WRITTEN QUESTION E-1754/00 by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission. Regional Economic Partnership Agreements.
Date: 2000-05-31
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: ACP countries, North-South trade, trade agreement (EU)

C 103 E/26

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

3.4.2001

(2001/C 103 E/026)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1754/00

by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission

(31 May 2000)

Subject: Regional Economic Partnership Agreements

In view of the signing of the Suva Convention in June and the undertaking to begin negotiations by
1 January 2002 on WTO-compatible regional economic partnership agreements or other WTO-compatible
arrangements, which should take account of the level of development and the socio-economic impact of
trade measures on ACP states, will the Commission indicate the composition and working methods of the
bodies that have been, or will be, established to prepare and carry out these negotiations?

In particular, what will be the relationship between the DG for Trade and the DG for Development in this
process, and how will responsibilities be allocated?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(27 June 2000)

The Commission is presently examining an action plan for the preparation and the negotiation of regional
economic partnership agreements.

Without anticipating the results of the deliberation of the Commission, it is obvious that the preparation
and the negotiation of these agreements will require a close cooperation between the relevant services of
the Commission, in particular between Directorate general Trade and Directorate general Development.
The Commission is indeed convinced that, as provided in the partnership agreement between the African,
Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) States and the Community, trade cooperation and development cooperation
must be interlinked and mutually supportive so as to create the most favourable conditions for the ACP to
adapt to the new trading environment.

(2001/C 103 E/027)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1769/00

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(31 May 2000)

Subject: Controversial use of Konver subsidies by the Dutch municipality of Den Helder and the channel-

ling away of funds

1.
Since 1997 the media in and around the municipality of Den Helder, located in the region (cid:145)Kop van
Noord-Holland(cid:146) in the north west of the Netherlands, have reported time and again on the political furore
over the spending of subsidies, inter alia on the construction by the municipality of Den Helder of a
footbridge and landing stage in the inner harbour of Koopvaarder. On 9 May 2000 a fresh bout of
controversy erupted. This was triggered by an investigation by the Central Criminal Intelligence Agency
into municipal town planning and administration fraud. Is the Commission aware of these reports?

Can the Commission confirm that works in the municipality of Den Helder, such as the construction
2.
the footbridge and landing stage in the inner harbour of Koopvaarder, commonly known as
of
(cid:145)Eurosteiger(cid:146), were brought into being with the help of European subsidies under the Konver programme?
If so, what subsidies were granted under the Konver programme to Den Helder and under what
conditions?

The political furore prompted the municipal council to commission an inquiry by the KPMG bureau.
3.
In its report reference was made to irregularities in the use of subsidy payments: deferment of subsidies to
a subsequent stage without approval; failure to report related co-financing; failure to implement parts of
the proposed project. Furthermore, there are reports in the media of the inflation of the project(cid:146)s costs and
the channelling away of money flows. Is the Commission aware of the KPMG inquiry and its conclusions?
Does it agree with those conclusions?