President. – The next item is Question Time (B5-0018/01). We shall deal with questions to the Commission.

Part I

  President. –

Question No 47 by Lennart Sacrédeus (H-0191/01):

Subject: Labelling of meat with place of origin

During February, a Eurobarometer opinion poll showed that support for the EU's plans for enlargement eastwards was in serious decline in several Member States. In the three most populous Member States – Germany, France and the UK – a majority of respondents were opposed to enlargement. These findings come at the same time as mad cow disease is at its height in most Member States. When the EU enlarges to include more members, the geographical area from which our agricultural products originate will expand considerably. It will then be even more difficult than at present for the public to know where a particular product comes from.

In order to help overcome the lack of confidence in meat producers, can the Commission envisage proposing the introduction of compulsory labelling of meat products with their place of origin, either on a national or regional basis, so as to improve information to consumers?

  Fischler, Commission. – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in July 2000, when the European Parliament and the Council approved a compulsory labelling system for fresh and frozen beef and veal marketed in the Community, that represented a first step towards greater transparency and the restoration of consumer confidence. Today, as we experience a second serious crisis in beef and veal production, the compulsory labelling system can start to prove its worth, because every piece of beef or veal is now retraceable, and it is clear where the animal was slaughtered and cut up. And from the beginning of next year, this information will be supplemented by an indication of the place of birth and the place where the animal was reared.

With regard to the labelling rules for beef and veal products, which cover all types of food preparations containing beef or veal, the Commission must adhere to the timetable laid down in Article 21 of Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000, which means that it is required to present a report to the European Parliament and the Council by 14 August 2003 on the labelling of these products, including any appropriate proposals it sees fit to make.

In the framework of the general labelling provisions, however, the Commission is working on a proposal regarding the indication of the meat and offal content of all foodstuffs. This proposal would be another major step towards greater transparency in relation to meat products.

  Sacrédeus (PPE-DE). – (SV) I would thank Commissioner Fischler for that answer and note that, on the issue of meat’s place of origin, the places in which the animals concerned were born and bred will, as from next year, have to be stated. In that case, will the name of the individual farm be stated, or just the name of the district? I ask this question in view of the lack of confidence in agriculture felt by more and more consumers. That applies especially with regard to the meat industry here in Europe at present. It is therefore important that this information concerning the origin of meat and other agricultural products should be available as soon as possible.

Allow me to inform Commissioner Fischler about a company in my home district of Mora in Dalarna. The company, which is called Siljanet and whose innovator is Anders Lindberg, has introduced a form of data labelling for which a patent has now been applied and which enables meat to be traced back to the individual farm. It was showcased at a conference on 6 March in Brussels.

  Fischler, Commission. – (DE) Mr President, if I may reiterate the point somewhat more clearly, why is this distinction made? The provisions that entered into force on 1 September of last year relate to indications on the label providing information that can be ascertained at the abattoir. Every animal has a numbered ear-tag, and if I pass the tag on with the meat, the meat can be retraced to the animal. Secondly, the place of slaughter is obviously a piece of information I can provide at an abattoir, and I can also state where the carcass was cut up.

The other problem that has been acute since 1 January 2001 is that we also wish to indicate the places where the animal was born and reared. I cannot establish that information at the abattoir, however, unless the animal comes to me with its life history, so to speak, and for this to work properly we need a suitable form of computerised registration. This is where we have the problem, and it is also the reason why the second part of the system has to come into general use at a later date. The fact is that not every Member State has been keeping the requisite data for long enough to have every animal’s place of birth stored in a computer.

Even on 1 January 2002, this data will still not be available for every animal, but it will be possible to make a very precise distinction by that date. High-quality meat and meat bearing a seal of quality will have the required information on its label, normally in the form of a code rather than a printed name. From that point, no other meat will be marketable as quality meat. That is the procedure.

  President. –

Question No 48 by Rosa Miguélez Ramos, which has been taken over by Medina Ortega (H-0193/01):

Subject: Aid for the livestock sector in countries affected by BSE

In recent years, cases of animals affected by bovine spongiform encephalopathy have been discovered in various countries after the United Kingdom had exported animal meal to them at a time when sale of the product had already been banned in the UK.

At the time when it occurred the European Union granted the United Kingdom substantial aid to tackle the crisis. Now that other States are experiencing cases of mad cow disease, pubic opinion expects similar Community aid to that offered to the country which was at the origin of the disease. Otherwise, we shall again be faced with the paradox, described by President Prodi when presenting the Commission’s work programme for 2001 to the European Parliament, of a Europe that is ever more necessary yet which is seen as ever more remote.

What funding did the European Union provide for the measures taken to resolve the BSE crisis in the United Kingdom and what percentage of the expenditure did this aid represent?

What funding is available and what percentage of the expenditure will the European Union provide to cofinance measures to assist the countries affected by this new BSE crisis?

  Fischler, Commission. – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in order to address the problems posed by the first BSE crisis, when the export of beef and live cattle from the United Kingdom was banned, Britain introduced the so-called 30-month rule, whereby the meat of all animals slaughtered over the age of 30 months was destroyed. A calf-processing premium was also offered for the early slaughter of calves, not only in the United Kingdom but also in France, Portugal and Ireland.

In the four years from 1996 to 2000 in which the 30-month rule has applied in the United Kingdom, the cost to the EU budget has been EUR 1 275.4 million. This amount is equivalent to 70% of the purchase price of these animals, since 30% of the purchase price and the entire cost of disposal were to be met by the UK. In each case, 80% of the amount was paid when animals were slaughtered, and the remaining 20% was paid on presentation of evidence that any meat-and-bone meal produced from the carcasses of these animals had been burned. It should, however, be noted that the entire cost of slaughter and safe disposal was the responsibility of the UK.

The calf-processing premium has been funded in full from the Community budget. For the four Member States I mentioned, where these premiums were made available, the total expenditure amounted to EUR 326.6 million, of which 235.4 million went to the United Kingdom. The Community action to tackle the first BSE crisis, however, also included full funding of public storage and an early-marketing premium for calves as well as additional direct aid amounting to EUR 1 309.9 million. This direct aid – the early-marketing premium and the grants for public storage of more than 700 000 tonnes of meat – benefited all the Member States.

To tackle the present crisis, the Commission has not only provided EUR 238 million for interventions and 700 million for the destruction strategy but has also recently presented the Council and Parliament with a proposed package of measures for the beef and veal sector, comprising both intervention measures and other special market measures designed to reduce the production of bovine meat in the period from 2001 to 2003.

In addition to the sum of around EUR one billion that has been voted for the 2001 budget, this entails further expenditure of 157 million in the year 2001 as well as additional expenditure of 1 145 million in 2002 and 181 million in the 2003 budget. The Community will also meet 70% of the cost of the buy-out operation and the special arrangements; all other costs must be met by the Member States. The storage of intervention stocks will be fully financed by the Community as hitherto.

  Medina Ortega (PSE). – (ES) Thank you for the information you have just given us, Commissioner. Given the exponential growth of Community expenditure in this sector, do you believe that the various Member States affected by the second BSE crisis will actually be able to meet these requirements with the resources likely to be available to the Commission in the years 2002 and 2003?

