WRITTEN QUESTION E-1482/03 by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Treatment and Community funding of the Galicia Plan submitted by the Spanish Government in the aftermath of the Prestige disaster.
Date: 2003-05-02
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU financing, Galicia, Spain, decontamination, oil pollution, rail network

6.2.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 33 E/125

As indicated in its White Paper on transport policy (4), the Commission believes that a major effort should
be made to improve road safety and that to achieve this, priority must be given to the application of rules
on working conditions, road safety rules and transport legislation. It intends to propose measures shortly
to tighten up roadside inspections.

(1) COM(98) 115 final; OJ C 198, 24.6.1998; amended by COM(2000) 759 final; OJ C 120 E, 24.4.2001.
(2) Directive 2000/30/EC on the technical roadside inspection of the roadworthiness of commercial vehicles circulating

in the Community; OJ L 203, 10.8.2000.

(3) Report to Parliament and to the Council on the implementation of Directive 92/6/EEC of 10 February 1992 on the

installation and use of speed limitation devices for certain categories of motor vehicles in the Community.

(4) European transport policy for 2010: time to decide, COM(2001) 370 final.

(2004/C 33 E/124)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1482/03

by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(2 May 2003)

Subject: Treatment and Community funding of the ‘Galicia Plan’ submitted by the Spanish Government in

the aftermath of the Prestige disaster

It

it was not aware of

In its reply to my oral question at the April part-session on the information available to the Commission
on the ‘Galicia Plan’ submitted by the Spanish Government in the aftermath of the Prestige disaster and on
fund and cohesion fund spending specifically scheduled for this plan in the current
the structural
programming period (2000-2006),
the Spanish
the Commission stated that
Government’s plan and that ‘it had been informed of preparations for the plan by the Member himself’.
The fact that the Commission had not been informed of the plan’s existence is surprising, given that the
Commission is, in the final analysis, responsible for taking important decisions on a substantial part of the
funding.
is also surprising when one considers the importance which the Spanish and Galician
authorities intend to give the plan and the debate which has taken place both in Galicia and more
generally in Spain on the causes and consequences of the Prestige disaster, the need for compensation, and
the scale and objectives of the ‘Galicia Plan’ as a European issue. The Commission should know that, by a
decision of the Spanish Government, ‘Galicia Plan’ investments amounting to EUR 12 459 billion are to be
divided up into three parts. EUR 1 billion are due to be invested under the heading ‘new initiatives’ in an
environmental recovery programme, 21,3 million in the promotion of Galicia’s image, 265,4 million in
economic regeneration, 2 946 in new high-speed railway lines and 676 million in new motorways. Under
‘plans in progress’ EUR 6 481 billion are due to be invested in transport infrastructure (2000-2007),
481 million in water distribution (2003-2008) and 290 million in the forestry plan (2003-2008). ‘Other
measures’ include EUR 26 million in aid for individuals’ or companies’ loss of work as a result of the
disaster, without specifying how much a definitive solution to the shipwreck off the Galician coast will
cost. The TGV (high-speed railway) investments will cover the planned link between France and Madrid via
Valladolid and a new link between France and Galicia. Given this state of affairs, does the Commission still
maintain that it is unaware of funding for the ‘Galicia Plan’? In view of the project’s scale and objectives,
are resources available for the 2000-2006 period to cover the cost of investments under this plan? Does
the Commission intend to co-finance the planned TGV link along the coast between Galicia and the French
border? To what extent is it planning to take part in the co-financing of the EUR 1 billion maritime and
coastal ‘environmental recovery programme’ within the ‘Galicia Plan’? Does the Commission intend to
continue holding meetings on this subject with Spanish Government representatives? Has it taken the
initiative of asking the Spanish Government to provide information on the ‘Galicia Plan’, which would
require a significant contribution from the Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund?

C 33 E/126

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

6.2.2004

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(23 June 2003)

The Commission was aware of the Galicia Plan’s existence, thanks to contact with the Spanish Government
and authorities and to the information supplied by the Honourable Member. The plan does indeed provide
for major investment in the region, some of which could no doubt be part-financed by the Structural Funds
or the Cohesion Fund.

With regard to the Galicia Plan, the Commission would ask the Honourable Member to kindly refer to its
answer to his oral question H-0144/03 during the April 2003 plenary session (1).

In addition, the Commission recently adopted a communication on action to deal with the effects of the
Prestige disaster (2). With regard to the Structural Funds or the Cohesion Fund, the Commission has
stressed on several occasions its willingness to cooperate with the Spanish authorities in order to help
combat the aftermath of the disaster, within the limits of the applicable regulatory provisions.

In this context, the Commission would ask the Honourable Member to refer to the joint answer to
questions E-3597/02 and E-3598/02 (3).

(1) Written answer of 8.4.2003.
(2) COM(2003) 105 final.
(3) OJ C 242 E, 9.10.2003, p. 65.

(2004/C 33 E/125)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1487/03

by Claude Moraes (PSE) to the Commission

(2 May 2003)

Subject: European Year of Remembrance and Reconciliation

Given that the year 2005 will have special significance as the 60th anniversary of the end of the Second
World War, what plans does the Commission have to further
reconciliation and
remembrance and does the Commission plan to link these themes with the enlargement of the Union?

the theme of

How does the Commission react to proposals for an event to be held at Cassino in Italy to mark the 60th
anniversary of the infamous battle that took place there?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(16 May 2003)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to written E-1954/02 by Mr Ford (1)

(1) See page 4.