WRITTEN QUESTION P-2163/99 by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Council. Meeting of the Development Council on 11 November 1999.
1. 8. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 219 E/107 Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission (17 December 1999) The memorandum concerning Financial assistance from the European Commission for town twinningí indeed stipulates that exchanges involving fewer than 10 participants from the invited local authority are not eligible. This condition applies regardless of whether one or more local authorities are invited. For 1999, the grant for travel costs has been set at a maximum of EUR 0,04 per person and per kilometre (return journey). A minimum number of participants from the local authority or authorities invited is required in order to ensure that meetings between twinned local authorities are open to as many of the local population as possible. For the same reason, it is required that the exchanges do not involve mainly local councillors or local officials. The Commission is aware that it is more difficult to meet these conditions when several local authorities are invited by the host town. However, it cannot take responsibility for discarding the fundamental aim of greater involvement of European citizens in the meetings of twinned local authorities. Otherwise, it would not be possible to achieve the aim of the programme of assistance for town twinning, taken up by the Honourable Members, áto put across the European idea and to get to know the habits and customs (of the different countries) í (2000/C 219 E/136) WRITTEN QUESTION P-2162/99 by David Bowe (PSE) to the Commission (19 November 1999) Subject: Promotion of biotechnological crops Could the Commission indicate whether any EU projects are being undertaken to promote biotechnolo- gical crops in ACP States and/or in the developing world? Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission (8 December 1999) In the context of the Commissionís development cooperation there are no projects undertaken to promote genetically modified crops in the African, Caribbean and Pacific states or any other developing countries. (2000/C 219 E/137) WRITTEN QUESTION P-2163/99 by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Council (19 November 1999) Subject: Meeting of the Development Council on 11 November 1999 It is estimated that, on the eve of the new millennium, nearly one sixth of the world population will be illiterate. Given that, at the 1990 World Conference on Education For All, EU governments promised to work towards universal education by 2000, will the Council increase the current provision for education in its aid programmes? Will the Council include a discussion on education provision to the developing world at its forthcoming meeting on 11 November? C 219 E/108 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 1. 8. 2000 Reply (31 January 2000) The Council fully shares the Honourable Memberís view on the importance of efforts to reduce illiteracy. Measures to promote education constitute an essential part of the fight against poverty, which is one of the main objectives of the Communityís development cooperation policy. When it decides on Community aid programmes the Commission takes into account, priorities set by the beneficiary countries. inter alia, the The Development Council on 11 November 1999 did not discuss support for developing countries in the field of education. Such a discussion, which has not been ruled out for a forthcoming meeting, would normally be based on a Commission communication. (2000/C 219 E/138) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2166/99 by Brigitte Langenhagen (PPE-DE) to the Commission (29 November 1999) Subject: Road transport tachograph On 30 March 1998, the then Commission Member, Neil Kinnock, stated before the European Parliament that the social partners had been involved in the decision to authorise the Annex 1B version of the tachograph only. How were ü and are ü the social partners specifically involved in the decision-making process? Were ü and are ü talks held with the social partners, with due account being taken of their opinions? Did the social partners advocate the 1B option in the course of the discussions? To what extent were Member State inspecting authorities involved in the decision-making process? Do the inspecting authorities consider the tachograph as specified in Annex 1B as suitable for improving the quality of inspections? To what extent did the Economic and Social Committee voice an opinion on the tachograph as specified in Annex 1B? The then Commission Member Neil Kinnock also stated on 30 March 1998 that technically faultless operation of the 1B tachograph had been determined by repeated testing in working conditions. At the time that statement was made, had the 1B trip recorder been definitively specified? Had tests been run on individual components that had been technically specified at that time (chipcards, memory, display, printer)? Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission (21 December 1999) Council Regulation (EC) No 2135/98 was adopted on 24 September 1998. It amends Regulation (EEC) No 3821/85 on recording equipment in road transport and Directive 88/599/EEC on the implementation of Regulations (EEC) No 3820/85 and (EEC) No 2821/85 (1) in accordance with the cooperation procedure referred to in Article 252 (former Article 189c) of the EC Treaty (2), following receipt of the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee (3). Both sides of industry were consulted on several occasions during the preparatory work within the meetings of the committee on technical adaptation responsible for defining digital recording equipment (Article 1, Item 10 of Regulation No 2135/98). They received the working documents and attended the committee meeting as observers. On the fringes of the activities of the technical adaptation committee other meetings are held with both sides of industry within a sub-group on ánew technologiesí attached to the committee on dialogue with the road transport sector