  Fischler, Commission. – (DE) Mr President, annexed to the package of measures we presented a fiche financière, which shows quite clearly the items of expenditure that will be incurred and how we intend to finance them. In this respect, the funding is guaranteed from our point of view. We expect to remain below the limit agreed in Berlin for the 2002 budget too, especially in view of the development in the euro/dollar exchange rate, which was not foreseen in Berlin, and because our export trade, especially in wheat, is continuing to flourish, while expenditure has been lower than anticipated in some other areas. This means that we are able to take up the slack that has developed in these areas in order to help the pressurised cattle farmers while still operating within the ceilings that were adopted in Berlin.

  Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE). – (ES) There is a great deal of concern in Galicia, Commissioner. This is an Objective 1 region affected by BSE where a model plan to combat the disease is being strictly implemented.

Commissioner, I should like to know whether, under the measures you referred to, direct aid to farmers is already being provided or will soon be. In particular, since I have been asked to query this, have any specific measures been authorised or are there plans to do so concerning heifers aged between 9 and 24 months? Also, are there plans to adjust the special premium for the slaughter of steers, changing the criterion from age to weight: 185 kilos? These are the requests I have received and they would be useful in the context of combating this disease.

  Fischler, Commission. – (DE) Mr President, I am sorry that we always have a bit of a delay, but translations take a little longer than speakers’ speeches. Let me say the following in answer to the questions from Mr Varela Suanzes-Carpegna: first of all, we are already spending all available funds on the points in our proposal. In the 2001 budget we have no additional funds available for use as direct aid to farmers, for example. This is also quite a different situation to the first BSE crisis, because at the time of the first crisis the old agricultural guidelines were still in force, and they were far more liberal. Expenditure is now governed by the considerably tighter limits that were adopted in Berlin and reaffirmed at the summit in Nice. In other words, the Commission is not at liberty to exceed the prescribed limit.

As far as the Objective 1 areas are concerned, operational support is not an option here; the most that can be done is to provide support in connection with investments, agri-environmental schemes and suchlike. For that reason, I cannot see any possibility of paying special income-support grants to farmers from Objective 1 resources.

Thirdly, I should like to point out that, in view of these circumstances, one option does, of course, remain available, but only within the framework of the rules on state aid. Within that framework, national support may be provided by the Member States. However, the provision of such support is subject to the proviso that aid awards must be notified and must not exceed the limits laid down in the rules governing state aid.

  Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE). – (ES) Mr President, I just put two very specific questions to the Commissioner. He dealt with one, but has not replied to my question concerning premiums for beef. Perhaps it was not conveyed through the interpretation. I should like to repeat it if I may. Will the Commissioner authorise specific measures for heifers aged between 9 and 24 months and will he adjust the special premium for the slaughter of steers, changing the criterion from age to weight, namely 185 kilos? He has not provided an answer to these queries.

  Fischler, Commission. – (DE) Mr President, there is only one slaughter premium. The slaughter premium is regulated in the common organisation of the market and is the same for all animals. For that reason, I cannot give you a more detailed answer – at least not to the question that was conveyed to me in the translation.

  President. –

Question No 49 by Mary Elizabeth Banotti (H-0137/01):

Subject: 1996 Convention on the Protection of Children

The 1996 Convention on the Protection of Children is widely regarded by those of us who are involved in child protection as a very valuable instrument which will make an essential contribution in a wide variety of areas of child protection. It is paramount that any new development of a system of child protection within the EU should not impede the implementation of the 1996 Convention.

Given that certain questions of competence in this field have been raised at EU level, can the Commission give assurances that Member States may proceed to ratify the Hague Convention of 19 October 1996 on Jurisdiction, Applicable Law, Recognition, Enforcement and Cooperation in respect of ‘parental responsibility and measures for the protection of children’ without delay?

  Vitorino, Commission. – Following the entry into force of the Treaty of Amsterdam, which resulted in the transfer of the area of judicial cooperation in civil matters to the first pillar, the Council adopted in May 2000 the Brussels II regulation on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters of parental responsibility for children of both spouses. This regulation sets out rules on jurisdiction, automatic recognition and simplified enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and matters of parental responsibility for children.

As a result, in these areas, accession to the 1996 Convention on Parental Responsibility, to which you refer, has become a matter of Community competence. This means that in these matters that I have mentioned, Member States can no longer proceed to ratify the 1996 Hague Convention on Parental Responsibility on their own.

The Commission is fully conscious of the need to reinforce European Union action in this area, both internally and externally and, as the honourable Member suggests, to do so without delay. To this end, the Commission plans this month to adopt a working document on the mutual recognition of decisions on parental responsibility. It is in this context that Community accession to the 1996 Hague Convention on Parental Responsibility is at present being considered.

  Banotti (PPE-DE). – Would the Commissioner be in a position to say whether there is universal support for the ratification of the 1996 Hague Convention? Just in case there is any confusion, this is not the Hague Convention on Parental Child Abduction – that dates from 1981. I am talking about the next one.

I understand that there may be some problems concerning ratification by some Member States. If there are, could you tell us (a) what the problems are, and (b) which Member States are concerned?

  Vitorino, Commission. – We have to clarify that conclusion of the 1996 Convention lies partly within the exclusive competence of the Community, because the rules in the Brussels II regulation are also affected, and partly within the competence of Member States, because the Convention has a much broader scope that goes far beyond the limits of parental responsibility deriving from the Brussels II regulation.

The working document that the Commission is producing this month will have two main targets. The first one is the follow-up to the Brussels II regulation, which we have talked about on a previous occasion, because we recognise that it is necessary to go beyond the Brussels II regulation to guarantee parental responsibility at Community level. But on the other hand, there is scope for Member States to adopt the Convention and therefore we think they should do it without delay.

We must recognise that it is necessary to clarify the way the Union can accede to the Convention, to improve the conditions under which Member States can ratify the parts of the Convention that do not fall under Community responsibility.

I do not have any indication of Member States having specific difficulties with the 1996 Convention but I know that only one Member State – the Netherlands – has ratified it up to now.

  Martin, David (PSE). – Mr President, the Commissioner has made it very clear that the Convention in a sense falls into two parts: those parts covered by Community law and those parts covered by the Member States. But, as Mrs Banotti has indicated, the Convention is a holistic document and it would be wrong if some Member States had only part of it applied to them through the Community law method and did not ratify the other part. Now I know it is partly at the Commissioner's responsibility, but will he, in pushing forward the ratification of the Community part of the 1996 Convention, also make it clear to Member States that it makes sense for them to ratify the rest of that Convention at the same time so that there is no disparity between the Convention and the way it is applied in different Member States within the Community.

  Vitorino, Commission. – I totally agree with such an approach but, as the honourable Member will recognise, it will be extremely helpful if we clarify first of all the conditions under which the Community as such can accede to the Convention. There are some legal problems because the drafting of the Convention only provides for Member States to be part of the Convention. So we need to incorporate the fact that the communitarisation of the subjects of the Convention give the Commission and the Community exclusive external competence. Once we clarify that, it will pave the way for Member States to ratify the rest of the Convention with the full support of the Commission because the Commission is committed to solving its own problem without delay.

  President. –

Question No 50 by Juan de Dios Izquierdo Collado (H-0149/01):

Subject: Bank transfer costs

Does the Commission believe that bank transfers in the Union, within the euro area, should cost the same as national transfers, as has repeatedly been called for by consumer associations?

Does it consider that the costs currently charged to senders and recipients of transfers involving large sums of money are excessively high and out of step with the single currency and the single market?

What legislative or negotiated measures will the Commission implement to ensure that bank transfers in the euro area and on Union territory cost as little as possible?

