WRITTEN QUESTION E-2217/99 by Massimo Carraro (PSE) and Paolo Costa (ELDR) to the Commission. Measures to assist Venice.
C 225 E/74 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 8. 8. 2000 1. Can the Commission explain why Europe has completely sacrificed its oilseed sector? 2. Can it confirm the news that the US is about to launch an emergency plan with a view to granting extraordinary aid to US farmers (to the tune of 9-10 billion dollars, according to the press) to compensate for the drop in world prices of agricultural primary products? Can it say whether, under the Fair Actí introduced as part of US agricultural policy, oilseed support 3. has exceeded 1992 levels? 4. What, if any, action does it intend take to prevent this strategic sector from being overwhelmed by crises such as those which have stricken the rice-growing sector? Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (11 January 2000) The provisions adopted in the oilseeds sector in connection with the Agenda 2000 package are to some extent already covered in the Answer given by the Commission to the Honourable Memberís Written Question No E-3652/98 on the proposals concerned (1), in particular where it deals with the alignment of area aid for cereals, oilseeds and set-aside on a single amount, namely € 63 per tonne of cereals, such tonnage being based on historical regional yields. The Council has endorsed this approach, leaving the road clear for the lifting of the Blair Houseí constraints on oilseed production, but has decided that it should be implemented in stages, a decision which in essence does not affect the answer given earlier by the Commission. With regard more specifically to points 1 and 4, the Commission would draw the attention of the Honourable Member to the provisions relating to the transitional period for aid for oilseeds, provisions which are set out in Article 10 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1251/1999 of 17 May 1999 establishing a support system for producers of certain arable crops (2). The Commission will present a report on developments on the oilseed market and may put forward proposals at that stage if there is a serious reduction in the production potential. On points 2 and 3, the Commission feels that, partly as a result of US farm policy on soya, downward pressure has been brought to bear on world prices which is likely to disrupt markets in agricultural raw materials. When examining whether, as a result of that policy, the support granted by the United States for that crop in 1992 has been exceeded, account should be taken of Article 13 of the Agreement on Agriculture, otherwise known as the Peace Clauseí, which limits the scope for action against farm subsidies. Generally speaking, scrutiny of the conformity of that policy falls entirely within the scope of the World Trade Organisation (WTO). (1) OJ C 325, 12. 11. 1999. (2) OJ L 160, 26. 6. 1999. (2000/C 225 E/074) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2217/99 by Massimo Carraro (PSE) and Paolo Costa (ELDR) to the Commission Subject: Measures to assist Venice (29 November 1999) On 16 April 1999 the European Parliament adopted the joint motion for a resolution (B4-0358, 0359, 0361, 0362 and 0363) on the crisis in Venice, which advocated the inclusion by the Commission, the Italian Government and the Veneto region, of the historic centre of Venice and its lagoon in the new Structural Fund Objective 2 in order to enable state aid to be granted by way of derogation from the rules on competition pursuant to Article 92(3)(c) of the EC Treaty. The Commission was also asked not to consider as ástate aidí the tax concessions already granted by the Italian Government to businesses operating in Venice and the lagoon area, since these businesses could not compete on an equal footing with those on the mainland and in other European cities. 8. 8. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 225 E/75 To what extent have the Commission and the Italian authorities followed up Parliamentís requests in this regard within their respective areas of responsibility? Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission (6 January 2000) Under Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds (1), the Commission and the Member State are jointly responsible for defining which areas are eligible under Objective 2 for 2000-2006. The list of eligible areas will depend on the priorities determined by the national authorities on the basis of the criteria in that Regulation. It will be adopted by the Commission, in agreement with the Member State, at the earliest by the end of 1999 or the beginning of 2000. The Commission will ensure that the areas selected are in fact those which are most affected by structural conversion problems. In the specific case of Italy, the zoning proposal forwarded by the Italian authorities on 1 October 1999 was considered by the Commission to be inadmissible. It does not comply with the requirement that at least 50 % of the eligible population must be represented according to the criteria in Article 4(5) and (6) of Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999. The Commission therefore asked the Italian authorities to draw up a new proposal in line with the general Structural Funds regulation as soon as possible. The Commission is consequently unable to comment on Veniceís particular situation as regards its eligibility under Objective 2. Regarding the exemption from social security contributions granted to undertakings in Venice and Chioggia in 1995-97, at its meeting on 24 November 1999 the Commission, as part of a review procedure under Article 88(2) (former Article 93(2)) of the EC Treaty, found that the aid granted in the form of relief from social security contributions is compatible with the common market, with the exception of the aid for job creation granted to big firms outside an area eligible for regional aid or aid for safeguarding employment. (1) OJ L 161, 26. 6. 1999. (2000/C 225 E/075) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2222/99 by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission (1 December 1999) Subject: Key features of the work test What administrative guidance is issued in each Member State to officials responsible for administering the work test, i. e. the test of whether an unemployed person is available and looking for work prior to obtaining benefit? Please describe the key features of these tests for each Member State, particularly the level of earnings compared with previous earnings at which the unemployed can reject an available job offer, the test of whether the individual has looked for work and the test of availability for work. In addition, describe over what period, once a claimant has been accepted for payment of benefit, this work test is reapplied. Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission (11 January 2000) The definition and management of social benefit schemes fall within the responsibility and legal competence of the Member States. The Commission has undertaken, together with the Member States, an analysis of reforms and the functioning of Member Statesí labour market policies in the context of the employment strategy. The definition and implementation of administrative procedures relating to work tests and the availability for