WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1966/98 by Ursula STENZEL to the Commission. Education programmes
5. 2. 1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 31/105 (1999/C 31/142) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1963/98 by Joaquim Miranda (GUE/NGL) to the Commission Subject: Trans-European high-speed network (30 June 1998) Portugalís location on the periphery of the European Union is in itself sufficient justification for heavy investment in the rail network so as to mitigate this situation. Nevertheless, the investment currently being made or scheduled in other countries › in particular Spain, as part of the trans-European high-speed network › will exacerbate this peripheral situation unless rapid and well-structured progress is made towards extending that network to Portugal. Given that there appears to be no plan which might indicate that such extension of the network is intended, can the Commission say to what extent it is envisaged that Portugal will be integrated into the high-speed trans-European network? By what date? How will it be linked to the work being done in other countries? Why has there been such a delay in taking this situation into account? Has the Portuguese Government submitted any applications in this connection? Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission (30 July 1998) Portugal is included in the high-speed rail network in the guidelines for the development of the trans-European transport network (1). Two lines are shown, one North-South connecting Lisbon and Porto, the other linking the North-South route with the Spanish system via Madrid. The inclusion of these lines in the high-speed network indicates that they will be built for a maximum speed of at least 250 kilometres per hour. However, the Commission does not have any other technical details concerning their construction or design. It is understood that the Spanish authorities are planning to open their section of the new route from Madrid to France around 2004. For the Lisbon to Porto route the Community is providing support notably for the feasibility studies that should be completed by the year 2000. (1) OJ L 228, 9. 9. 1996. (1999/C 31/143) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1966/98 by Ursula Stenzel (PPE) to the Commission (30 June 1998) Subject: Education programmes In its opinion on the communication from the Commission entitled Towards a Europe of knowledgeí (COM(97) 0563) the European Parliament strongly advocated a distinction between the objectives and promotional measures of the education programmes and those of the Structural Funds, especially the Social Fund. How will the Commission ensure this distinction is made in the new generation of programmes, thus taking account of the European Parliamentís concern? In the document it has submitted the Commission says that the procedures need to be simplified, made user- friendly and brought closer to the citizen. The Erasmus programme, however, has undergone no more than a minor modification with a view to increasing decentralization. A general examination of the proposal in fact leads to the conclusion that the programme has become more centralized and so again slightly more detached. How does the Commission explain this development, which contrasts with the desire of the majority for greater decentralization?