WRITTEN QUESTION E-1803/99 by Hanja Maij-Weggen (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Introduction of a Europe test for all national legislation.
1. 8. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 219 E/27 Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission (17 November 1999) The annual reporting obligations under Council Directive 76/160/EEC of 8 December 1975 concerning the quality of bathing water imply that a quality assessment of Member Statesí bathing waters is made per bathing season. This quality assessment follows from a control of water samples against the parametric values set out in the annex of the Directive and according to a statistical calculation set out in Article 5. 95 % of the samples should comply for a bathing area to comply with the Directive. Therefore only when 20 samples are taken during a bathing season, may one sample fail without causing the bathing area to fail. However, in practice, on average about 10 water samples are taken per bathing area. All water samples should therefore comply for a bathing area to be in compliance. One accidental failing sample, for example due to heavy rainfall without a long-lasting risk for public health, could cause a bathing area to be failing. This would not really reflect the real overall water quality, in particular if all other samples taken that bathing season respect the parametric values and good water quality has been observed during previous bathing seasons. It seems therefore more appropriate to look at a longer time period ü for example three or five years ü than just one bathing season, to give a more accurate quality assessment based on a trend calculation. Such a trend assessment allows a better appreciation of improving, or decreasing water quality and to advise Member States on a way forward. A suggestion in that sense has been made for the revision of the current Directive. Following Council discussions (summer 1999) on the Commissionís initial proposal of 16 February 1994 (1) (amended proposal adopted by the Commission on 17 December 1997 (2)) the latter has started a further revision process of Directive 76/160/EEC. This process involves consecutive consultations ü Member States, non governmental organisations, consumers, tourism sector ü and close involvement of the Parliament. The Commission intends to put forward a new proposal in the second half of 2000. However, if the consultations indicate that more time is needed to draft a proposal for a workable and effective directive, then the Commission will adapt its calendar without hesitation. (1) OJ C 112, 22. 4. 1994. (2) OJ C 6, 10. 1. 1998. (2000/C 219 E/034) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1803/99 by Hanja Maij-Weggen (PPE-DE) to the Commission Subject: Introduction of a Europe testí for all national legislation (12 October 1999) On 2 August 1999 the previous Commission wrote in reply to Question E-0850/98 (1) that it would be better to foster consultation between border regions in this field in order to resolve the problems concerned on the spot. Is the Commission aware that in many cases these border regions (or their provincial and municipal authorities) are not responsible for the relevant legislation because it is mostly adopted at the level of the national Member States, while any adverse impact makes itself felt in the border regions, particularly affecting businesses, frontier workers and local and regional authorities there. Will the Commission again seriously consider drafting and submitting to the European Parliament a European Directive providing for a Europe testí, particularly because this has been requested frequently, both in the Euregions and in the European Parliament? (1) OJ C 27 E, 29. 1. 2000, p. 2. C 219 E/28 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 1. 8. 2000 Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission (30 November 1999) In its reply to written question E-850/98 (1), the Commission confirmed the position it had expressed during the discussions at the session of 27 May 1998 on Ms Van Lanckerís draft report on frontier workers, which was that when problems arose, the most appropriate response appeared to be to foster cross-border cooperation between the parties involved. It had also pointed out on this occasion that, under Article 226 (ex Article 169) of the EC Treaty, it had powers to ensure that Member Statesí legislation was compatible with Community law, and more specifically with the rules governing the freedom of move- ment. In this question, the Honourable Member refers not just to the problems encountered by frontier workers, but also to those experienced by businesses and local authorities. The Commission would be grateful if, for fields other than the free movement of workers, the Honourable Member could clearly describe, or give specific examples of, the áadverse impactí felt in border regions following the adoption of national legislation, which is mentioned in her question. (1) OJ C 27 E, 29. 1. 2000, p. 2. (2000/C 219 E/035) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1805/99 by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (1 October 1999) Subject: Threat of job losses at Siemens Group factories in Portugal The Siemens Group is threatening a major cut-back in production and employment at its factories in Portugal and is preparing to transfer part of its operations to other countries. For example, at Indelma (Indœstrias ElectrodomØsticas SA), which is based in Casal do Marco (Seixal district), the companyís governing body has already announced that all production of cables for Renault cars will be transferred to Lithuania, with the loss of 700 jobs. According to trade union sources, Siemens has ended telecommunications equipment production at its factory in Corroios and has switched orders to Germany, with the consequent loss of 80 jobs. A similar state of affairs is in evidence at the companyís factories in Evora and Sabugo (Sintra district). The fact of the matter is that the companies within the Siemens Group, including Indelma, are profitable and have in the past received over one billion escudosí worth of aid and subsidies from various sources, including Community funds. Would the Commission answer the following questions: 1. Were the Siemens Group companies in Portugal granted Community funds? If so, what amounts were involved and under which programmes were they made available? 2. If Siemens continues to relocate its operations outside Portugal (thereby causing job losses), will it be required to return the Community funds it has received? 3. What other action does the Commission intend to take in response to this state of affairs? Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission (28 October 1999) Firms belonging to the Siemens group in Portugal have received payments from the structural funds of € 43 million up until 4 October 1999 for projects approved in the course of the present Community support framework 1994-1999 in the industry programme PEDIP II. These payments are based on commitments of € 77 million; the final amount for payments will only be known when all projects have