  Bolkestein, Commission. – I wish to begin by thanking the honourable Member for his question. The Commission shares his concerns. It is our political goal to have the fees of cross-border and domestic transfers converge so that it will be no more expensive to transfer money abroad than to transfer it within the borders of a single country.

This statement and objective has been repeated by the Commission on numerous occasions. For example, in the communication entitled "Retail payments in the internal market" of January 2000; in my reply to Parliament on the Peijs report of 26 October 2000; and further in the Commission's round table conference entitled "Establishing a single payment area" of 9 November 2000.

I should like to stress that it is intolerable in a single-currency zone that charges for cross-border transfers exceed those for domestic transfers by several orders of magnitude. However, the determination of charges and fees should be left to competition and market forces: European legislation should not aim at price regulation.

The introduction of the euro has only limited effects on transfer costs. The reason is that the convergent costs of currency are only one element of the total transfer costs. In fact, the currency convergence costs represent about 20% of the total. The remainder – the other 80% – of the persisting high fees for cross-border transfers are mainly due to insufficient automation and standardisation. There the Commission supports, and indeed promotes, the initiative aimed at changing and improving the present situation.

The Commission will continue to monitor the situation and keep pressure on the EU banks for the establishment of more efficient cross-border retail payment systems.

  Izquierdo Collado (PSE). – (ES) Commissioner, I am aware that you have spoken more than once on the subject of my question. However, I am taking it up on behalf of consumers’ and users’ associations. Mere talk will not placate them. The way to earn their gratitude is usually by resolving the problems. They have raised this concern on a number of occasions yet they continue to be informed that their consumers are lodging complaints about current practice which it is indeed difficult to accept. This is because transfers do not only generate a high cost at their point of origin. They also do so at their destination, inasmuch as banks make unjustified charges when the transfer is initiated and the recipient bank makes unjustified charges at the same rate on receipt of the money. Current practice does not therefore seem to be in line with the aims of the single currency, due to enter into circulation on 1 January 2002.

What specific negotiating action could the Commission undertake in this connection, to give some satisfaction to consumers?

  Bolkestein, Commission. – I reiterate and stress that the Commission shares the anger of consumers. As I said in my first reply, it is not acceptable that cross-border payments are so much more expensive than payments made within the borders of any one country, so the concerns of the honourable Member are shared by the Commission.

However, I must repeat that the Commission is not in the business of regulating prices: the Commission cannot tell banks what to charge. The Commission can urge the banking industry and national administrations to intensify their efforts in the following areas: standardisation, infrastructure of payment systems and simplification of reporting obligations.

To begin with the last point, the Commission has been able to achieve a certain success in avoiding the necessity to report operations under EUR 12 500. Parliament and the Commission are at one in wanting to increase that cut-off point to EUR 50 000 per transfer. I made that clear when I spoke on the Peijs report. So in the matter of the simplification of reporting obligations, the Commission has been able to achieve a step forward.

On the matter of standardisation, there is IBAN, the international banking account number, and the BIC, the bank identifier code. Both of these codes should make the transfer of money simpler, faster and cheaper. The Commission is actively working on familiarising the general public with both the IBAN and BIC in order to make them use them for so-called straight-through processing and therefore cheaper transfers.

As far as infrastructure is concerned, the Commission is again active on this front and has introduced a new low-value payment system – a particular system for small payments – called Step 1 by the Euro Banking Association. That has been in operation since 20 November 2000 and ought to contribute to more efficiency and therefore lower prices.

In addition to that, some sectors have established their own systems, but only members or partners of those organisations have access to those systems.

So I would assure the honourable Members that we share their concerns. It is not the business of the Commission to regulate prices – price control is a thing of the past. The matters which occupy the Commission's mind are, as I have said, standardisation, the infrastructure and simplification of reporting procedures and obligations. The Commission is active in improving the situation. No doubt, also as a result of competition, prices will go down. But at the moment they are far too high, and that is not acceptable.

  Titley (PSE). – Mr President, I agree with the Commission that it is not its job to fix prices. However, it is its job to ensure there is proper competition in the EU market. It is not true to say that the banks are operating a price ring and deliberately keeping the prices high because with globalisation there are fewer and fewer banks, which means less and less competition. What measures is the Commission taking to ensure that the banks are not applying anti-competitive prices as a way of keeping their bank charges so high?

  Bolkestein, Commission. – Mr President, I am not at the moment in a position to agree with Mr Titley's statement that there is less and less competition in banking. That is something that would require further research. However, it is certainly the business of the Commission to see that fair competition prevails. As Mr Titley will appreciate, it is my colleague Mr Monti who deals with competition. I know that Mr Monti has made certain investigations, but they were more concerned with the exchange of currency. There are two different aspects involved here: first the cost of transferring money, which was the original question put to me, and secondly the cost of currency exchanges. The Commission's investigations on this have not yet reached their conclusion. The latter will, of course, be a thing of the past for the twelve "Euroland" Member States as from 1 January 2002.

  President. –

Question No 51 by Laura González Álvarez (H-0226/01):

Subject: Safeguarding jobs in the merger between Aceralia, Arbed and Usinor

The three steel companies Aceralia, Arbed and Usinor have announced in Brussels that they are to merge in order to form a new company which will control 60% of the European steel market. According to the chairman of the new company, Francis Mern, “the merger will create synergies which will enable EUR 300 million to be saved in the first year, a figure which will gradually increase to EUR 600 million by 2006 thanks to improvements in costs and productivity and an appropriately sized workforce.” These words have prompted concern amongst trade-union organisations. On the very day of the merger, Usinor announced the closure of the blast furnace in Charleroi. In Spain, too, there is much concern regarding the possible loss of jobs in Asturias, the Basque Country, Aragon and the Valencia region.

In the light of the undertakings given at the Lisbon Summit as regards full employment, what action is the Commission intending to take in order to ensure that the new company keeps steelworks open and safeguards the jobs of the existing workforce?

Part II

Questions to Commissioner Verheugen

  Diamantopoulou, Commission. – Mr President, it is true that we live in an era of industrial change and reconstruction. It is true that every day there are new acquisitions and mergers and that sometimes restructuring is synonymous with job losses. This can have tragic consequences for the social fabric of any region, but particularly those regions where there is little potential for job creation.

The Commission appreciates that citizens and workers need to feel secure in this difficult time. We believe that the cornerstone of successful adaptation to change is dialogue at all levels, based on full and transparent information.

The basic ideas that the Commission intends to highlight are as follows. The first one is that decisions and corporate restructuring are both a prerogative and a responsibility for the management. This means that, when considering action that will have social consequences, companies should always actively try to find less negative and less damaging solutions.

Secondly, when dismissals prove to be inevitable, everything possible must be done to assist with the redeployment of those concerned. This requires forward planning, timely preparation and effective management of these processes. Thirdly, nothing is more important than the social dialogue. There must be timely, effective and comprehensive information and consultation with workers' representatives and this must, of course, be before initiatives are launched or publicly announced.

Worker participation is not only a basic right but also a necessity if corporate restructuring is to be accepted. Under the existing European legislation, employee representatives in merging companies may be informed and consulted on the potential social consequences of the announced measure. There are concrete European directives which have been transposed into national law relating to collective redundancies, transfers of undertakings and European works councils.

But it is not for Europe to intervene at this stage as regards compliance with the directives. They have been duly transposed into the national law of the Member States and any conflict or litigation arising from the application of the rules should be assessed by the relevant national authorities.

