You are on page 1of 2

17. 3.

98 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 82/59

Plants in Belgium, Italy and Sweden are said to be excluding IAEA inspectors until Euratom analytical capability
to assess samples have been raised to IAEA levels of competence.

Is this an accurate report of current circumstances; and what is the Commission doing to facilitate better
cooperation with the IAEA over nuclear inspections?

Answer given by Mr Papoutsis on behalf of the Commission

(15 September 1997)

The Commission would draw the attention of the Honourable Member to the answer given to written question
E-1643/97 by Mrs Bloch von Blottnitz (1) on the same subject.

The statements cited in the question concerning the taking of environmental samples are not a correct reflection
of current circumstances. The Commission and the International atomic energy agency (IAEA) cooperate by
drawing samples together, sharing the results and developing the methods further. The Commission has the
necessary analytical capabilities to draw independent conclusions. European laboratories are indeed providing
the analysis for the IAEA together with other laboratories.

Regarding the concept for the testing and implementation of the new method, the Commission, Member State
authorities and operators prefer the scientific and technical approach whereby the experience gained and the
results obtained from each sampling influence the next such sampling exercise.

At the last meeting of the high level liaison committee in June 1997 there was complete agreement between the
IAEA and the Commission regarding all topics relevant in this field of interest.

(1) OJ C 45, 10.2.1998.

(98/C 82/105) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2340/97

by Graham Mather (PPE) to the Commission
(10 July 1997)

Subject: Ear-tagging for pigs

Directive 92/102/EEC (1) dictates that Member States must implement an ear-tagging indentification system for
certain livestock, including pigs. There have been some complaints that this system is inhumane for pigs. There
have been suggestions that increasing the use of inspections is a more viable alternative to ear-tagging.

Does the Commission have any plans to improve or eliminate the requirement for ear-tagging pigs? Is there
scope in the directive to eliminate ear-tagging if it is replaced by an alternative system?

(1) OJ L 355, 5.12.1992, p. 32.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(4 September 1997)

In accordance with Article 5.3 of Council Directive 92/102/EEC on the identification and registration of animals,
‘ ... animals other than bovine animals must be marked as soon as possible and in any case before they leave the
holding, with an eartag or tattoo making it possible to determine the holding from which they came and enabling
reference to be made to any accompanying document which must mention such eartag or tattoo ...’.

In addition, the above mentioned Article provides for temporary marks and the possibility for Member States to
apply their national system for the movement of animals other than bovine animals.
C 82/60 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 17. 3. 98

As far as future action is concerned, in accordance with Article 10 of Council Directive 92/102/EEC the
Commission is now preparing a report on the identification and registration system of animals. All aspects of the
identification of pigs, in particular those mentioned by the Honourable Member, will be taken into consideration.
Based on the findings of this report, the Commission will propose any appropriate measures. The report and any
proposals from the Commission will be presented to the Parliament. Additionally, Article 10 provides for a
review of the possibility of introducing electronic identification arrangements.

(98/C 82/106) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2342/97

by Stephen Hughes (PSE) to the Commission
(10 July 1997)

Subject: Variations in rules for car drivers

Could the Commission list which Member States:

1. Require a warning triangle to be carried in a car;
2. Require a fire extinguisher to be carried in a car;
3. Allow a sealed gallon of petrol to be carried in the boot of a car?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(18 September 1997)

1. A warning triangle for cars is required in Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Greece, Luxembourg, the
Netherlands, Austria, Portugal, Finland and Sweden. In Denmark and the Netherlands there is no obligation to
carry this device in the car but use is compulsory in case of breakdown of the vehicle.

2. A fire extinguisher in cars is required in Belgium, Greece and Portugal.

3. As far as the Commission is informed, there are no Member States forbidding a sealed gallon of petrol to be
carried in the boot of a car.

The laws on these and many other matters governing the safety of vehicles are currently of course entirely within
the legal competence of Member States and not of the Community.

(98/C 82/107) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2347/97

by Friedhelm Frischenschlager (ELDR) to the Commission
(10 July 1997)

Subject: Socrates action programme

The last two years have shown that the Socrates action programme has made an important contribution to
European education. Funding for the programme seems to be very low, given that it is both very well known and
very popular and in view of its expansion to cover the new Member States.

1. Will the cooperation with the countries of Central and Eastern Europe lead to a reduction in the quality of
the Socrates programme?

2. How does the Commission plan to increase further the transparency of the procedures for the award of
funding in order to curb abuses?

3. How many ecus have been channelled to Austria under this programme over the last two years? What
percentage of the funding allocated to them was taken up in the other two new Member States, Finland and
Sweden, and what was the corresponding figure for Austria?