WRITTEN QUESTION E-0891/00 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Assessment of the dioxin crisis in Belgium.
28. 12. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 374 E/179 Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (10 May 2000) The Commission has not received any notification from the German Government with respect to the relocation plans of Commercial Hydraulics mentioned by the Honourable Member. It has also from other sources no information concerning the allocation of funds for this move by the German Government. Therefore the Commission is not in a position to determine whether the state aid rules of the EC Treaty, in case they would apply, are respected. Furthermore, the Commission did not allocate itself funds for this move. The Commission has no detailed information on the steps taken by Ultra Hydraulic Ltd or Commercial Hydraulics to inform and consult workersí representatives on the closure of the Cheltenham site and the subsequent redundancies. In any case, as a result of Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on collective redundancies (1) and the relevant British provisions implementing it, Ultra Hydraulic Ltd is clearly under the obligation of doing so before implementing any redundancies. Accordingly, it falls in the first place to the British authorities to assess whether this obligation has been respected. Relocations or closures as such are not for the moment subject to any explicit obligation to prior information and consultation deriving from Community law. It was precisely to try to overcome this gap that the Commission presented in November 1998 a proposal establishing a general framework for informing and consulting employees in the Community (2), which provides for permanent and regular employee involvement on strategic developments as well as the foreseeable evolution of employment within companies. The Commission is actively seeking an early adoption of this proposal. (1) OJ L 225, 12. 8. 1998. (2) OJ C 2, 5. 1. 1999. (2000/C 374 E/211) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0891/00 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission (22 March 2000) Subject: Assessment of the dioxin crisis in Belgium The dioxin crisis in Belgium once again demonstrated how vulnerable the food chain, and checks on it, are. An assessment such as that made by the Dioxin Committee of the Chamber of Representatives can help to eliminate problems. Both the European Union and the fifteen Member States have an important role to play in this. The Members of Parliament observe, inter alia, that the Unionís rules on sludge differ in substance between language versions and that at all events they ought to be supplemented and better defined. Is it true that the rules on sludge differ in substance between language versions, as the Dioxin Committee claims? (a) If so, how will the Commission ensure that these differences are eliminated? (b) If not, is the Dioxin Committee wrong to state that the rules on sludge in the European Union differ in substance between language versions? C 374 E/180 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 28. 12. 2000 Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission (2 May 2000) In order to ensure a high level of public health and consumer protection, point 5 of the Annex to Commission Decision 91/516/EEC of 9 September 1991, establishing a list of ingredients the use of which is prohibited in compound feedingstuffs (1), specifically prohibits the use of sludge from sewage plants treating waste waters. This rule does not differ in substance between language versions. However, in order to leave no doubt as to the scope of the prohibition, a draft Commission decision amending Decision 91/516/EEC was submitted to the opinion of the standing committee for feedingstuffs on 29th February 2000. This draft decision, which secured a favourable opinion of this committee, states that all wastes obtained from the various phases of the urban, domestic and industrial waste water treatment process, irrespective of any further processing of these wastes and irrespective also of the origin of the waste waters, shall be prohibited in compound feedingstuffs. (1) OJ L 281, 9. 10. 1991. (2000/C 374 E/212) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0895/00 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission (22 March 2000) Subject: Assessment of the dioxin crisis in Belgium The dioxin crisis in Belgium once again demonstrated how vulnerable the food chain, and checks on it, are. An assessment such as that made by the Dioxin Committee of the Chamber of Representatives can help to eliminate problems. Both the European Union and the fifteen Member States have an important role to play in this. The Members of Parliament repeatedly call for áclear, complete guidelines on the responsible use of animal wasteí. Are the existing guidelines clear and complete enough to ensure that animal waste is used responsibly? (a) (b) If so, on what grounds does the Commission ü unlike the Dioxin Committee ü consider that the guidelines on the responsible use of animal waste are clear and complete? If not, will the Commission draft proposals for establishing a clear and complete system for the responsible use of animal waste? Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission (12 May 2000) The Commission shares the view of the dioxin committee of the Belgian Chamber of Representatives on the issue of animal waste. The possible exclusion of certain animal waste from the feed chain has been discussed for some time at political, technical and scientific level. In the light of these discussions, it is considered appropriate to prohibit the recycling of high-risk animal waste into the feed chain. To this end, a proposal for a Council and Parliament regulation establishing new rules for the disposal and the processing of animal waste is in preparation. Its submission to the Council and to the Parliament is scheduled for June 2000