In my first point I concentrated on the social dialogue and the implementation of the existing European legislation. My second point concerns the three enterprises concerned by the merger in particular, because they have considerable experience with restructuring and dealing with the social consequences and social dialogue and social partners. In particular, if social measures were to be taken to assist the workers affected in order to redeploy them, to provide them with temporary income support or remove them from the labour market by early retirement before the ECSC Treaty expires on 23 July 2002, the Commission could, at the request of the government concerned, provide additional aid under Article 56 of the Treaty. This is the aid commonly known as readaptation aid.

  González Álvarez (GUE/NGL). – (ES) Mr President, I should like to express my thanks to the Commissioner for her extensive explanation. I fully share much of what she says. Like her, I believe that dialogue is necessary and that the directives concerning workers’ rights and European works councils should be implemented.

You will, however, understand my concern when I tell you that I live in Asturias. Asturias is a region that has undergone restructuring in coal, in mining, in arms manufacturing and in shipbuilding. There have been dialogues and agreements with the workers, and there have been retirements and early retirements, which is what one of the chairmen of these three companies that we are talking about today is proposing for the Charleroi steelworks, for instance, which seems to be one of the first that will close.

My specific question, Commissioner, which probably already has an answer, is this: given that the Lisbon agreements talked about full employment, is it not awful to use public funds to create jobs in this way while continually losing jobs through company restructuring, privatisations and mergers? The problem in Asturias, where there have been retirements and early retirements, is that young people today have no prospects because more than 30 000 jobs have been lost.

  Diamantopoulou, Commission. – Of course I share with you the concerns we have just mentioned because it is an area with big problems. But you know that the entire area – Valencia and Asturias – belongs to Objective 1 of the framework support. Within this framework the government of Asturias can possibly make some changes to the proposed programme for the next six years and maybe they could acquire some money, according to the regulation on implementation of the European framework programme and according to the governmental rules. There is a need to combine the Social Fund, the employment strategy and the finance of the employment strategy and the implementation of the European and national – in that case, Spanish – laws.

What we are trying to do in this case is to find a combination of actions within the framework of this information and consultation. This would mean that we can organise training courses and we can finance them; we can support people in organising their own self-employment activity or small SME. In some cases – and this is one of the cases in which it can be permitted – we have the early retirement system.

So we must find this combination and address the situation. Obviously we cannot prevent companies from merging or making acquisitions.

  Garriga Polledo (PPE-DE). – (ES) Mr President, you too were born in the region of Asturias and so you are naturally concerned about matters involving our region.

A supplementary question for the Commissioner: do you believe that the main role for the Commission in this issue of creating or aiding large companies is to create a sufficiently efficient and competitive economic environment? I mean, we believe it is much simpler to guarantee employment through providing companies with an efficient enough environment to allow them to compete with companies elsewhere than to maintain a restrictive social policy that often works against the interests of the workers themselves.

  Diamantopoulou, Commission. – Your question is the fundamental question of how we can combine economic and social policies. This is the main problem we face in Europe: how to combine competitiveness and cohesion.

As far as this merger is concerned, this is a field with many problems. We have major acquisitions and mergers across Europe. The only way to address this is not through legislation or restrictions concerning jobs. After every merger or restructuring in the industrial field we must see not only the number of jobs lost, but also the number of jobs saved. In some cases mergers, modernisation and acquisition are very important for the future of the sector. So what we have to do now is to address both: to support the competitiveness of our companies and to see how we can address the implications of these mergers in our societies. This is what I have just explained.

In this case there are three main elements. You can use the ECSC Treaty. We only have one year now to use it. The Asturias can be subsidised under the Treaty. Secondly you can use the European framework. And finally, you can use national money in order to organise or to implement social policies in the area.

  President. –

Question No 52 by Alexandros Alavanos (H-0134/01):

Subject: Incorporation of the occupied territories of Cyprus as part of Turkey

The Turkish Government has decided to implement a plan to incorporate the occupied territories of Cyprus as part of Turkey. Measures envisaged under the plan include giving Turkish Cypriots and Turkish settlers Turkish citizenship, the settlement and distribution of land in the occupied territories, bringing the 'Turkish-Cypriot land register' under Ankara's control, etc. These measures – which have also been confirmed in a Turkish newspaper interview by the Turkish Interior Minister, Mr Tzem – have been contemplated at the same time as the national plan is being drawn up under the EU-Turkey partnership which requires Turkey to take a positive approach to the Cyprus problem.

Does the Commission consider that the decision to incorporate the occupied territories of Cyprus as part of Turkey is consistent with the decisions taken at the Helsinki and Nice Council Summits, the relevant points of the EU-Turkey partnership, and UN resolutions?

  Verheugen, Commission. – (DE) Mr President, the Commission is informed that Turkey has approved a financial protocol worth USD 350 million over the next three years in favour of the northern part of Cyprus. This money is budgetary support, designed to enable the northern part of Cyprus to implement the budgetary consolidation plan that was announced last year. The decision on the financial protocol was taken on 12 January 2001 at the fourth meeting of the so-called Association Council of Turkey and the northern part of Cyprus.

Other points discussed at the same meeting relate to measures for the facilitation of trade. These measures are likewise intended to contribute to the economic support of the northern part of Cyprus. Mr Gürel, a Minister of State in the Turkish Government, stated before the meeting that the aim of these measures was to overcome the economic crisis in the northern part of Cyprus. He did, however, repudiate suggestions that Turkey sought to incorporate the northern part of Cyprus as its eighty-second province.

The Commission expects the Turkish side to make every effort to contribute constructively to the attempts to achieve a comprehensive settlement of the Cypriot question that are being undertaken in the framework of the UN peace process. If the stalled UN talks are to be reactivated, both sides must demonstrate genuine willingness to resume their dialogue and to engage in substantive negotiations. The Commission will continue to give unstinting support to the efforts of the United Nations Secretary-General and of all interested parties to achieve a lasting peace settlement.

This applies both in political terms and with regard to the provision of the requisite information on the aspects of established Community law and practice that should be taken into account in any settlement of the Cypriot problem. The Commission takes every opportunity to reiterate its position to the interested parties. The Cypriot question is one of the subjects of the intensified political dialogue between the European Union and Turkey that the European Council launched at its Helsinki meeting in December 1999.

  Αlavanos (GUE/NGL). – (EL) I thank the Commissioner for replying in his mother tongue, because we sometimes get the impression that, whereas we have a multilingual Parliament, with all due respect to the English language, we seem to have an English-speaking Commission.

However, I do not particularly thank him for the reply which he has given me. I think that he underestimates the matter; we have a clear statement by Mr Cem on the prospect of incorporation and the threat of incorporation of the part of Cyprus occupied by the Turkish army as part of Turkey as we approach integration and I should like to ask the Commissioner, who spoke as if both sides had the same responsibilities: Cyprus, the Republic of Cyprus, is the first of all the candidate countries when it comes to chapters completed and approved. What is going to happen? What is going to happen? Cyprus is just about ready for integration, technically speaking, but the political problem has still not been resolved. Are both sides equally to blame? Do both Mr Denktash and the President of the Republic of Cyprus bear the same responsibility? What initiatives does the Commission intend to take? Turkey needs to take a clear stand on this matter.

