WRITTEN QUESTION No. 3527/97 by Kirsi PIHA to the Commission. Leaking of information about the Commission's Agenda 2000 programme before its official publication
Date: 1997-11-12
Institutions: European Parliament, PIHA
Subjects: EC opinion, EU policy, EU programme, European Commission, accession to the European Union, communications policy

25. 5. 98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 158/141

The main themes set out in the Dearing report, which can be expected to resurface in a forthcoming White Paper,
are not exclusive to the United Kingdom. Guaranteeing the quality and appropriateness of fundamental research,
ensuring that similar value is attached in universities to achievements in teaching as well as in research, allowing
for sufficient administrative costs in research, modernizing equipment and securing the participation of industry
are tasks facing all the governments of the European Union and of other advanced economies.

Can the Council provide information on reforms and studies › similar to those described above for the United
Kingdom › now in progress in Europe, the United States and Japan?

Answer

(26 January 1998)

The Council keeps careful track of developments in education systems in the European Community, particularly
through the studies conducted by the Commission(cid:146)s DG XXII, including those produced by or with the support
of the Eurydice European Unit and its network.

However, it is not the Council(cid:146)s task to provide information on initiatives taken in the field of education by the
Governments of Member States or third countries. The Council would also point out that everything connected
with the organization and structure of higher education systems is the exclusive responsibility of the Member
States (see Article 126(1) of the EC Treaty).

(98/C 158/185)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3527/97

by Kirsi Piha (PPE) to the Commission

(12 November 1997)

Subject: Leaking  of  information  about  the  Commission(cid:146)s  Agenda  2000  programme  before  its  official

publication

Commissioner  Van  den  Broek(cid:146)s  answer  of  1  October  1997  to  my  written  question  E-2669/97 (1)  was
unsatisfactory  because  it  totally  failed  to  deal  with  the  central  point  of  my  question,  namely  the  problem  of
information  leaks.  The  Commissioner  himself  was  present  at  the  EPP  Group  meeting  last  July,  the  evening
before  the  publication  of  the  Agenda  2000  document,  at  which  he  categorically  refused  to  comment  on  the
substance of the document on the grounds of its confidentiality. However, very detailed information had already
been transmitted the same day in all the mass media, e.g. on which countries were at the top of the Commission(cid:146)s
list.

In view of the above I should like to put a follow-up question (in fact the same question to which I did not receive
an answer the first time):

What action does the Commission propose to take to clarify how and why detailed information on the substance
of the opinions on individual countries has leaked prior to publication?

(1)  OJ C 102, 3.4.1998, p. 86.

Answer given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission

(11 December 1997)

The Commission set out in Reply to the Honourable Member(cid:146)s previous question the efforts it made to ensure
that  Parliament  was  informed  first  about  Agenda  2000,  right  after  the  Commission  formally  presented  the
individual opinions to the ambassadors of the candidate countries.

Unfortunately leaks cannot always be avoided, despite the Commission(cid:146)s best efforts. Such leaks are damaging,
not  only  to  the  Commission  but  also  to  other  interested  parties  and  the  Commission  regrets  possible
embarrassment which was caused.