You are on page 1of 2

3. 4.

98 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 102/83

As far as the Resider programmes in Italy are concerned, the projects mentioned by the Honourable Member fall
within the terms of the operational programmes approved by the Commission following an ex-ante appraisal.
These programmes respect the guidelines adopted by the Commission for this Community initiative, which aims
to encourage the economic reconversion of areas affected by the declining steel industry, notably through the
promotion of new economic activities and the improvement of the environment.

The information available to the Commission on the Resider I programme in Lombardy indicates that more than
600 jobs have been created in the areas covered by the programme, which indicates that the strategy is bearing
fruit.

(98/C 102/119) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2655/97


by Patricia McKenna (V) to the Commission
(1 September 1997)

Subject: EU support for renewable energy

On 27 June 1997 the Council adopted a resolution on renewable sources of energy (1). It stated that renewables
were important in the fight against climate change, in securing future energy supplies, creating employment and
strengthening the economic structure of isolated regions.

It also said that ‘in order to stimulate the market for renewables, appropriate regulatory measures encouraging
market participants to buy energy produced from renewable resources may be introduced’.

Will the Commission give details of any plans which it may have to introduce any such regulatory measures on
the basis of this resolution?

(1) OJ C 210, 11.7.1997, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Papoutsis on behalf of the Commission


(1 October 1997)

The Council Resolution (1) the Honourable Member is referring to concerns the ‘Energy for the future:
Renewable sources of energy' Green Paper for a Community strategy (2). The communication also looks at
several regulatory measures which could be introduced to encourage market operators to buy energy produced
from renewable sources. The measures which the Commission actually intends to select will be set out in the
white paper and the renewable energy action plan which it will be presenting before the end of the year.

(1) OJ C 210, 11.7.1997.


(2) Doc. COM(96) 576.

(98/C 102/120) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2656/97


by Patricia McKenna (V) to the Commission
(1 September 1997)

Subject: Light rail system for Dublin

The Commission has stipulated that one of the lines of Dublin’s Luas light rail system − the one which
terminates at Dundrum − must be completed by 2001 if the project is to receive assistance from the Structural
Funds.
C 102/84 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 3. 4. 98

Recently the Irish Government decided to commission an independent study on the viability of running the light
rail system underground. This move was taken after lobbying by interest groups such as the Dublin Chamber of
Commerce and the Automobile Association (AA), but has been opposed by those campaigning for major
improvements in Dublin’s system of public transport, who believe that the Luas would be central to such
improvements. It is also feared that the new study could significantly delay construction of the Luas and upset the
timetable agreed with the EU.

An environmental impact assessment undertaken for Córas Iompar Èireann, Ireland’s public transport company,
estimated that running the system underground would cost IR£308 million more than keeping it on the surface.

Has the Commission made any representations to the Irish authorities about the potential delays which he
decision to re-evaluate the Luas project could cause? Would EU funding for the project be jeopardized by delays?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission


(2 October 1997)

The Commission has agreed to cofinance MECU 216 of expenditure on the light rail project in Dublin under the
Irish operational programme for transport 1994-1999, at the rate of 65% (European regional development fund
grant of MECU 140). Cost increases on the project, such as those which might be caused by running the system
underground, are not foreseen to be cofinanced under the transport operational programme.

The position with regard to the availability of structural funds in respect of the 1994-1999 programming period is
that legally binding commitments (contracts) must be entered into by 31 December 1999 at the latest.
Expenditure on these contracts can be incurred up to 31 December 2000. In exceptional circumstances, the
Commission may extend the latter deadline.

It is evident that the current timetable for the project will be delayed by at least the time taken to complete and
deliberate on the study commissioned by the Irish authorities and possibly longer, if the study approves running
the light rail transit system (LUAS) underground. The LUAS project has been considered in the mid-term review
of the Irish Community support framework (CSF). The CSF monitoring committee at its meeting of 29 July 1997
decided that if in the spring of 1998 it cannot be shown that sufficient progress has been achieved to make
completion likely within the existing agreed timescale for the project, all or part of the funds will be reallocated
to other projects within the CSF.

(98/C 102/121) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2659/97


by Patricia McKenna (V) to the Commission
(1 September 1997)

Subject: Waste from cattle slaughtered as part of the ‘BSE eradication scheme’

Britain’s Environment Agency (EA) recently carried out some risk assessments on the disposal of material from
the slaughter of cattle over thirty months old, which is being undertaken in Britain and Northern Ireland as part of
efforts to ‘eradicate’ BSE. It has also undertaken some assessments of the impact of disposal of other
cattle-derived wastes on the environment.

The 4 July 1997 edition of the newsletter ‘BSE: measures taken by the UK’ (a regular newsletter prepared by
Britain for the Commission) states: ‘The results show, in quantitative terms, that the disposal options available
present no risks to human health other than the risks which are negligible compared to other risks in daily life’.

Has the Commission studied the EA assessments and, if so, is it satisfied with them? Will it be seeking an
independent assessment of methods for disposing of cattle-derived waste in Britain and Northern Ireland?