WRITTEN QUESTION E-1922/99 by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission. Fire safety in hotels.
18. 7. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 203 E/89 Would the Commission state, therefore: ü whether data and statistics of this kind are currently available? ü if so, where they are published at regular intervals? ü whether the Commission does not intend, otherwise, to introduce harmonised statistics and demon- strate whether these influxes of funds have a genuine impact on rural areas; in short, to embark on a general improvement of agricultural statistics? Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (18 November 1999) Two summary tables are being sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliamentís Secretariat, one showing the trend of European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) expenditure by Member State for both the Guarantee and Guidance Sections, and the other giving a breakdown by chapter and Member State of EAGGF Guarantee expenditure charged against the 1998 budget. The first table is extracted from the Report on the Agricultural Situation in the European Union and the second from the EAGGF Guarantee Section Financial Report. These are published by the Commission every year and are also available to the public on the Commissionís Europa site (http://europa. eu. int/ comm/dgo6/index. htm). (2000/C 203 E/112) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1922/99 by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission (4 November 1999) Subject: Fire safety in hotels An EC Recommendation on Fire Safety in existing hotels (86/666/EEC (1)) was adopted in 1986. 1. What objective assessment has been undertaken of the application of these recommendations by Member States? Is the Commission satisfied that the recommendations are being implemented in full by each of the 2. Member States? 3. Which Member States have modified national regarding minimum safety standards and periodic inspections? legislation to incorporate the recommendations Does the Commission intent to review the need for additional measures to encourage the adoption of 4. minimum standards in both existing and new hotels? (1) OJ L 384, 31. 12. 1986, p. 60. Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission (8 December 1999) 1. In order to check that all Member States had correctly interpreted and taken into account in their national legislation the content of Council Recommendation 86/666/EEC of 22 December 1986 on fire safety in existing hotels (1), the Commission commissioned an independent study. The final report was submitted in April 1996. 2. and 3. The Commission has commented on this issue in a number of answers to previous parliamentary questions. The Honourable Member can consult in particular the answers to questions E-1423/97 by Mrs Pollack (2) and H-1179/98 by Mr Watson during Question Time in the January 1999 part-session (3). C 203 E/90 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 18. 7. 2000 Given the interest shown and the degree of detail in the questions asked, the Commission will forward a copy of the 1996 study directly to the Honourable Member and to Parliamentís Secretariat-General. This study shows that the principles of the recommendation have in general been incorporated by national legislation. However, the Commission is aware of the concerns expressed, particularly by some Members of Parliament or associations, regarding the practical application of the rules in question and the checks carried out. The Commission fully intends to re-examine the question of fire safety in hotels. To this end, an 4. interdepartmental working group has recently been formed. In the course of the year 2000, the Commission intends to review the matter once again in order to determine what action needs to be taken. It intends, in this connection, to put the subject on the agenda of a forthcoming meeting of the consumer safety working party, a group of experts which assists the Commission in the area of consumer safety. (1) OJ L 384, 31. 12. 1986. (2) OJ C 45, 10. 2. 1998. (3) Debates of the European Parliament (January 1999). (2000/C 203 E/113) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1931/99 by Paul Lannoye (Verts/ALE) to the Commission (14 October 1999) Subject: Complaint 98/4317, sg(98) A/5584 concerning the activities of SA MØtal Blanc at Bourg-FidŁle, France On behalf of the association DØfense et Protection de líEnvironnement de Bourg-FidŁleí (Bourg-FidŁle environmental protection association), Mrs Schneider of Grand HongrØaux, F-08230 Rocroi, France, lodged a complaint with the Commission on 20 February 1998 concerning lead pollution of her village. This environmental pollution is probably caused by the activities of SA MØtal Blanc of Bourg-FidŁle. The Commission registered this complaint under No 98/4317, sg(98) A/5584. Since then there has been considerable press interest in this problem; unfortunately, it seems that lead pollution has undeniably affected the village and its inhabitants (particularly children). Can the Commission say what are the results of the inquiry it has conducted to investigate this complaint? What action does it intend to take on this matter? Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission (11 November 1999) The Commission has indeed registered the letter mentioned by the Honourable Member complaining about the pollution caused by a non-ferrous metals foundry located within the municipality of Bourg FidŁle (Ardennes dØpartement) as a complaint, under number 98/4317. The plaintiffs have supplied the Com- mission with further information on several subsequent items of correspondence. After analysing the information passed on by the plaintiffs, the Commission asked the French authorities to comment on the facts of the case, which were likely to indicate poor implementation of several directives on waste and on both water and air pollution caused by certain dangerous substances. Since that letter has remained unanswered well beyond the stated two-month deadline, the Commission decided, on 13 October 1999, and in accordance with Article 226 (former 169) of the EC Treaty, to send a letter serving notice to the French Government because that government had failed to fulfil the obligations imposed on it by Article 10 (formerly 5) of the EC Treaty by not responding to the above- mentioned request for information. At this stage without prejudice to the substance of the case, that decision solely relates to the cooperation on which the Commission is unable to pronounce without having received the French authoritiesí comments