You are on page 1of 2

C 304/96 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 2. 10.


An inter-departmental working party on fisheries and development was set up in October 1997 to improve
coordination in this field between the Commission departments concerned. It meets regularly and brings together
representatives from Directorates-General XIV and VIII with the aim not only of avoiding inconsistencies but
also bringing about synergy of Community fisheries and development policies by the communication of
information between those Directorates-General and in-depth exchanges of views on relevant issues in the
fisheries sector. Having regard to these mechanisms and the legal bases of the Community’s various policy
instruments, each Directorate-General administers those of which it is in charge.

One example is the practical collaboration between Directorates-General XII, XIV and VIII in organising three
conferences on the fisheries research initiative between the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries and
the Community which will be held in connection with Expo ‘98 both to promote a coordinated approach to
research by European scientists and scientists from the developing countries (including the exploration of new
concepts for the future of the industry) and to create interfaces between scientists and decision makers.

(98/C 304/144) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0413/98

by Jan Andersson (PSE) to the Commission

(24 February 1998)

Subject: EU support for drugs policy organizations

It has come to my notice that EU financial support was given in both 1996 and 1997 to organizations such as
European Cities on Drug Policy (ECDP), whose aims include the legalization of drugs, the opening of coffee
shops and the legalized prescription of heroin. Yet European Cities Against Drugs (ECAD), an association of 180
European towns and cities opposing liberal drugs policies, received no support whatsoever.

Will the Commission state which organizations active in the drugs policy field have received support, why their
applications were approved and why no support has been given to ECAD? Will it also explain the drugs policy
strategy on which the allocation of funding and the granting of support to organizations which make it difficult
for Member States to abide by the relevant UN conventions are based?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission

(3 April 1998)

The Community action plan to combat drugs (1995-1999) (1) constitutes the reference framework for activities
conducted in this field by the Community and its Member States and has no bias in favour of all legalisation
approach towards illegal drugs.

The Commission emphasises that the objectives of the Community action programme for the prevention of drug
dependence incorporate the prevention of associated risks. The activities proposed in this field by the ‘European
Cities on Drug Policy’ network were examined in accordance with the arrangements, criteria and procedures for
selecting and financing projects, and were supported after consultation of the committee established by the
Decision No 102/97/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996 adopting a
programme of Community action on the prevention of drug dependence within the framework for action in the
field of publlic health (1996-2000) (2) setting up the programme, in view of their tie-in with certain priority
measures under the programme.

The Commission invites all organisations active in the field of drug demand reduction to submit projects of
Community interest, which are examined on the basis of their contribution to the objectives and priorities of the
2. 10. 98 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 304/97

The Commission would inform the Honourable Member that no application for financial support has been
received from the ‘Europe Cities Against Drugs’ network.

The Commission does not consider that the projects currently receiving support are contrary to the United
Nations conventions. It wishes to point out that legislation on drug use is exclusively the responsibility of the
Member States.

(1) COM(94)234 final.
(2) OJ L 19, 22.1.1997.

(98/C 304/145) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0414/98
by John Cushnahan (PPE) to the Council
(17 February 1998)

Subject: Beef blockade

Further to my previous Question (H-1020/97) (1) and the subsequent Council response I would formally request
the Council in the interest of transparency to actually answer the question that I tabled which was: ‘on what date
was this request made?’

(1) Debates of the European Parliament (January 1998).

(8 June 1998)

At the meeting of the Special Committee on Agriculture on 8 and 9 December 1997, Ireland had asked if it could
take up at ministerial level the issue of trade being obstructed in English ports. As already indicated in the oral
reply to which the Honourable Member refers, this issue was accordingly examined by the Council at its meeting
on 15 and 16 December 1997. The Commission acknowledged at that meeting that the United Kingdom was
taking the necessary measures so that products could move freely without hinderance.

(98/C 304/146) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0416/98
by Freddy Blak (PSE) to the Council
(25 February 1998)

Subject: SAFE Directive

Does the Presidency plan to have the SAFE Directive, which has been shelved for so long, adopted while it is in

(18 May 1998)

In 1995 the Commission sent the Council a proposal for a Decision adopting a Community programme to
improve safety, hygiene and health at work (SAFE programme). The proposal was amended in March 1997 and
work continued throughout the year in the Council’s subsidiary bodies, but it became clear that at this stage there
was no prospect of reaching the unanimity required to adopt the Decision (the legal basis for which is Article 235
of the TEC).

In the absence of any new factors, the United Kingdom Presidency has no plans to place the matter on the agenda
for the Council (Labour and Social Affairs) during its term of office.