  Verheugen, Commission. – (DE) May I assure the honourable Member that the Commission does not underestimate this in any way – quite the reverse. The Commission does not have the information that the honourable Member clearly possesses. Only a few days ago, I had extensive talks with the Turkish Foreign Minister, and he did not mention this plan, of which you have evidently read or heard somewhere. Nor have I heard from any other member of the Turkish Government that an annexation of northern Cyprus is planned. I am not aware of any such plans. If it were to happen, it would be a breach of international law and would have the appropriate consequences. I have frequently made public pronouncements to that effect, and I am saying it again here.

You asked what happens next. First of all, we shall continue the negotiations with Cyprus with no loss of momentum. It is an important principle that our accession negotiations with Cyprus should not suffer because the political conflict has not yet been resolved. At the same time, as I said, we are supporting the peace process with all the resources at our disposal, and we assume that the two processes – the peace process and the enlargement process – will support and reinforce each other. At the moment, as you know, the peace talks have stalled. But without betraying any secrets, I can tell you that very strenuous efforts are being made in many parts of the world, in many capitals, to get these talks moving again.

Let me take the opportunity presented by your question to appeal earnestly to the representatives of the Turkish community in Cyprus to return to the negotiating table and to be prepared to contribute, through UN proposals, to a substantive and lasting settlement of the problem.

  Sacrédeus (PPE-DE). – (SV) Thank you, Mr President. I just want to inform Commissioner Verheugen that, last autumn in Mr Morillon’s report on Turkey, the European Parliament called upon Turkey to withdraw its occupying troops from northern Cyprus. That proposal from myself was adopted by the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy and by Parliament. I wish to entrust Commissioner Verheugen with the task of requesting clarification from Mr Cem, the foreign minister, concerning what he said and what are his and the Turkish Government’s intentions, for I consider the information that has emerged on this subject at today’s Question Time to be very serious.

  Verheugen, Commission. – (DE) Mr President, may I thank the honourable Member for making that point. The position of Parliament on this question is no different to those of the Commission and the Council. I have very frequently discussed this point with all those whom it concerns, but at my next meeting with the Turkish Government, which is only a few weeks away, I shall gladly take up your suggestion and raise the issue again. I can certainly assure you that nothing will change our view that the continued occupation of the northern part of Cyprus by Turkish troops is an infringement of international law.

  President. –

Question No 53 by Bernd Posselt (H-0220/01):

Subject: Transitional arrangements for Poland and the Czech Republic

What is the Commission’s position in the present debate concerning the transitional arrangements for Poland and the Czech Republic in the fields of freedom of movement, freedom to set up in business and freedom to purchase land?

  Verheugen, Commission. – (DE) Mr President, let me say to the honourable Member that the accession talks proceed from the principle that the candidate countries recognise the so-called acquis communautaire, the established body of Community law and practice, which is non-negotiable, and that they will apply it from the moment of their accession. Transitional arrangements whereby the application of part of the acquis is postponed can only be authorised in properly substantiated cases. In the strategy paper on enlargement which the Commission adopted on 8 November of last year and which President Prodi and I presented to Parliament on the same day, the Commission has laid down principles governing the treatment of requests for transitional arrangements.

The Member States have endorsed these principles, and they now form the basis of our work in this area. They may be summarised as follows: transitional arrangements should not relate to the nature of the acquis but only to the postponement of its application for a fixed period; they must not cause any significant distortion of competition; they must include a clear implementation plan, including details of any necessary investments; in areas connected with the internal market, transitional arrangements must not be too numerous and must be of short duration.

Freedom of movement, freedom of establishment and free movement of capital are fundamental elements of the single market. Under the agreed negotiating timetable, the European Union has undertaken to formulate a common position on this chapter by the end of June of this year, if the information provided by the candidate countries so permits. Deliberations to that end, which include the examination of some requests for transitional arrangements, are currently taking place on the basis of the aforementioned principles. This also applies to Poland and the Czech Republic, and may I add that one element of our negotiating mandate is that proposals for transitional arrangements can also be made by the Commission if such arrangements are in the interests of the entire Union.

  Posselt (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, as you know, I believe transitional phases should be as few, as short and as flexible as possible, and in that respect I very much welcome your reply. However, I should still like to ask you about two specific points. Firstly, do you consider it conceivable that there might be no transitional phases at all for these two countries in the three areas in question? Secondly, may I ask whether you find it conceivable that, if there are such transitional phases, one side’s temporary derogation from freedom of movement in respect of certain groups of people will be balanced by the other side’s derogation from freedom of establishment for particular groups of people?

  Verheugen, Commission. – (DE) Mr President, I can answer the second part of the honourable Member’s question with a categorical no. Not only do I regard such an arrangement as inconceivable; it would quite simply be non-negotiable as far as we are concerned. We should resolutely resist any such attempt from the outset, but I have to say to you in all honesty that I cannot imagine that anyone at all would try to do something so utterly contrary to the spirit of the enlargement process.

What do I find conceivable? I find it conceivable that we shall be able to define interests of both sides that need and merit protection in the three areas to which you referred and that, having defined these interests, we shall indeed arrive at a highly flexible, highly refined and highly specific system of transitional arrangements. But at the present time I cannot make any precise predictions. You know that the discussion process and the decision-making process on these issues have only just begun. Our talks are still in their infancy. I do expect, however, that it will only take three or four weeks until the first decisions emerge.

  Rübig (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, we are forever discussing transitional periods and the related problems. Can you imagine our introducing the notion of pre-accession transition periods, starting to iron out the problems now by means of bilateral agreements between countries and developing an incentive system to that end? In other words, for the key areas, which we all know and which are constantly being cited, we should devise a system of incentives that would enable us to solve these problems in advance, before these countries accede to the Union.

  Verheugen, Commission. – (DE) Let me say to the honourable Member that the Europe Agreements are in force with all these countries, and these agreements allow all Member States and applicant States to conclude bilateral arrangements on freedom of movement. The Member States, however, have made very minimal use of this facility – if I am correctly informed, only Austria and Germany have done so – which compels me to conclude that there has never been a compelling need to conclude such arrangements. Since the Europe Agreements are still in force, governments are naturally free to go on concluding bilateral accords.

  President. –

Question No 54 by Gary Titley (H-0238/01):

Subject: Local organisations and enlargement

In the information campaign for enlargement in both the accession countries and Member States, how does the Commission intend to promote enlargement to local organisations, such as councils, schools and so on? For example, are any measures such as twinning proposed?

Questions to Commissioner Reding

  Verheugen, Commission. – (DE) I beg to inform the honourable Member that the Commission, in its communication strategy for enlargement, strongly advocates the involvement of local players such as communal authorities, town councils, members of regional assemblies, schools, chambers of commerce, craft and trade associations, unions, churches, societies and voluntary organisations as credible representatives of civil society.

The communication strategy will be implemented on a decentralised basis. Our delegations in the capitals of the candidate countries will select cooperating partners there as part of a strategy designed to satisfy national and regional information requirements. Local operators should, of course, take precedence in the selection of partners.

The underlying principle is that, because of the time constraints and the inherently restricted character of this project, we cannot create any completely new structures. Nor do we have enough money to avail ourselves of the instruments of mass communication, which means that we cannot buy advertising space or write scripts for publicity spots on TV. It is therefore entirely logical that we should use the existing communication structures in those societies as vehicles for our message. Each of the institutions and organisations to which the honourable Member referred is a suitable vehicle in my eyes.

