WRITTEN QUESTION E-0243/01

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(7 February 2001)

Subject: Conclusion of decision-making on accusations of fraud involving payments for flax growing in Spain and other accusations against Commission Members

1. Has the Commission noted the report in the Netherlands Financieel Dagblad of 23 January 2001 headlined European People's part threatens crisis, which draws attention to the marked increase in the land area devoted to flax growing in Spain in the late 1990s from 186ha to 91 000ha, with the subsequent sharp fall to 20 000ha, and to the subsidies granted by the European Union to boost flax growing and the shared responsibility of the then Spanish Agriculture Minister?

2. Can it confirm that the OLAF anti-fraud unit opened an investigation into the lawfulness and appropriateness of the grant of subsidies referred to in paragraph 1 above, and to determine who carries political responsibility for any misuse of these payments? Can it confirm that the investigation has now been concluded?

3. What are the Commission's conclusions in relation to the OLAF investigation? If conclusions cannot be drawn at this time, by what date can they be expected to be announced?

4. Is the Commission prepared to make the conclusions of the OLAF investigation public and submit them to the European Parliament?

5. Under what procedure and by what deadline does the Commission think the final conclusions will be reached in this matter?

6. Does the Commission agree that if fraud has in fact been committed, the subsidies paid out will have to be recovered, as has already happened in the Netherlands specifically in relation to ESF payments made in violation of the rules?

7. Does the Commission agree that one of the lessons that must be learned from the previous Commission's resignation in 1999 is that complete openness must be maintained and that concern to protect the reputations of those involved must not be allowed to override the need for an open, transparent and reputable approach by political leaders in Europe, not least because the European Union's image will otherwise once again be seriously tarnished? Is the Commission prepared to act promptly- in response to growing public indignation so as to meet the requirements of openness and integrity?

8. What is the Commission's reaction to reports that an MEP from the Spanish Partido Popular now claims to be in possession of enough material to force six Members of the Commission not including the former Spanish Agriculture Minister out of office? Does it agree that this at least raises the suggestion that Members of the Commission could be guilty of disreputable conduct that could only result in their resignations if made public?

9. Does it share the view that the accusations referred to in paragraph 8 must, in the interests of administrative integrity, either be substantiated as soon as possible or be conclusively refuted? Is it prepared to take the initiative in that connection?

10. How will the Commission act to remove all foundation from accusations levelled by Members of the European Parliament against Members of the European Commission on the grounds of their possible vulnerability to accusations of fraud?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(21 March 2001)

1. Yes, the Commission is aware of the article referred to by the Honourable Member. As regards the increase in sown surface areas, the Honourable Member is referred to the answer to Written Question P-1382/99 by Mr Colom i Naval(1) and the Commission's replies to Parliament on 5 February 2001 in connection with the budget discharge for 1999.

2. Yes, as it stated in a press release issued on 9 February 2001, the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) launched an investigation, which covered a number of Member States, in order to examine the legitimacy and effectiveness of granting flax subsidies. It is not OLAF's task to establish any political responsibility. It was only on 19 March 2001 that OLAF submitted its confidential report to Parliament and the Commission.

3. and 5. The Commission is currently examining OLAF's report in detail and will certainly take appropriate action as a result.

4. This question is no longer relevant as OLAF has already transmitted its report.

6. Yes.

7. The Commission considers that there is now greater openness in its relations with Parliament. Indeed that was one of the reasons why the two institutions concluded a framework agreement on 5 July 2000.

The Commission is convinced that preserving the Union's image is a collective task for all players involved in the European integration process. In this context, it sets great store by the principle that any debate on matters such as those raised in the Honourable Member's question must be based on real, objective facts.

8. and 9. The Commission has no reason to feel under threat.

The Commission has noted with satisfaction that, since the present Parliamentary legislature began and the new Commission took office, the two institutions have worked together closely in a spirit of loyal cooperation and mutual trust. It feels that this climate of understanding must be maintained, as it is vitally important if the institutions are to play a full part in building Europe. It is sure that Parliament shares this view.

10. The Commission considers that, if evidence of fraud does emerge, thought will have to be given to the question of whose responsibility it would be to pursue that fraud and to take appropriate action.

(1) OJ C 27 E, 29.1.2000.