WRITTEN QUESTION E-2337/03 by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Alcoholic consumption in European cities.
Date: 2003-07-16
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU statistics, alcohol, capital city, juvenile delinquency, public order

C 70 E/86

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

20.3.2004

However, as stated above, carbon sequestration technologies are still at the research phase and so the
guidelines for monitoring and reporting emissions to be adopted in autumn 2003 under Article 14 of the
Directive will not provide for operators to use such technologies to count as a reduction in emissions.
If on-going research can demonstrate that CO2 can be stored in a safe and environmentally acceptable
manner underground without CO2 being released into the atmosphere at any point
in time, and
appropriate standards such as methodology agreed by the Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control
(IPCC) were established for storage, then the guidelines for monitoring and reporting could be amended
accordingly.

(1) http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/climat/030723provisionaltext.pdf
(2) Council Directive 96/61/EC of 24 September 1996 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control,

OJ L 257, 10.10.1996.

(2004/C 70 E/088)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2336/03

by Brian Simpson (PSE) to the Commission

(16 July 2003)

Subject: Project ACCESS: Advance Communication for Cumbria and Enabling Sustainable Services

Can the Commission give an indication of when it will be in a position to respond to the UK
Government’s submission in regard to the above project (under Article 86(3)) so that this excellent scheme
can go ahead and enable the area of Cumbria to have access to broadband communications?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(14 August 2003)

By letter dated 26 June 2003 the United Kingdom authorities notified to the Commission in accordance
with Article 88(3) of the EC Treaty the measures referred to by the Honourable Member. However, the
notification was considered incomplete and the Commission requested additional information by letter
dated 17 July 2003.

According to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999/EC (1), the Commission shall take a
decision on notified aid within two months, beginning on the day following the receipt of a complete
notification. Additional information submitted by the United Kingdom authorities was received on 22 July
2003 and is currently examined by the Commission services. Thus, a decision shall be taken by
23 September 2003, unless further information is considered necessary to enable the Commission to
define its position on the proposed measures.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of

Article 93 of the EC Treaty, OJ L 83, 27.3.1999.

(2004/C 70 E/089)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2337/03

by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Commission

Subject: Alcoholic consumption in European cities

(16 July 2003)

A number of constituents have raised concerns over how the English are portrayed in Europe. Their
concerns arise mainly from experiences of young people using cheap flights to go abroad for stag and hen
weekends.

20.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 70 E/87

Does the Commission collect data on the increase in violent incidents in ‘tourist areas’ of European capital
cities arising from or connected with alcohol consumption? If so please could the Commission provide this
information?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(6 October 2003)

The Commission does not at present collect data on the number of violent incidents in ‘tourist areas’ of
European capital cities arising from or connected with alcohol consumption.

Nevertheless, the Commission considers that it would be useful if the competent authorities of the Member
States, which are responsible for maintaining public order on their territory, were to collect information
for statistical purposes so that the extent of the problem could be correctly assessed and adequate measures
taken.

Such information could be relevant for the report which the Commission is drafting on the economic and
social burden of alcohol, which is one of the priorities of the public health program for the Community
for 2003-2008.

Crime prevention including the prevention of alcohol-related criminality, remains a matter largely within
the responsibility of local, regional and national authorities. Action at Union level in this field should
continue to be limited to supporting exchange of information and best practice between the competent
authorities, such as the European Crime-Prevention Network, which focuses on urban, juvenile and drug-
related crime.

(2004/C 70 E/090)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2344/03

by Toine Manders (ELDR) to the Commission

(16 July 2003)

Subject: Interreg bureaucracy

The rules governing Interreg subsidies in the Netherlands include passages which make administration
unnecessarily difficult. For example, in order to be eligible for a subsidy it is necessary actually to show
proof of payment of all invoices and wage/salary payments. This discourages organisations from applying
for subsidies, so that inadequate use is made of the funds potentially available.

In the Netherlands,
the procedure for applying for an Interreg BMG (Benelux-Middengebied/Central
Benelux Region) subsidy is often seen as enormously cumbersome: merely producing a thorough project
plan with defined end products already costs a huge amount.
In addition, the administration is of
considerable complexity: it is necessary to produce evidence of deployment of manpower, invoices, copies
of pay slips and now, as mentioned above, also proof of payment.

This means in practical terms that each month a partner has to check which employees on the pay roll
have contributed to the project and must print out a list of them, after which he must submit proof of
payment/a copy of
this information is
the bank statement providing the requisite overview. All
computerised and stored on payment diskettes, so that it is relatively easy to retrieve from the system,
but it is difficult to print out because the relevant lists are enormously long. In a word, while partners’
administrative work and book-keeping are computerised, Europe is still insisting on manually produced
evidence/copies.

Moreover, I have found that, as a result of the various national approaches and interpretations, project
concepts which would be very suitable are often refused Interreg funding and an unnecessary amount of
time is wasted because of inadequate coordination.

Is the Commission aware of the bureaucratic complexities involved in applying for Interreg subsidies,

1.
an example of which appears above?