I am especially grateful to the honourable Member for asking this question because it gives me an opportunity to express my gratification at the commitment to this communication strategy that has been shown by the Members of this House and to state that the campaign in the Member States is currently suffering – and in truth has not really started in earnest – because the amount allocated to this project under the budget heading PRINCE has not yet been released. May I therefore also appeal for your help in ensuring that the funds allocated to the information campaign are released as quickly as possible so that we can make a start now on the actual implementation, since time is gradually slipping away from us. It would be a bit late to tell people about enlargement after the accession Treaties have been concluded.

As I said, the Commission is not planning an advertising campaign but is focusing on information, communication and scope for popular involvement. At the heart of the effort, of course, are the major issues such as the preservation of peace, the extension of the stability zone in Europe and common access to the peace dividend after the end of the Cold War.

We shall speak about the economic benefits of sustained growth in an area of Central and Eastern Europe stretching from the Baltic down to Istria. We shall speak of the efficient use of the division of labour that will develop smoothly in the enlarged single market, which is now assuming continental dimensions and which must compete successfully on a global scale with the Far East and North America. We shall speak about the application of EU standards in the candidate countries – environmental standards, transport-safety standards, competition rules, provisions relating to internal law and order, food-safety standards and the many, many other benefits accruing to citizens of the Union.

Another important subject is the use of human capital, of the unique historical and social experience acquired by the people of the candidate countries, to enrich the future integration process. Let me sum it up in one sentence: our aim is to create awareness of the fact that we have a historic opportunity to overcome, now and for all time, the division that was imposed on Europe.

  Titley (PSE). – I thank the Commissioner for a very thorough answer and ask him three questions.

First, does he agree with me that we have got to sell enlargement to, in particular, the people of the European Union? If we do not sell enlargement we are likely to run into difficulties with ratification.

Secondly, how do these organisations get access to funds? Do they have to go through the national offices of the Commission? Is there information available on how they do that?

Finally, he did not cover my point about twinning. Is it possible to have projects which twin, for example, schools in Member States with schools in the accession countries and also to twin local authorities in Member States with local authorities in accession countries, to discuss the implications of enlargement and what it means for the candidate countries? Would it be possible to bring forward proposals such as that?

  Verheugen, Commission. – (DE) In answer to the honourable Member’s first question, may I say that it is indeed a matter of the utmost urgency that the people of our Member States should be made more aware of the enlargement process. As you will know, this is one of my pet subjects, and my team and I have been working especially hard to achieve progress. Things have certainly improved in this area, but the general level of public awareness is not yet satisfactory, and the subject is not one that sells itself automatically. People must be told what is at stake, and we must address the anxieties, concerns and fears that are associated with enlargement and tell our people quite openly and clearly what we are doing to ensure that the contingencies they fear will not materialise.

Secondly, applications to take part in this project must indeed pass through our offices in the national capitals, because the whole project is decentralised, as I said before, and because we naturally wish to tap into the synergetic potential that exists in our Member States and in the candidate countries. We are not the only ones, of course, who are active in this field. Responsibility is spread somewhat more widely. Others must also play their part in the communication process, and so it is only reasonable that we should devote part of our effort to the quest for coordination and cross-fertilisation. That, then, is why the project is decentralised, and if you know of any organisations or groups that would like to be involved in this campaign, the right answer to give them is that they should contact the office of the European Commission in the relevant capital.

As far as the twinning of towns, schools, local councils, etc., is concerned, I believe these arrangements fall into the category of ‘existing communication structures’. My personal view is that town-twinning arrangements can be an extremely useful instrument in this context, because they enable us to operate through existing contacts and avoid the need to establish these contacts from scratch. I also believe that exchanges between local politicians and schools are extremely valuable. Our delegations and offices in the national capitals have been fully briefed on the eligibility of these schemes for support from the campaign budget.

  Posselt (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, I only wanted to ask a supplementary question regarding the extent to which the Euroregions are incorporated into your strategy and the extent to which the candidate countries themselves will receive funding to enable them to obtain information from us about their own situation, because I believe our task is not only to inform these countries but also to enable them to converge with us. I believe there are projects such as the planned Europa Centre at Aš in the Czech Republic and many others. I wanted to ask whether this sort of thing is included in your plans.

  Verheugen, Commission. – (DE) My reply to the honourable Member is yes – the Euroregions are naturally included. Indeed, they are an absolutely essential component, because we already have very close-woven information and communication networks at our disposal there. I do not believe it would be wise for the Commission to provide the applicant States with money for their own public-relations activities. I must say quite plainly here that I believe this would mean overstepping boundaries that we should not overstep, particularly in terms of interference. This money is political money; its use is a very sensitive issue. No country should accept funds from an external source if they are granted for purposes of information or public relations. The candidates have never asked us for funds for this purpose, but you know that they do engage nonetheless in these activities.

  President. – Thank you, Commissioner. As time is running short, I would ask you to refrain from asking supplementary questions unless it is absolutely necessary. Mrs Reding has agreed to answer Questions Nos 56, 57 and 58 together when their turn comes.

  President. –

Question No 55 by John Walls Cushnahan (H-0188/01):

Subject: Exploitation of African footballers

What action has the Commission taken with regard to the continued exploitation of young African footballers by either European soccer clubs of soccer agents?

  Reding, Commission. – (FR) Mr Cushnahan has asked this question because he is aware that exploitation of young African footballers by clubs or by agents has received broad media coverage and that this exploitation stems from several problems which must be treated separately.

With regard to football agents, the Commission’s departments are still working on a process based on the rules of competition and the discussions that have taken place have led FIFA to change the ways in which the profession is organised. These new rules came into force on 1 January 2001.

Some Member States also chose to pass legislation in order to supervise more closely the activities of football agents. Raising the moral standards of the profession is a concern shared by the public authorities and by the authorities that represent football. We should not, however, blame the whole profession for the improper behaviour of some of its agents.

The second problem is that of commercial transactions which involve young players. The Commission was recently given the opportunity to show its concern about this matter. The Helsinki report on sport, as well as the European Sports Forum, which was held in Lille in October 2000, pinpointed this problematic issue. Furthermore, a whole workshop in Lille was devoted to the subject of protecting young people. For reasons of competence, however, it is up to the Member States to pass legislation if they consider this to be necessary. One Member State has already done so.

Generally speaking, all the issues concerning the exploitation of young African footballers are the subject of in-depth consideration by public authorities and, in the Nice Declaration, made in December 2000, the European Council expressed, I quote, its “concern about commercial transactions targeting minors in sport, including those from third countries, inasmuch as they do not comply with existing labour legislation or endanger the health and welfare of young sportsmen and women. It calls on sporting organisations and the Member States to investigate and monitor such practices and, where necessary, to consider appropriate measures.” This is in line with the approach that we are committed to, and Mr Cushnahan, you know very well that I gave an answer on this subject in the debate on football transfer rules. It is also in line with the new rules on the protection of young people that FIFA would like to be granted.

  Cushnahan (PPE-DE). – As the Commissioner is under pressure of time, I will forego my right to ask a supplementary. I appreciate the Commissioner giving me a very full and detailed response today on this and other questions. I just want to thank her for that.

  President. – As they deal with the same subject, Questions Nos 56, 57 and 58 will be taken together.

Question No 56 by Astrid Thors (H-0219/01):

Subject: Impact of European Year of Languages on regional and minority languages

2001 is the European Year of Languages, which has just been officially inaugurated. What impact does the Commission believe the Year of Languages will have on regional and minority languages and how does the Commission intend to follow up the Year of Languages to create a lasting impact on the position of those languages?

