WRITTEN QUESTION E-2063/99 by Juan Naranjo Escobar (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Inequality in the treatment of EU citizens in the welfare sector.
Date: 1999-11-12
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European Union, comparative study, low income, pension scheme, redistribution of income, social transfers, social-security benefit, social-security harmonisation, standard of living

8.8.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 225 E/45

(2000/C 225 E/045)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2059/99

by Karin Scheele (PSE) to the Commission

(12 November 1999)

Subject: Decommissioning of Bohunice nuclear power station

In a decision dating from 1994 the Slovakian Government announced the closure of both V-1 reactors at
the Bohunice nuclear power station in 2000. This decision was also incorporated into Agenda 2000. At
the end of September it rescinded this decision and submitted a new timetable postponing the closure until
2008. Commissioner G(cid:252)nther Verheugen welcomed this decision.

In the opinion on Slovakia(cid:146)s application to join the EU,
the Commission maintains that after a
modernisation phase for improvement of the safety level (until 1999) the A1 prototype reactor will be
finally decommissioned. As part of the accession partnership the Slovakian Republic is committed to
implementing a realistic programme for decommissioning the Bohunice nuclear power station. The
Commission(cid:146)s November 1998 report on Slovakia(cid:146)s progress towards accession already singled out for
criticism the fact that operating the reactor on a longer-term basis after 1999 is compatible neither with
the accession partnership nor with the Slovakian Government(cid:146)s decision of 1994.

Can the Commission therefore answer the following questions:

1. What view does it take of the Slovakian Government(cid:146)s most recent plans concerning the timescale for

its entry into the European Union?

2. Will it in future pay particular attention to implementation of the timetable specified in the accession

partnership and, where necessary, take appropriate action?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(9 December 1999)

According to the definitions of the 1992 Group of seven most industrialised countries meeting in Munich,
there are at Bohunice two VVER 440/230 reactors (units 1 and 2 at Bohunice V1) which are not
upgradable at reasonable cost, and two reactors VVER 440/213 (units 3 and 4 at Bohunice V2), which are
upgradable. The old Bohunice A1 reactor was stopped in 1977 and is currently under decommissioning.

The original design lifetime for units 1 and 2 at Bohunice V1 are 2008 and 2010 respectively. During the
past years the Slovak government has been investing an important amount of money (about € 200 million)
to increase the security standards of Bohunice V1 (units 1 and 2), with a view to licensing them to operate,
respectively, until 2010-2012 or even beyond. Despite these investments, the decision has been taken to
bring forward the closure of Bohunice V1 to 2006 for unit 1 and 2008 for unit 2.

The Commission considers these dates realistic and credible. It will make every effort to ensure that these
closing dates will be respected.

The 1999 accession partnership clearly indicates that the preparation for the closing down and decom-
missioning of Bohunice V1 is a key priority. The Commission will follow the developments regarding
Bohunice V1 with particular attention. The Commission is ready to support and closely co-operate with
the Slovak authorities to reach the objective of early shut down and decommissioning of the Bohunice V1
reactors, particularly through the provision of financial support and expertise. Progress will be regularly
assessed in the context of both the pre-accession instruments and the accession process.

(2000/C 225 E/046)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2063/99

by Juan Naranjo Escobar (PPE-DE) to the Commission

Subject: Inequality in the treatment of EU citizens in the welfare sector

(12 November 1999)

On 28 September 1999 Eurostat released a study entitled (cid:145)Social benefits and their redistributive effects in
the EU(cid:146), revealing sharp inequalities in the treatment of EU citizens in terms of the pensions and other
social security benefits they receive.

C 225 E/46

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

8.8.2000

The study reveals that the proportion of people receiving such assistance varies widely across the EU
Member States assessed therein.

Paradoxically, in some instances the standard of living enjoyed by the recipients of these social security
benefits matches that of the remainder of the population in the country concerned and in other instances
even exceeds the average.

The impact of the various benefits on reducing the number of (cid:145)poor people(cid:146) is very uneven, since the
extent to which the said benefits are targeted at this sector of the population varies considerably from one
Member State to another.

Furthermore, in some cases the other social security benefits paid out to citizens are virtually on a par with
the pensions they receive, whereas in other cases they amount to far less.

Can the Commission corroborate these facts? If so, what is its assessment of the extent to which the
treatment received by EU citizens in the welfare sector differs? Can the Commission say what precautions
it will take to reduce these disparities?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(8 December 1999)

This analysis on the redistributive effect of social benefits in the Community was undertaken by the
Commission in collaboration with the French ministry of employment and solidarity. It is based on the
(ECHP), which is the only Community
1995 wave of
harmonised source for data on income in general and social transfers in particular. The ECHP is a survey
based on a sample of some 60 500 Community households (170 000 individuals).

the European Community household panel

The analysis confirms that on average about a quarter of the total income of Europeans is made up of
social transfers; pensions guarantee a standard of living to those drawing pensions which is close to the
standard of living for the population as a whole; social benefits other than pensions are intensively targeted
at the sector of the population with the lowest incomes and succeed, as a result,
in reducing the
proportion of people living on a low income by a quarter or more in most Member States. The higher
inequality and poverty before transfers and the higher the share of such social transfers in total income,
the higher their impact on reducing poverty and disparities in income.

These findings illustrate and confirm the important redistributive effect of social transfers and benefits as
an important principle of the European social model. Moreover, as data include cash transfers only (and
not benefits in kind), the redistributive impact of social protection is likely to be even higher.

The analysis also highlights significant differences between Member States and the need for strengthening
cooperation at Community level. The Commission has proposed (cid:145)A concerted strategy for modernising
social protection(cid:146) (1), based on dialogue, exchange of experience and evaluation of ongoing policy
developments, to guide future action and cooperation in this field.

(1) COM(1999) 347 final.

(2000/C 225 E/047)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2066/99

by Umberto Bossi (TDI) to the Commission

(12 November 1999)

Subject: Private storage aid for cheese under Regulation (EEC) No 2659/94

For several years now, the Italian Ministry for Agriculture and the bodies coming under its authority have
been discriminating against some producers of PDO Grana padano cheese by preventing them from