WRITTEN QUESTION E-1298/02 by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Commission. UK's budget rebate.
Date: 2002-05-07
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Member States' contribution, United Kingdom, accession to the European Union

12.12.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 309 E/107

Reply

(30 September 2002)

As the Honourable Member of the EP knows, the siege has been lifted in the meantime. The EU,
in particular HR Solana, has played a key role in defusing the crisis. One of the major challenges was to
find places where 13 Palestinians, who had been in the church could be brought to. A Council ‘Common
Position on the temporary reception by Member States of the EU of certain Palestinians’ was adopted on
21 May 2002. Twelve Palestinians of the group of thirteen Palestinians were subsequently received on a
temporary basis by a number of Member States on humanitarian grounds. The thirteenth has been
received by a third Country.

(2002/C 309 E/125)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1298/02

by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(7 May 2002)

Subject: UK’s budget rebate

The method of calculating the UK correction has been modified in order to neutralise the net gains (the
‘windfall gains’) of the UK that result from the increase in the percentage of TOR retained by Member
States.

When, and by what process, did this change occur?

What was the UK’s total contribution to the Community’s budget in each of the past five years both before
and after the annual rebate?

How will the enlargement of the EU affect the UK’s rebate?

Answer given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(6 June 2002)

‘windfall gains’ correction to the United Kingdom rebate was
The traditional own resources (TOR)
introduced by Article 4(e) of Council Decision 2000/597/EC, Euratom of 29 September 2000 on the
system of the European Communities’ own resources (1). This correction applies retroactively as from
1 January 2001 since the percentage of TOR retained by Member States was increased as from that date.
This was agreed between the Member States at the Berlin European Council of March 1999 and is reflected
in point 72 of the Presidency Conclusions.

The United Kingdom’s total payments to the Community budget in the last five years were:

Year

Before the rebate

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001 (1)

(1)

11 386,9

15 706,8

14 651,3

17 291,5

15 085,9

Rebate

(2)

2 458,8

3 169,5

3 567,8

3 424,6

7 342,5

(In million euro)

After the rebate

(3) = (1) − (2)

8 928,1

12 537,2

11 083,5

13 867,0

7 743,4

(1)

The substantial amount of the United Kingdom rebate in 2001 was due to the combined effect of
the budgeting of the final calculation of the 1997 rebate (+ EUR 1 580,1 million), of the updating
of the 1999 amount (+ EUR 1 299,5 million), the updated total amount of the 2000 rebate
(EUR 4 426,6 million) as well as a minor amount due to, notably, exchange rate differences.

C 309 E/108

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

12.12.2002

The size of the United Kingdom rebate is directly proportional to the amount of allocated expenditure
(= Community expenditure allocated to individual Member States). Since this allocated expenditure will
increase after enlargement due to the expenditure in the new Member States the United Kingdom rebate
will increase (2). As a consequence, the United Kingdom will bear less than its ‘normal’ share of the cost of
enlargement (3).

(1) OJ L 253, 7.10.2000.
(2) The increase of the rebate will be somewhat tempered by the provisions laid down in Article 4(f) of the Own
Resources Decision, which is based on Point 72 of the Berlin Presidency Conclusions. This article states that at the
time of enlargement
to the annual
pre-4accession expenditure in the acceding countries.

total allocated expenditure will be reduced by an amount equivalent

(3) Since the cost of enlargement will basically be financed through an increase of the gross national product (GNP)

resource, a ‘normal’ financing share would be equivalent to the United Kingdom share in the Union GNP.

(2002/C 309 E/126)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1303/02

by Robert Evans (PSE) to the Council

(7 May 2002)

Subject: Detention conditions for asylum seekers in Fuerteventura and Lanzarote

Could the Spanish Presidency please explain why asylum seekers detained in old airport facilities in
Fuerteventura have had some of their basic human rights compromised, according to reports by Human
Rights Watch and including evidence from the Spanish Red Cross?

Can the Spanish Presidency confirm that those residing within the old airport facility have been:

(cid:1) denied access to lawyers;

(cid:1) denied the right to make telephone calls;

(cid:1) living with 200-400 people within a space of 20m2;

(cid:1) managing without government provided medical care or assistance, and instead relying on the

voluntary efforts of NGOs to provide such basic services;

(cid:1) living without a proper ventilation system; and

(cid:1) sharing four toilets and three showers for up to 500 men in the male part of the detention facility?

Can the Spanish Presidency also clarify what will be done to improve these conditions whilst the
construction of new detention centres is taking place, and what it is doing to ensure that all those detained
can exercise the rights they are entitled to?

Reply

(30 September 2002)

At its meeting on 25 and 26 April 2002, the Council arrived at a general approach, subject to scrutiny of
the Opinion of the European Parliament and the withdrawal of two parliamentary scrutiny reservations, on
a proposal for a Directive laying down minimum standards for the reception of applicants for asylum in
Member States. The Directive will be formally adopted by the Council at one of its forthcoming meetings.