Question No 57 by Michl Ebner (H-0239/01):

Subject: Multiannual programme for minority languages

A whole range of minority organisations and representatives had hoped that the Nice Summit would result in a situation in which cultural matters would in future be decided on by qualified majority, so that decisions in favour of minorities or minority languages could no longer be blocked by individual Member States, as has frequently been the case in the past.

Can the Commission say how it assesses the present situation (after Nice), with specific reference to the situation of minority languages and a multiannual programme intended for these languages?

Question No 58 by Concepció Ferrer (H-0245/01):

Subject: European Year of Languages 2001

Given that in the European Union 2001 has been designated the European Year of Languages, the aim of which is to promote learning of the Community's official languages together with Irish, Luxembourgish and other languages specified by the Member States, and bearing in mind that the preamble to the Charter of Fundamental Rights states that the Union “contributes to the preservation and to the development of these common values while respecting the diversity of the cultures and traditions of the peoples of Europe”, will the Commission say which languages have been put forward by the Member States for inclusion in initiatives in connection with the European Year of Languages?

Questions to Commissioner Barnier

  Reding, Commission. – (FR) I shall try to answer all three questions at the same time. They are not all identical but they are along the same lines.

It is too early to know what the impact of the European Year of Languages will be, so soon after its inauguration. I can inform you, though, that already the whole of Europe is involved in an extensive debate. There is an extraordinary fascination surrounding this event in our regions, universities and amongst the general public and it is not just for official languages, but for all languages, which is very significant. Furthermore, several events and projects that have been funded for 2001 will fuel this debate and will even focus exclusively on regional and minority languages. We expect there to be further contributions, from the European Parliament, which has commissioned a study into regional and minority languages, from the Committee of the Regions, which is preparing an own-initiative opinion on this issue, as well as from the Commission, which has begun a study into the economic and practical aspects of protecting languages.

At the end of 2001, the situation will be much clearer, thanks to all these initiatives, all these discussions, studies and research projects, enabling us to consider our options, instead of the various legal, political and practical commitments, which will shape the action we take in this area. It will, therefore, only be at the end of the European Year of Languages that the Commission will be able to draw conclusions from all these activities and to determine what initiatives can be taken to safeguard linguistic diversity in Europe.

To turn now to the subject of linguistic diversity, it is wonderful to see that the Member States have included all languages in the decision that has been made on the European Year of Languages. Not one was excluded. The issue was dealt with entirely openly in all the Member States. I think that this is very important and is a marvellous thing, and I would also like to reiterate that linguistic diversity is highlighted in Article 22 of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights. This linguistic diversity has been put into practice in the Member States for the European Year of Languages.

  Thors (ELDR). – (SV) Thank you for your answer, Commissioner. Clearly, it is too early to draw any conclusions, but I believe some progress could certainly be made both on cooperation concerning language learning methods and on the preservation of unusual languages.

I know that the Commission is aware of the current difficulties when it comes to cooperation on preserving minor languages and I hope that the Commission is able to use some of the experience that has been accumulated in order to maintain and develop those cultures and languages that belong together.

  Reding, Commission. – (FR) During this European Year of Languages, I have been travelling extensively within Europe and I always begin speaking in Luxembourgish, in order to demonstrate that there are no minority or majority languages. There are only mother tongue languages, which shape individuals and their environment. Rest assured, then, that as a Luxembourger, I shall fight for linguistic diversity in Europe, for all languages to be respected and for progress to be made in the teaching of all languages.

Furthermore, thanks to the Socrates-Comenius project, there are already possibilities for cooperation, and I can inform you that many schools are taking advantage of the opportunities provided by the Comenius project to put the spotlight on learning regional languages.

I have two slogans for the European Year of Languages: ‘mother tongue plus two’ and ‘learn your neighbour’s language’. In a Europe made up of regions – and I am pleased that the Commissioner responsible for a Europe of the regions is sitting beside me – we must learn the language of our neighbours, especially in cross-border regions in order to have a successful Europe of the regions. Therefore, the ideas of learning your neighbour’s language, your mother tongue plus two and regional languages are all contained in this slogan.

  Ebner (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, first of all I should like to congratulate the Commissioner for her commitment in this area and to thank her for that. She has tackled this issue with an enormous amount of dedication and enthusiasm. But unfortunately, the perception of the Luxembourg people is not shared throughout the Union, and there is still a great deal to do in this respect. That is why I was particularly disappointed that it was not possible at the Nice Summit to bring this matter into the realm of majority voting. We must resolve the various minority situations before they develop into problems. We need a preventive strategy. We have 60 minority situations in the European Union today. In the continent as a whole there are a total of 300.

Even though the unanimity principle continues to apply, making certain policies difficult to pursue, perhaps a way could be found by means of structural support. Could I ask the Commissioner for her opinion on such an approach?

  Reding, Commission. – (FR) To answer Mr Ebner’s question, I would like to say that, of course, the people of Luxembourg are completely trilingual, but other people can also master three languages. All they have to do is follow the example of Luxembourg, where children start learning several languages at the age of five or six, and this is a successful formula.

So, on the subject of unanimity and majority, cultural questions always require unanimity. With fifteen Member States, it is therefore fairly difficult to take decisions that represent a step forward. That is also why the European Year of Languages falls under the umbrella of education. I very consciously placed this event within the sector including education, training, linguistic diversity and the learning of several languages, because this area affects most people.

  Ferrer (PPE-DE). – (ES) Commissioner, first of all I should like to thank you for your answer and very briefly request that, since the Commission is the Guardian of the Treaties and the Treaties state that the Community must contribute to the enhancement of the cultures of the Member States and to respect for regional diversity, it should ensure that those Member States within which several languages that also have official status coexist can take part in organising the events planned for the European Year of Languages. That is, you have said that no State had excluded any language from taking part. That in itself is good news, but it is not enough for them to be able to take part. It is very important that representatives of the peoples that use these languages should also be able to take part in the body that is to organise the events, as stated in the report we approved at the time, in order to guarantee their presence and enhancement.

  Reding, Commission. – (FR) I can reassure Mrs Ferrer that Catalan has not been omitted. That would have been absolutely incredible because the legal bases of the European Year of Languages stipulate that the languages recognised in a Member State, even if they are not official EU languages, should be part of the European Year of Languages.

I tried to ensure that Europe’s linguistic diversity was represented in the range of projects that were selected, and I am very pleased to see that things are getting off the ground and that, perhaps due to the European Year of Languages or perhaps because the time is right, we are adopting a more flexible approach to the language issue. Furthermore, fewer problems will arise if we tackle the language issue through learning, through the learning of many languages, than if we approach this from a regionalist point of view.

My second answer is that it seems, for now, that we are holding all the cards. Mrs Ferrer will remember that I quoted the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which makes linguistic diversity a requirement. Well, this will be a strong component in the future development of our linguistic policies in Europe.

  President. – Thank you, Mrs Reding, for your answers and for confirming that Catalan will enjoy a strong presence in 2001.

  President. –

Question No 59 by Mihail Papayannakis (H-0132/01):

Subject: Progress and quality of major projects in Greece

Can the Commission provide a new estimate, on the basis of current data or developments, of the date for completion of the major projects under construction in Greece? Does it consider that the deadlines for completing the work will be met within the financial estimates for each project? Is any more recent and detailed information available regarding the quality control of these projects (a possible improvement in their quality) and penalties against firms and organisations? What is the outcome of the cases already forwarded to the public prosecutor (including the list of projects exhibiting highly substandard work)?

