WRITTEN QUESTION E-1716/01 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Possibility of restoring economic stability following the introduction of the euro through the adoption of different interest rates.
Date: 2001-06-14
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Economic and Monetary Union, approximation of laws, economic stabilisation, euro area, interest, regional disparity

C 93 E/22

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

18.4.2002

(2002/C 93 E/024)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1716/01

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(14 June 2001)

Subject: Possibility of restoring economic stability following the introduction of the euro through the

adoption of different interest rates

Can the Commission confirm that since 1999 it has been impossible for the then 11 and currently
1.
12 Member States preparing to introduce the euro on 1 January 2002 to reduce the difference in their
economic growth rates through the adoption of different interest rates?

Does the Commission not consider that the European Union runs the risk of encountering the same
2.
problems as the USA where since 1913, when the Dollar was introduced as the common currency, it has
become apparent that it is difficult to bring regions with a strong economy and those with a weak
economy closer together since the economy cannot heat up and cool down at the same time?

3.
Assuming that both policy and composition of the Union remain unchanged after 2006, what would
be the repercussions of irregular growth as referred to in paragraph 2 for the least favoured regions and,
consequently, for the various regions’ entitlements to Structural and Cohesion Fund assistance?

4. What possibilities does the Commission see following the introduction of the single currency for the
restoration of economic stability through the adoption of different interest rates in different regions?

Should the possibilities for different interest rates in future be limited, what alternatives does the
5.
Commission envisage in order to achieve the same advantages as those which could be enjoyed were the
possibility to set different interest rates to be maintained?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(18 September 2001)

1.
The Commission confirms that it has been impossible for the Member States participating in Stage III
of the Economic and Monetary Union to adopt different interest rates since 1 January 1999. According to
the EC Treaty the European Central Bank (ECB) has full responsibility for monetary policy and sets interest
rates for the euro area as a whole. While money market rates are uniform throughout the euro area, small
differentials prevail for long-term interest rates mainly reflecting market size.

2.
The Commission is carefully watching all risks possibly linked to the introduction of the euro. In
doing so the Commission is also taking into account pieces of information from monetary history that
could matter for the economic analysis of the euro area. Concerning comparisons between the euro area
and the United States there is a consensus among experts that stories found in the United States are of
limited relevance for the euro area, because the set-up (e.g. federal state and budget) and the structures (e.g.
labour mobility across all areas, common language) are rather different.

3.
In general, if an economy grows at a lower rate than another one and if both display the similar
population growth, per-capita income will also grow at a lower rate. Obviously, if this economy had
already the lower income, the discrepancy will increase. But past experience shows that the least favoured
regions benefited from higher growth. This catching-up process is triggered by Community policies and
instruments, in particular by structural policies.

4.
At no time since the introduction of the euro the Commission has found evidence for the absence of
economic stability: the Community economy has been growing in all years, inflation has been moderate,
unemployment has been on a falling trend and other indicators support this interpretation. Thus, there is
nothing to be restored. However, the Commission is carefully watching macroeconomic differences across
the Member States at different levels (documentation may be made available upon request). In doing so
various types of differences have to be distinguished. Not all of them are necessarily unwarranted, some
might even be necessary and triggered by Community policy (e.g. stronger growth in lagging areas).

18.4.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 93 E/23

5. Without any possibility left to determine interest rates to match the needs of single Member States,
other measures have to be chosen (e.g. fiscal policy, structural policy, wage adjustment). Such measures
can tend to affect the profitability of investments and thus the attractiveness of doing business in the
country looked at. In that sense there is a possibility to affect the expected real rates of return and to have
an impact on relative growth performance in an economy with a single currency.

(2002/C 93 E/025)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1726/01

by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(14 June 2001)

Subject: Training of seafarers

The German Automobile Association (ADAC) has carried out a survey of Greek ferries, making a positive
assessment in its subsequent report. However, apart from the positive comments, the results of the extra
emergency drills which were held specially for the Greek crews were found to be disappointing. These
results are attributable to inadequate crew training and the fact that the regular training exercises take
place only on paper and not in practice.

In the light of the fact that a warning letter was sent to Greece on 20 August 1999 concerning the
implementation of Directive 98/53/EC (1) on the minimum level of
the
Commission say to what extent that Directive is implemented in Greece? Does the Commission consider
that Greece has complied with the abovementioned letter?

training of seafarers, will

(1) OJ L 172, 17.6.1998, p. 1.

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(6 September 2001)

In order to improve the safety of maritime transport and establish a minimum level of training of seafarers
in the Community, on 21 November 1994 the Council adopted Directive 94/58/EC of 22 November 1994
on the minimum level of training of seafarers (1). This was amended by Council Directive 98/35/EC of
25 May 1998 (2) and, on 4 April 2001, Parliament and the Council adopted Directive 2001/25/EC on the
minimum level of training of seafarers (3), consolidating and repealing the two earlier directives.

These texts apply to seafarers serving on board vessels designed for maritime navigation and flying the flag
of a Member State. The provisions concerning the training required in order to obtain the certificate are
based on those of the IMO Convention on standards of training for seafarers (STCW Convention, 1978).

As regards the transposition of these texts by Greece, the Commission has instituted procedures for failure
to notify national transposition measures within the time limits set for each of the two directives.
Following the notifications of transposition of the texts into Greek legislation, these two procedures were
shelved in December 1996 and March 2000 respectively.

In the framework of examining the conformity of the measures notified by the Greek authorities, the
Commission opened a procedure concerning the effective transposition into Greek law of obligations to
control communications among crew members and with the passengers, especially in critical situations.
The Greek authorities gave satisfactory explanations regarding the interpretation of Presidential Decree
210/96 and the Commission was able to shelve the dossier in December 1998.

Finally, according to the information communicated to the Commission by the Greek authorities in
October 2000, control of conformity and application of the measures undertaken to transpose the
directives has been entrusted to the merchant shipping inspectorate and the port authorities. These two