WRITTEN QUESTION E-4118/00 by Vitaliano Gemelli (PPE-DE), Michl Ebner (PPE-DE), Guido Bodrato (PPE-DE) and Mario Mantovani (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Future of the Common Research Centre.
Date: 2001-01-11
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Joint Research Centre, Netherlands, administrative reform, cessation of trading, feasibility study, job cuts

21.8.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 235 E/73

Given the well established position of the Union on issues like democracy and human rights in its relations
with third countries, any further improvement of the relations between the Union and the Sudan will
depend on the concrete measures the Sudanese government takes in these areas. The dialogue will
henceforth mainly concern questions relating to human rights, democratisation and civil liberties, as well
as the peace process.

The Commission strongly encourages the peace process, not only by providing political and moral support
to the mediation efforts of IGAD, but also in its direct contacts with the belligerent parties. It subscribes to
the call for an immediate,
inclusive cease-fire agreement under international supervision and to the
demand for a complete stop to the provision of arms to either side, as decisive steps towards a political
solution of the conflict in the south.

(2001/C 235 E/078)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-4118/00

by Vitaliano Gemelli (PPE-DE), Michl Ebner (PPE-DE),
Guido Bodrato (PPE-DE) and Mario Mantovani (PPE-DE) to the Commission

Subject: Future of the Common Research Centre

(11 January 2001)

Would the Commission and more particularly its President, Mr Romano Prodi, and Commissioner Philippe
Busquin state

(cid:129) with regard to the Common Research Centre (CRC), a very effective instrument of Community
research, which not only brings together scientific expertise from the various branches of European
academia, but examines scientific activities being pursued in the Member States for their possible
implications in every area of interest (environmental, economic, social, etc.);

(cid:129) that there have been plans in the past to scale down the role of the CRC by a corresponding scaling

down of research activities, including cutting the establishment plan by 200 posts;

(cid:129) it now appears that once again there are plans to reduce the number of staff by a further 200 posts,
despite the Council of Ministers having agreed in 1998 to maintain the establishment plan at 2 080
posts in accordance with the Fifth framwork programme;

whether reports of the establishment plan being reduced by 200 posts are true, whether the aim really is
to rationalise research and whether, in the event of the JRC being scaled down, the Petten and Ispra centres
would pass from Community control to that of the Member States where they are situated?

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(28 February 2001)

The latest review of the establishment plan of the Joint Research Centre (JRC) dates from the 1999 budget
and maintained the same number of staff by increasing the number of A posts (+120) by reducing the
number of B and C posts in consequence.

As part of its priority review exercise launched at the beginning of 2000, the Commission adopted the
recommendations of the Peer Group at its meeting held on 26 July 2000.

Within this context the Commission asked the Commission Member responsible to instruct the JRC to
carry out a feasibility study on the closure of the Petten site and alternatively to envisage the elimination of
200 posts by reducing activities throughout the departments of the JRC.

The feasibility study on the closure of the Petten site has been completed and the conclusions of the study
presented to the Commission in the form of a communication adopted on 22 January 2001 (1). The study
concludes that the Petten site should be retained and its activities, notably those of the nuclear sector, be
concentrated within it. This would lead to a redeployment of posts within the JRC, giving rise to a total
saving of 40 posts.

C 235 E/74

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

21.8.2001

The other departments of the JRC are also being audited, the conclusions of which will be available at the
end of March 2001.

The Joint Research Centre being what its title suggests, there are no plans to transfer Community
competences to the Member States.

(1) COM(2001) 125.

(2001/C 235 E/079)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-4119/00

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(16 January 2001)

Subject: Fixed ratio between Member State populations and number of seats in the European Parliament

1.
Can the Council confirm that the agreement reached in Nice from 7 to 11 December on the
allocation of seats for Members of the European Parliament, under which the present Member States, with
the exception of the largest and smallest, give up 91 seats and 106 new seats are created to provide 197
seats for the 12 new Member States expected to join in the near future, is not based on a mathematically
objective model but is the outcome of horse-trading? In some cases was the number of Members of
Parliament lower, the greater the weight of the country(cid:146)s vote in the Council?

2.
Can the Council explain why Greece, Belgium and Portugal, which have populations of between
10 533 000 and 9 980 000, should each get 22 MEPs whereas two applicant countries with populations
within this bracket (the Czech Republic with a population of 10 290 000 and Hungary with 10 092 000)
should each be allocated only 20 seats, when throughout the run-up to Nice it was assumed that there
would be equal representation so that the inhabitants of these five countries would carry equal weight?

3.
Can the Council explain why there is a difference of 4 seats between Latvia and Ireland when the
difference in their populations is 1,3 million and a difference of only 2 seats between Latvia and
Luxembourg when the difference in population is 2 million? Has a difference in economic power been
taken into account in the equation?

4.
Can the Council explain why there is a difference of 8 seats between Romania and the Netherlands,
with a difference of over 6 million inhabitants and a difference of only 3 seats between the Netherlands
and Portugal with a difference in population of almost 6 million? Has the Netherlands been punished for
its tactlessness?

5. Why was an objective ratio of seats to population size not taken as a starting point and a table
drawn up establishing a fixed number of seats for a certain population, so that every five years a rise or fall
in population bringing a country within a different bracket would automatically result in an adjustment in
representation?

Is the Council still prepared to help ensure that before the 2004 elections a formula for the allocation
6.
seats is found that secures full public support, removes any suspicion of over- or under-representation and
better reflects basic democratic principles?

Reply

(7 May 2001)

The question put by the Honourable Member concerns a matter which does not come within the Council(cid:146)s
powers. Under Article 48 of the Treaty on European Union, amendments to the Treaties are adopted by
common agreement by a conference of representatives of the governments of the Member States.