budget item A-1090 (cid:1) extra income for Commissioners

(28 April 2003)

Members of the Commission have for years been receiving extra income by having part of their salary
transferred not to bank accounts in their place of employment, Brussels, but to accounts in other EU
countries, with weightings being applied to the amounts transferred. One of the points which the
Commission has made in justification of this (see reply to Written Question P-1805/02 (1)) is that the
Council and Parliament have made the requisite appropriations for such transfers available in the budget
each year and have expressly provided for them in the relevant budget remarks.

Until the 2002 financial year,
the budget item concerned (A-1090 (cid:1) Adjustments to emoluments/
Weightings) contained the following remark: ‘This appropriation … covers the cost of weightings applied
to the part of emoluments transferred to a country other than the country of employment’. The
Commission again proposed this remark in its Preliminary Draft Budget for 2003. The Council deleted it at
first reading. Parliament upheld this deletion.

What conclusion does the Commission draw from the decision of the budgetary authority to delete this
remark?

Does the Commission consider that its Members can nonetheless still continue to take advantage of
weightings if they have part of their salary transferred to a country other than that where they are
employed?

In this context, what conclusion does the Commission draw from the fact that the relevant regulation
concerning the salaries of Members of the Commission also does not provide for the possibility of such
transfers of salary with the application of a weighting and indeed makes no mention whatsoever of the
subject?

(1) OJ C 309 E, 12.12.2002, p. 164.

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(23 June 2003)

As the Honourable Member will know from previous answers, the weighted transfer arrangements to
which she refers have always applied to Members of the Court of Justice and the Court of Auditors as well
as Members of the Commission. The legality of the system has, as the Honourable Member knows, been