WRITTEN QUESTION E-1294/00 by Eurig Wyn (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. European aid for multiple sclerosis sufferers.
C 53 E/122 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 20. 2. 2001 Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission (10 May 2000) The N4 road is included in Annex I of the Community guidelines for the development of the Trans European transport network (TEN-T) adopted by the Parliament and Council in 1996 (1). As such the Community recognises the strategic importance of the N4 in helping to meet Community objectives for the smooth functioning of the single market and the strengthening of economic and social inclusion. Article 9 of the guidelines states that the road element of the TEN-T should consist of ámotorways and high quality roads that guarantee users a high uniform and continuous level of services comfort and safetyí. In addition, all projects of common interest for the development of the network should be potentially economically viable on the basis of socio-economic cost benefit analysis. The Irish national development plan states that áfurther major improvementsí will be undertaken on the N4 between Kinnegad and Sligo as part of a programme aiming to provide a high quality of service. The negotiation of the Community support framework has been finalised between the Commission and the Irish authorities. The framework does indeed, in relation to the Border, midlands and western region, envisage support for routes to the West and North-West. It specifically earmarks the N4 for improvement but, under the principle of subsidiarity, leaves the selection of specific projects to the national authority. However, in this connection the Commission has co-funded a roads needs study under the transport operational programme 1994-1999 which will now guide the selection of projects including improve- ments on the N4 and other routes to the West. The conclusions of this study together with more recent reviews of traffic volume are the safest way to proceed with decisions on upgrading for the better socio- economic development of the North-West. In addition, large infrastructure projects are subject to a cost benefit analysis and an environmental impact assessment. The rigorous application of these techniques gives greater assurance that upgrading of routes is justified on the basis of objective criteria. The Commission is currently in the process of reviewing whether and how the TEN-T guidelines should be revised to take account of technological and economic changes. This review includes an examination of the maps of the network contained in Annex I. The findings of this review will be presented in a report that will be submitted to the Parliament and the Council this summer. (1) Decision No 1692/96/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 1996 on Community guidelines for the development of the trans-European transport network (OJ L 228, 9. 9. 1996). (2001/C 53 E/155) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1294/00 by Eurig Wyn (Verts/ALE) to the Commission (19 April 2000) Subject: European aid for multiple sclerosis sufferers Could the Commission please indicate what European aid and/or support possibilities are available in an Objective 1 deprived region such as Wales, to assist people who suffer from multiple sclerosis? Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission (25 May 2000) West Wales and the Valleys has been designated as an objective 1 region for the 2000-2006 programming period. In drawing up the single programming document spending plan, the West Wales and the Valleys regional partnership has included a number of measures (e. g. Community action for social inclusion) that community organisations could access to obtain finance for groups such as multiple sclerosis sufferers. However it should be noted that funding is not available for the treatment of multiple sclerosis but could be found for training, rehabilitation, and the avoidance of discrimination at work. 20. 2. 2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 53 E/123 The handling of the applications for the funding of projects such as these is not carried out by the Commission but has been delegated to the British authorities and specifically the National Assembly for Wales and the Wales European funding office. Consequently it is to these latter organisations that interested groups should address their requests. (2001/C 53 E/156) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1296/00 by Eurig Wyn (Verts/ALE) to the Commission (19 April 2000) Subject: Agriculture ü HLCA schemes Less-favoured area in Wales account for 82 % of the agricultural area. Compensation is available for those farmers in LFAs who suffer from what the Commission terms ápermanent natural handicapí and the obvious difficulties ü climate, soil, topography ü that hamper farming these remote parts of Wales. The current review of the HLCA scheme in the EU moves payments from a headage basis to an area basis. to the Commission under the Rural Development The Welsh Assembly has submitted a proposal Regulation. Can the Commission confirm that all other Member State plans for the revised HLCA schemes will be based on standardised criteria and that it will not discriminate between one Member State and another Member State which may not apply the same national criteria? Furthermore, will the Commission confirm that the UK will continue HLCA payments at the upper levels paid over the last two years and not revert back to 1997 levels which will cripple the agricultural community in Wales farming in less-favoured areas? Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (24 May 2000) The Honourable Member refers to the impact of the new approach for payment of compensatory allowances in the less favoured areas of Wales, and requests assurance that first, the payments will be based on standardised criteria and second, the United Kingdom will maintain recent payment levels rather than those prior to 1997. Chapter V (Articles 13-21) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 of 17 May 1999 on support for rural development from the European agricultural guidance and guarantee fund (EAGGF) and amending and repealing certain Regulations (1) establishes a common framework and conditions for the implementa- tion of compensatory allowances in less-favoured areas and areas with environmental restrictions. While payment of compensatory allowances is not mandatory, for those Member States choosing to implement such payments, the Commission can give assurance that they will comply with the terms of Articles 13- 21. However, respecting the conditions laid down and the levels of aid specified in the annex to the regulation, it is not necessarily the case that all Member States will implement identical schemes. It should be noted that Article 37(4) allows Member States to lay down further or more restrictive conditions for granting Community support. It is difficult to guarantee the former levels of aid as the payment system has switched from being based on life stock livestock to an area based payment. However the Commission will assess whether hill compensatory allowance schemes (HLCA) make an effective contribution to compensation for existing handicaps. (1) OJ L 160, 26. 6. 1999