WRITTEN QUESTION P-4059/03 by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission. Large families.
Date: 2004-01-08
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: family policy, large family, social integration, tax system

C 78 E/682

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

27.3.2004

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(5 February 2004)

Call for proposals EAC/45/03 aimed at funding:

(cid:1) projects to disseminate information and raise awareness of the potential of existing programmes, and

(cid:1) activities to promote regional and minority languages as well as to set up networks to prepare the

implementation of the future Action Plan on language learning and linguistic diversity.

The Commission received a total of 33 project proposals. A large majority of projects did not target
specific languages. However, 10 proposals were specifically concerned with the promotion of regional and
minority languages.

Out of the seven project proposals selected, three were aimed specifically at promoting regional and
minority languages:

(a)

‘Cramlap (cid:1) Celtic, Regional and Minority Languages Abroad Project’ (University of Belfast).

(b)

(c)

‘Network of European Language Planning Boards (cid:1) Developing a structure for co-operation’ (Welsh
Language Board, Cardiff).

‘ADUM (cid:1) Working together to promote regional and minority languages in Europe’ (Open University
of Catalonia).

The remaining four projects do not aim to promote specific languages.

Information about the seven selected projects is available at the following website: (http://europa.eu.int/
comm/education/programmes/calls/languages/selection.pdf).

(2004/C 78 E/0727)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-4059/03

by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission

(8 January 2004)

Subject: Large families

There is a whole range of essential goods and services which larger families need to use but which cause
them to suffer on account of the more costly pricing, charging, and rate systems.

This applies to the payment of road tolls, which are particularly high for larger families because they have
to use bigger vehicles.

Another example is water consumption: the scaling policy normally applied does not allow for the number
of persons making up a family unit and thus serves to impose penalties for consumption which, as far as
larger families are concerned, is in no way excessive and does not constitute a luxury.

There is no doubt that overconsumption or sheer carelessness should carry a penalty, but the water
consumption of a large household does not correspond to the situation which scaling is designed to
counteract and simple justice consequently demands that
it be exempted from such punishment.
Correctives should be applied when enforcing the scaling policy. Systems whereby household consumption
charge scales are calculated per head (cid:1) or acting as a similar corrective (cid:1) are the only means of
remedying this serious social injustice.

In addition to the cases described above, there are other instances of manifest failure to allow for family
size.

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78 E/683

Given that the International Year of the Family is being celebrated in 2004 and it is ten years since the
United Nations General Assembly established International Day of Families (15 May), this would be an
especially appropriate time for the Union to send signals to the Member States regarding policies and the
steps to take.

The Commission:

(cid:1) how will

incur more
it promote the necessary justice for families who, because they are larger,
expenses and liabilities and often pay higher prices, rates, or charges for given services? Has it
compiled any list of standard situations in which large families are falling victim to discrimination or
being denied the positive discrimination from which they ought to benefit;

(cid:1) given that it is aware of the Union’s low birth rate and the problems that will ensue if the trend is not
reversed, does it not take the view that states, instead of harming the interests of families with three or
more children, should, on the contrary, apply positive discrimination, not least as regards taxation and
other charges or the price of public services?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(30 January 2004)

The Commission shares the Honourable Member’s concerns on the issues he has raised. In addition, the
Commission continues to raise public awareness of the current demographic challenge, which is partly a
result of chronically low fertility rates across the Union. However, the Union does not possess a specific
legal basis to develop and implement measures in the area of family policy. This is clearly a responsibility
for the Member States.

Nonetheless, family issues are of interest to the Commission as they affect demographic developments and
interact with a number of European policies. Therefore, the Commission focuses its attention on the study
of family and household trends and their policy implications. ‘The social situation in the European Union’,
which the Commission publishes annually, presents analysis on social trends and demography, including
family-related aspects.

From a policy-making point of view, the European social inclusion process, based on the open method of
coordination, is of particular relevance to the issues raised by the Honourable Member. The objectives for
the fight against poverty and social exclusion, relevant in the context of family, include: implementing
policies which aim to provide access for all to decent and sanitary housing, as well as the basic services
necessary to live normally having regard to local circumstances (electricity, water, heating etc.); developing
policies to promote the reconciliation of work and family life, including the issue of affordable child and
dependent care; implementing action to preserve family solidarity in all its forms; and moving towards the
elimination of social exclusion among children and giving them every opportunity for social integration.

(2004/C 78 E/0728)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-4072/03

by John Cushnahan (PPE-DE) to the Commission

Subject: Application of the EC-Israel Association Agreement

(8 January 2004)

Does the Commission consider that the proposal announced in November 2003 by Israel ‘to list the city of
origin for the goods’ on proofs of origin (or on products) would enable ‘the national customs authorities to
determine, for each and every individual consignment, whether, under those provisions, the elements of
fact and law allow refusal of the preferential tariff treatment’?