WRITTEN QUESTION E-0420/00 by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Indicative allocation of ERDF resources earmarked for investment in Galicia as an Objective I region during the 200-2006 period.
13. 2. 2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 46 E/9 Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (31 March 2000) The conventional customs duty on frozen fillets of hoki (Macruronus novaezealandiae) is 7,5 %. However, an autonomous tariff quota of 20 000 tonnes at 3,5 % duty was opened for the period 1 April to 31 December 1999 (1). Compared to Alaska pollack, the Community processing industryís use of hoki is recent and relatively limited. Consequently, like most other autonomous tariff quotas intended to supply the Community market, the quota period does not cover the first three months of the year, when the conventional customs duty applies. However, in the context of reforming the common organisation of the markets in fishery and aquaculture products (2), the Council decided in favour of effectively suspending tariff duty on hoki by applying a reduced tariff without quantitative restrictions pending a future solution for supplying the market with this species. The Commission had proposed that customs duty for hoki should be 3,5 % (the same as for Alaska pollack) (3). In view of Germanyís request, the Council nevertheless decided to suspend customs duty on Alaska pollack. Stocks of Alaska pollack have admittedly been heavily fished, while hoki has been identified as a less-used species. However, the Community processing industryís supply needs appear to demonstrate that hoki is not yet able to offset the decreasing availability of Alaska pollack. Community policy is to promote multilateral management of fish stocks, particularly through regional fishery organisations. Although not directly involved in managing stocks of the two species to which the Honourable Member refers, the Community encourages their responsible management within the frame- work of the international organisations dealing with fisheries (the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO) and the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)). (1) Council Regulation (EC) No 745/1999 of 30 March 1999 opening and providing for the administration of autonomous Community tariff quotas for certain fishery products ü OJ L 96, 10. 4. 1999. (2) Council Regulation (EC) No 104/2000 of 17 December 1999 on the common organisation of the markets in fishery and aquaculture products ü OJ L 17, 21. 1. 2000. (3) Proposal for a Council Regulation (EC) on the common organisation of the markets in fishery and aquaculture products ü OJ C 78, 20. 3. 1999. (2001/C 46 E/011) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0420/00 by Camilo Nogueira RomÆn (Verts/ALE) to the Commission (23 February 2000) Subject: Indicative allocation of ERDF resources earmarked for investment in Galicia as an Objective I region during the 200-2006 period Replying to one of my questions (E-1433/99) (1) on 21 December 1999, Commissioner Barnier said, on the subject of the geographical distribution of ERDF financial resources during the 2000-2006 period, that the Commission would indicate to Member States, as a guide, the amount that should be made available to each eligible region if the method used by the Commission to allocate Objective 1 resources to each of the Member States were applied at national level. C 46 E/10 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 13. 2. 2001 Will the Commission state how much would be allocated on that basis to Galicia, including the amounts to be administered by Central Government and the autonomous community itself? (1) OJ C 225 E, 8. 8. 2000, p. 2. Reply given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission (24 March 2000) As the Honourable Member was informed in the reply to his Written Question E-1433/99 (1), the Commission has in fact forwarded to the Member States covered by Structural Funds Objective 1 a proposal for an indicative distribution of the appropriations allocated to that Objective for the 2000-2006 programming period. The Commission will send the distribution proposal as forwarded to the Spanish authorities directly to the Honourable Member and to the Parliamentís General Secretariat. (1) OJ C 225 E, 8. 8. 2000, p. 2. (2001/C 46 E/012) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0505/00 by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission (28 February 2000) Subject: Payment of contractors and suppliers What is the Commissionís policy on the timing of payments to its own contractors and suppliers? What is the length of time between delivery or invoice and payment which is suggested in the Commissionís procedures, and what, if any, action is taken to monitor whether these targets are met? Answer given by Ms Schreyer on behalf of the Commission (4 May 2000) The Commission regularly checks the observance of payment periods by its departments. In 1991 the Commission already set the target that payments should be executed within 60 days from the date of receipt by departments of a request for payment prepared in due form. Within the 60-day period, authorising departments have 40 days (for settlement and authorisation of the payment) and the horizontal departments have 20 days (endorsement by financial control, check on the validity of the discharge by the accountant, execution by the bank). In 1995 the target set for Commission departments was that 95 % of operations should be completed within 60 days. In 1997, the Commission amended its contract policy so that in the event of late payment its creditors were entitled to claim late-interest payment. Figures for 1999 show that across all departments the average period of payment (from the date of receipt of the invoice to the date on which the Commission bank account is debited) was 54,1 days. However, only 65,1 % of payments were completed with the 60-day period