WRITTEN QUESTION E-1141/01 by Theresa Villiers (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Partnership with civil society to promote information on the euro.
Date: 2001-04-10
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU financing, European citizenship, euro, public awareness campaign

11.12.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 350 E/81

Building upon the principles outlined in the Stockholm interim report, the Commission will present a more
detailed action plan for improving and simplifying the regulatory environment to the Laeken European
Council at the end of this year, which will also take account of the recommendations set out in the
upcoming White Paper on European Governance.

Regarding the issue of whether impact assessments should be undertaken by independent experts or the
Commission itself, the Commission is of the opinion that final impact assessments of legislative proposals
should be carried out in-house. However, input from various external experts (e.g. scientific, technical,
commercial, economic, social and environmental) is needed for specific issues as well as for data collection
(e.g. compliance costs for business). This viewpoint is in accordance with experiences from impact
assessment systems in several OECD countries, such as the United Kingdom and the United States.

The Commission is highly committed to assess the costs and benefits of proposed regulatory measures (to
it believes that such
the extent possible) on all the parties concerned,
assessments could favourably look at costs and benefits of various levels of stringency of proposed
regulatory measures, since such information could be useful throughout the decision-making process.
Indeed, regulatory quality and simplification at Community level is an issue of common concern, which
requires joint commitment from all Union institutions.

including business. Moreover,

(1) COM(2001) 130 final.

(2001/C 350 E/088)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1141/01

by Theresa Villiers (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(10 April 2001)

Subject: Partnership with civil society to promote information on the euro

On 7 March 2001 the Commission announced that it had selected 34 projects out of 158 proposals
received to subsidise in the context of the information programme for European citizens (PRINCE). It was
stated in MEMO/01/66 that (cid:145)only transnational actions involving at least three Member States, at least one
of which is in the euro area, and with the greatest possible multiplier effect, will qualify for financial
support(cid:146).

Six of the selected projects will be undertaken by organisations with partners in the United Kingdom:

(cid:129) Eurochambres,

(cid:129) Industrie-und Handelskammer Trier,

(cid:129) Association Pour l(cid:146)Union MonØtaire de l(cid:146)Europe (AUME),

(cid:129) European Union of the Deaf,

(cid:129) Institut EuropØen interrØgional de la Consommation (IEIC),

(cid:129) ASFORM (Asociaci(cid:243)n para el Fomento de la Formaci(cid:243)n Ocupacional y Continua el

la Margen

Izquierda).

1.
Could the Commission confirm that it has secured guarantees from these organisations that funding
will not be channelled into promotional projects in the United Kingdom, which has not expressed the wish
to join the euro?

2.
Could the Commission explain why it is considering proposals from transnational organisations
involving at least three Member States, where only one of the three Member States has joined the euro,
and the other two countries have not expressed a wish to join?

C 350 E/82

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

11.12.2001

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(3 July 2001)

A careful examination of the title and the text of the call for proposals published in the Official Journal of
the European Communities (1) clearly shows that it was never intended to foster promotional activities in
any Member State,
let alone in Member States having not expressed the wish to join the euro.
Furthermore, no project promoted by an organisation based in the United Kingdom has been registered, so
that no British organisation appears as project leader in this framework.

Out of the six organisations mentioned, four are at European level, and naturally also have members in the
United Kingdom. As for the two remaining ones (Industrie-und Handelskammer Trier and Asform), they
are used to working with a certain number of partners, one of them happening to be British. Each
promotor is free to choose its partners in a given project and each project rests on a division of labour
between the partners, so that a British partner can never retain a major share in a project.

This allows the Commission to confirm that funding will not be channelled into promotional projects in
the United Kingdom, as none was received in the framework of the call for proposals. Moreover, all
projects are controlled during their implementation and financial reports are due halfway and after
completion of each project to obtain payment of the second and of the last part of the grant awarded.

The text (cid:145)transnational actions involving at least three Member States, at least one of which is in the euro
zone(cid:146) should not be read as imposing one member of the euro zone and two having not expressed the
wish to join, but sets one of the minimal conditions at which a given project can be taken into
consideration, at the risk of otherwise becoming pointless. None of the 34 selected projects actually
presents such a configuration, which means that there was no misunderstanding regarding this point
among the applicants.

The euro is nevertheless of concern to British enterprises, and notably to small and medium-sized
enterprises (SMEs) involved in imports and exports. In this respect it is worth noting that the British
Government has spent several million pounds on informing them on the implications of the changeover to
the euro.

(1) OJ C 212, 25.7.2000.

(2001/C 350 E/089)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1143/01

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(10 April 2001)

Subject: Combating the further spread of foot-and-mouth disease by resumption of vaccination

1.
Can the Commission confirm that vaccination of livestock against foot-and-mouth disease, which
was used to tackle periodic epidemics of the disease in the past, has been systematically abandoned since
the early 1990s?

To what extent was the policy of non-vaccination based on the expectation that the disease had

2.
virtually been eradicated and vaccination was therefore superfluous?

3.
To what extent was the policy of non-vaccination based on the expectation that it would boost the
export of European meat to the United States given that the US wrongly tended to equate vaccination with
evidence of the disease?

4.
Does the Commission think that the current massive outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in the
United Kingdom and the further spread of the disease in the Netherlands and France, resulting in the
massive slaughter of livestock, a ban on all exports and restrictions on the movement of people and goods,
can still be brought to a permanent end without the rapid re-introduction of vaccination?