WRITTEN QUESTION E-2111/03 by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission. Comparative study of special needs teaching.
Date: 2003-06-25
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: comparative study, education policy, educational system, financing, organisation of teaching, special education, teaching

C 78 E/78

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

27.3.2004

(2004/C 78 E/0076)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2101/03

by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission

Subject: Common agricultural policy reform (cid:1) ‘capping’

(25 June 2003)

A frequent topic for discussion in debates on the reform of the CAP is that of deciding whether or not a
ceiling should be imposed on the amount of aid/subsidy which, under any heading, may be allocated to a
given farm or to a farmer on an individual basis. This is customarily known as ‘capping’.

On this subject, impressive arguments of a social nature are normally put forward (and also, these days,
ones of a financial nature, since ‘capping’ would enable significant amounts of CAP funding to be released
for the benefit of the new CAP headings, thereby reducing pressure on other mechanisms such as
modulation).

The Commission:

(cid:1) Would it therefore say why it does not advocate strict capping of CAP subsidies?

(cid:1) Does it not believe this to be an imperative of justice?

(cid:1) For what reason does it not take advantage of the resulting major financial benefits in order to
improve the redistribution of aid and incentives and to provide greater support for the reformed CAP’s
new budget headings?

Answer given by Mrs Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(24 July 2003)

In its Communication on the Mid-term Review of the Common Agricultural Policy of 10 July 2002 (1), the
Commission did advocate capping of direct payments. However, it turned out in the following discussions
that no consensus was possible among Member States on the introduction of strict capping.

Thus, the Commission proposed, in the context of modulation and degressivity, to cut direct payments
while granting a franchise to those farmers who receive smaller amounts of direct payments. According to
this proposal, the cuts in direct payments were to be fully reimbursed up to an amount of EUR 5000 in
direct payments received and half for all amounts between EUR 5000 and EUR 50 000. The money was to
be spent on rural development measures.

In the final Council decisions, modulation was adopted with a franchise of EUR 5 000. As regards
degressivity, the Commission proposal was not taken up. Instead the introduction of a mechanism of
Financial Discipline has been announced.
the
proposal concerning Financial Discipline would include a franchise of EUR 5 000 and possibly other
franchises.

In this respect, a Commission Declaration states that

Further options for redistributing money among different regions and agricultural sectors have been added
to the provisions on the optional regional application of the single farm payment scheme.

(1) COM(2002) 394 final.

(2004/C 78 E/0077)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2111/03

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

Subject: Comparative study of special needs teaching

(25 June 2003)

EP resolution A5-0377/2001 (1) of 15 November 2001 called on the Commission to carry out a
comparative study on the functioning, funding and results of the various systems of teaching for pupils

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78 E/79

with special needs in the European Union. What action has the Commission taken in response to this call
and when will it be in a position, if it has not already done so, to release this study?

(1) OJ C 140 E, 13.6.2002, p. 589.

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(24 July 2003)

The Commission pays great attention to the various approaches to teaching for pupils with special needs.
Already in 1998, the European Agency for Special Needs Education carried out a study, co-financed by the
Commission, on ‘Integration in Europe, Provision for Pupils with Special Educational Needs’. This study
focussed on trends in 14 European countries. An update is currently being prepared.

With regard to the parliamentary resolution in question, the Commission co-financed a report on ‘Special
in 2003, carried out and published by the Agency in co-operation with
Needs Education in Europe’
Eurydice (Information Network on Education in Europe). The electronic version is already available in
French and in English on the website of the Agency at the following address: www.european-agency.org.
The study, which covers 26 European countries, is being translated into eleven other languages.

It examines current practice across Europe in five key areas:

(cid:1) inclusive education policies and practices;

(cid:1) funding of special needs education;

(cid:1) teachers and special needs education;

(cid:1) information and communication Technology in Special Needs Education;

(cid:1) and early intervention.

The Commission intends to continue monitoring developments in the field of special needs education on a
regular basis.

(2004/C 78 E/0078)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2120/03

by Isabelle Caullery (UEN) to the Commission

Subject: Development of renewable energy sources in Moldova

(25 June 2003)

1.
Can the Commission inform us of the various types of aid, measures, programmes and/or budget
lines that can be used to promote the development of renewable energy sources, particularly wind energy,
in Moldova, bearing in mind that the country depends on oil and gas imports for 99 % of its energy
supplies?

Can the Commission also tell us what facilities are offered by the EIB to promote this type of energy

2.
in Moldova, as well as in Romania and Bulgaria?

3.
Does the Commission take the view that the last two countries, which are in line for EU membership
in 2007, should internalise the objective of the European directive whereby by 2010 12 % of the energy
used in Europe will be from renewable sources?