WRITTEN QUESTION E-3338/02 by Kathleen Van Brempt (PSE) to the Commission. Money illusion.
Date: 2002-11-26
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU statistics, euro, household consumption, indebtedness, paper money, public awareness campaign

C 155 E/138

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

3.7.2003

(2003/C 155 E/154)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3338/02

by Kathleen Van Brempt (PSE) to the Commission

(26 November 2002)

Subject: Money illusion

The number of debt remission arrangements in the Netherlands has increased by 7 % since the
introduction of the euro. The main reason given is not the increase in prices but money illusion.
Consumers have lost their bearings. During the past year they have bought not only more items, but also
the most expensive versions. Many people are clearly finding it difficult to judge whether a certain price in
euro is too high or too low for what they want to buy.

Is the Commission aware of the growing number of debt remission arrangements in the EU?

If so, does it have related figures?

If so, what does the Commission consider are the reasons for the growing number of debt remission
arrangements?

In the Commission’s view, what proportion of the increasing number of debt remission arrangements can
be accounted for by money illusion?

A great many European consumers are still experiencing problems in using the euro. Does the
Commission intend to introduce measures to help consumers become more familiar with the euro? If so,
can the Commission outline the main initiatives?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(3 February 2003)

The general issue of over-indebtedness of European households has to be distinguished from the specific
issue of any over-indebtedness possibly linked to the introduction of the Euro via the notion of ‘money
illusion’.

Referring to the general issue of over-indebtedness, the Commission has launched a statistical study in
2001, carried out by the company Opinion Research Corporation ‘Orc Macro’ and available on the web (1).

For the specific case of ‘money illusion’, the Commission has no evidence to suggest that the introduction
of the Euro has caused such problems in general.

However, in some countries, difficulties for the population in adapting to the value of the Euro may have
created some price confusion, particularly where the level of the conversion might induce consumers into
erroneous interpretation. In the Netherlands, the National Institute for Budget Information (NIBUD) has
carried out a survey indicating that 8 % of households (i. e. about 185 000 people) are or will be soon
over-indebted due to so-called ‘money illusion’. According to the survey, these people have not taken into
account the difference in value between the Euro and the Dutch Guilder (approximately 1: 2). Spending
patterns that disregard this, considering e. g. the value as more or less 1:1, may obviously lead to
problems. The NIBUD study, entitled ‘Financiële problemen door de invoering van de Euro’ is available on
web page ‘www.nibud.nl’.

it is difficult to make any firm forecast on
The Commission follows this issue and, at the moment,
developments. The Commission is not aware of any other studies similar to that of NIBUD concerning
countries other
in the recent Commission Communication ‘The
introduction of Euro banknotes and coins, one year after’ of 19 December 2002 (2), price confusion due
to the conversion rate and the general issue of ‘thinking in Euro’ are given attention (see points 4.2 and
4.3).

than the Netherlands. However,

3.7.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155 E/139

Moreover, following the above-mentioned Communication and in order to help consumers to get used to
‘thinking in Euro’, the retail sector will display double prices until 30 June 2003 at the latest, while
informing their customers well in advance of this change.

The practical introduction of Euro notes and coins has been a general success. Appropriate measures to
help consumers become more familiar with the Euro were put in place in the period leading up to the
changeover in 2002 and have been quite successful.

(1) http://europa.eu.int/comm/consumers/policy/developments/fina_serv/fina_serv06_en.pdf.
(2) COM(2002) 747 Final of 19.12.2002.

(2003/C 155 E/155)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3339/02

by Ria Oomen-Ruijten (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(26 November 2002)

Subject: Objections to the Netherlands Ministry of Agriculture, Nature Management and Fisheries’ attitude

to the Laarbruch airfield and the De Maasduinen national park

In a letter dated 30 September 2002 to the Netherlands Minister of Transport and Public Works
concerning the Laarbruch airfield in Germany, the Netherlands Ministry of Agriculture, Nature Manage-
ment and Fisheries concludes, on the basis that no data are available for the species of birds occurring in
the area, that the conversion of the Laarbruch airfield would have no significant effect on the De
Maasduinen national park in the Netherlands, which is covered by the Birds Directive.

1.
Can the Commission explain why the Netherlands Ministry of Agriculture, Nature Management and
Fisheries can claim that insufficient data are available concerning the qualifying species of birds occurring
in the De Maasduinen park, given that the park was classified as a special protection area under the Birds
and Habitats Directive in March 2000 specifically on the basis of the qualifying species of birds found
there?

2. What measures might the Commission envisage if the position of the Netherlands Ministry for
Agriculture, Nature Management and Fisheries in fact proves to be in breach of existing European
regulations, and in particular the Birds and Habitats Directive?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(13 January 2003)

1.
The Commission can confirm that the site ‘Park De Maasduinen’ was classified by the Dutch
government as a Special Protection Area (SPA) following Article 4 (1) of Council Directive 79/409/EC of
2 April 1979 on the conservation of the wild birds (1). The Commission has no information, however, on
the reasons why the Dutch authorities claim that there are insufficient data available on the birds species
occurring in that area, as a list of such species was communicated to the Commission when the area was
designated as an SPA.

Following Article 6 of the Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of
2.
natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (2) (‘Habitats Directive’), which also applies to SPAs under the
Birds Directive, any plan or project not directly connected with or necessary to the management of such a
site but likely to have a significant effect thereon shall be subject to appropriate assessment of its
implications for the site. The responsibility for implementing these requirements lies with the Member
State where such a plan or project is carried out, in this case the Federal Republic of Germany. The