WRITTEN QUESTION E-0288/00 by Bartho Pronk (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Furniture for Commissioners.
C 53 E/2 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 20. 2. 2001 From this it emerges that, although it meets the necessary criteria, the prefecture of Arta has not been included in a list of regions eligible for assistance under the cross-border cooperation arrangements (Section A), which will take up most of the funding. Since this effectively amounts to discrimination against the prefecture of Arta: 1. Can the Commission give the reasons for its decision to exclude Arta from the list of regions eligible for funding within the framework of cross-border cooperation? 2. Will the Commission remedy this injustice against the prefecture of Arta and include it in the list of regions selected in its final draft? Supplementary joint answer to Written Questions E-0150/00, E-0229/00 and E-0336/00 given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission (7 June 2000) The Commission does not consider that Arta and Ilia are cross-border areas in the meaning of the term under the Interreg III Community initiative and therefore does not feel that they were unjustly omitted from the list of eligible areas. The guidelines for Interreg III were adopted by the Commission on 28 April 2000 (1). Under the cross- border strand of the initiative, eligible areas include all areas along the internal and external land borders of the Community and certain maritime areas as set out in Annex 1 of the guidelines. However, up to 20 % of a programmeís total budget may be spent in areas adjacent to eligible areas. As both Arta and Ilia are adjacent to eligible areas, the flexibility exists for the authorities to include them in future cross-border programmes under Interreg III. (1) OJ C 143, 23. 5. 2000. (2001/C 53 E/004) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0288/00 by Bartho Pronk (PPE-DE) to the Commission (11 February 2000) Subject: Furniture for Commissioners According to reports in the press, Commissioner Nielson has said that he still cannot do his job properly because the Commission administration has not yet supplied him with new furniture for his office. 1. Did Commissioner Nielson really say this? Does the Commissioner not have any furniture at all, or is it that he has not yet received some 2. different furniture which he wishes to have? 3. 4. Does each new Commissioner have a right to new furniture? If so, what is the cost of this? 5. What happens to the old, discarded furniture? 6. What is the Commissionís view of the suggestion by Commissioner Nielson that the failure to supply him with furniture is indicative of the old-fashioned character of the Commission? 20. 2. 2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 53 E/3 Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission (20 March 2000) 1. In an interview published in Commission en Directí (No 150, 21-27 January 2000) Mr Nielson is reported to have remarked on the fact that his furniture had been stuck in a container in transit from Denmark for two months. Contrary to the reference made in the question, Commissioner Nielson did not say that he had been prevented from working because of this delay. Neither that nor anything else would prevent Mr Nielson doing his job. 2. The new Commissioners were preparing to start to work before the departure of the previous Commission and Mr Nielson, like the other proposed new members of the Commission, was first provided temporarily with new furniture of the same type available to Directors in the Commission. After the departure of the previous Commission, he was able to make use of the furniture of a former Commis- sioner. This furniture was less than five years old. Mr Nielson was given the opportunity to indicate his preference for having part of it replaced. 3. and 4. All new members of the Commission were provided with office furniture left by former Members. Those whose predecessorís furniture was more than five years old were given the possibility of receiving new furniture to be used throughout their period of office at a maximum cost of € 25 000. Those who received furniture which was less than five years old had the possibility of renewing a part of it up to a cost of € 12 500. 5. Those items of furniture from former members that have not been kept by their successors have since been re-used by the services, either to equip areas such as reception halls and waiting rooms for visitors, or, where necessary, to meet the office furniture needs of officials, mainly directors-general. As the above replies demonstrate, the Commission has a clear policy on the provision of furniture 6. for members of the Commission which facilitates replacement on a satisfactory basis. Any expenditure made from the budget of the Commission is subject to strict adherence to the rules laid out in the Financial Regulation. The average time needed to pass the financial procedures for standard furniture ordered in Belgium through the relevant services of the Commission is at least two weeks plus delivery time. Mr Nielsonís furniture was ordered in Denmark directly which caused a further delay. The length of delay in transit experienced by Mr Nielson is regretted. (2001/C 53 E/005) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0371/00 by Sebastiano Musumeci (UEN) to the Commission (8 February 2000) Subject: Presence of the alga ácaulerpa taxifoliaí in the Mediterranean In view of the fact that the alga ácaulerpa taxifoliaí is spreading in the Mediterranean Sea and causing serious damage to coastal fishing and marine flora and fauna, Can the Commission say: 1. what steps it has taken or intends to take to combat the harmful effects of this alga? 2. what measures it envisages to provide compensation to fishermen operating in the areas affected by the alga? Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (20 March 2000) The Commission is aware of the problem mentioned by the Honourable Member. Demonstration projects have been funded by the LIFE instrument in 1992 and 1995 in the Mediterranean countries concerned by