  Barnier, Commission. – (FR) To go back to the previous debate, I would like to say to Mrs Ferrer and other speakers that I saw the importance of Catalan when I visited Barcelona on Friday.

If you agree, I shall now turn to the question that Mr Papayannakis asked me about major projects undertaken as part of the Community support framework in Greece, and in Athens, in particular. Mr Papayannakis, the term ‘major projects’ has a very precise meaning in the rules on the Structural Funds, since it refers to a project which is granted a budget of more than EUR 50 million. Since there are quite a number of projects of this type in Greece, which receive cofinancing from the Cohesion Fund or the Regional Fund, mainly in the transport, environment and energy sectors, it is difficult for me to give a very accurate and thorough answer now, in a matter of minutes.

Mr Papayannakis, I would like to reiterate that granting a project Community cofinancing does not alter the fact that national authorities are still responsible for carrying out the project. Furthermore, the information at the Commission’s disposal is, of course, initially provided by those same authorities. Rest assured that we certainly do take an interest in how the projects and their costs are progressing. Our overriding concern, moreover, is to ensure that the financial resources granted by the Community to Greece enhance progress and the quality of life of the Greek citizens and this concern applies to all Member States.

With regard to major projects in Greece, there are three types or categories, rather; the first includes those that have already been completed, and here I am thinking of the Athens underground system and Spata airport, which is due to be inaugurated in May. Some of these projects have also been undertaken with or on the basis of concession contracts. I could have mentioned other projects within the first category but the second category includes projects that are ongoing and that are also being undertaken with concession contracts, such as the Athens ring road and the Rio-Antirio bridge. The Athens ring road should be completed at the end of 2003 and the bridge completed in 2004. There are, of course, other projects that I do not have time to mention, which have, in general, also been undertaken with concession contracts.

It is difficult for me to give a deadline for the completion of the work, Mr Papayannakis, as there are many projects and therefore many deadlines that will fall due over a period of time. Does this mean that we shall no longer exert pressure to ensure that progress is made with these or other projects, such as the extension of the Athens underground? Certainly not. I would like to repeat that, in accordance with the new rule for the Structural Funds, of which you are aware, Mr Papayannakis, we should remember that expenditure on programmes, which are part of these major projects, must evolve in line with the programme, and the Member States risk financial penalties if this does not happen.

I would therefore like to reassure you, Mr Papayannakis, and inform you that the Commission’s departments will closely monitor the rate of progress and the changes in costs of these programmes and projects within the European Union as a whole, and in Greece in particular. With regard to Athens, because I, like you, am committed to successfully preparing for the next Olympic Games, in 2004, I am also extremely anxious that the projects financed by the European Structural Funds and which will contribute to the success of the Olympic Games, run smoothly.

Lastly, I shall briefly touch on the subject of quality control. Not long ago, on 29 January, the Commission’s departments requested detailed information from the Greek Government on the independent checks that had been decided for the cofinanced projects in Greece. As soon as I receive this information, Mr Papayannakis, I shall be able to pass this on to you.

The European Anti-Fraud Office has also said that it has not yet received any communication from the Greek authorities pursuant to Regulation No 1681/94 concerning irregularities and the recovery of sums wrongly paid in connection with the financing of the structural policies and the organisation of an information system in this field.

Mr Papayannakis, these are the details that I can give to you today.

  Papayannakis (GUE/NGL). – (FR) Commissioner, I would like to thank you very much indeed. However, the reason for my question was firstly so that you would provide a list of what is currently expected. I have a list here from five years ago which provides some deadlines. This list was drawn up by your predecessor, Mrs Wulf-Matthies and the deadlines specified at that time have not been met. I would therefore like to know what is happening.

The second point obviously relates to quality. We have constantly called for a blacklist of companies or individuals whose work was of a poor quality, so that they can no longer tender for contracts. This is a very important point. With regard to the cost – the comparative cost – I would like to know how much it costs per kilometre to build an underground system in Barcelona, Athens or Paris for instance, so as to be able to judge the state of Europe’s finances.

Commissioner, I should like to end by saying that I am not very committed to the Olympic Games. In actual fact, I am rather against them. Since, however, we have scheduled this train, a train that is unforgivably delayed, I would like an explanation.

  Barnier, Commission. – (FR) Mr Papayannakis, I have no problem with finding out the cost per kilometre of the underground system in Barcelona, Athens, or in any other city. This information will, of course, be relative, because in the case of the Athens underground system, for example, you know as well as I do that many archaeological sites and remains were discovered during construction and considerable excavation work was also carried out. Therefore, when you encounter these complications, although they are not always strictly negative, they do involve extra costs. The reasons differ depending on the location. Having said that, it will not be a problem to do the research you mentioned into comparative costs, with the help of my departments.

I shall now refer back to the list that you mentioned and which was drawn up, as you said, by Mrs Wulf-Matthies. If you look at this list objectively, all the projects, the major projects, have been started and some of them have been completed. I mentioned them earlier and I do not wish to go back to them. With regard to the Athens sewage system, the water supply system or the gas pipeline, I do not think the reality is all black or rosy or, for that matter, green. No doubt there have been delays. Mr Papayannakis, some of the reports have also enabled us to see that there are quality problems on building sites in general – poor quality materials, inadequate control measures etc. This is the reality. I am striving to be objective and to shoulder my responsibilities.

That is why, for example, I took as much time as was needed before this week approving the first operational programmes, so that I could verify that every one of these operational programmes, which will be granted a great deal of money, some tens of billions of euros, will be managed by a properly-run agency. Only when I have this assurance do I approve these programmes, and I do this one by one – I also have many more to approve this month.

I have taken careful note of the other questions that you have asked me, and, if you wish, I shall answer you in writing, providing information that is as objective as possible.

  President. –

Question No 60 by Glenys Kinnock (H-0142/01):

Subject: Steel closures in Wales

Would the Commission report on any progress made in efforts to ensure that funds are made available as a matter of urgency for the workers, families and the communities affected by the Corus steel closures in Wales?

  Barnier, Commission. – (FR) Mrs Kinnock, as you know, most of these job losses at Corus in Wales affect the plant at Newport and the sheet steel factory which are, respectively, in the Objective 2 region, East Wales, and the Objective 1 region, West Wales and The Valleys. The factory at Shotton, where there will also be redundancies, is also in the Objective 3 region, East Wales.

Some weeks ago, in a press release dated 2 February 2001, when this problem began to be more serious, the Commission announced that it was willing to discuss any proposal, as soon as the National Assembly of Wales and the other parties involved decided that the European Union’s programmes must be refocused and redeployed to take account of developments in this situation. In the same press release, I also clearly stated that even if the current programmes could be refocused or redeployed, there is no possibility of the EU making extra funds available, either within the rules of the Structural Funds or of other policies.

The answer given to you was the same answer that I gave in relation to the recent natural disaster in Portugal and with regard to the earthquake in Greece. We do not have a budgetary line to cope with exceptional and unexpected costs, but we can and do redeploy funds and packages to the affected regions.

On 28 February, our departments met with a delegation from the National Assembly of Wales. The proposals that were considered on that occasion relate to aid for professional training, business development, site renovation, support for communities, infrastructure aid and as part of these discussions, we hope to receive more detailed proposals on the basis for regional partnership.

I should like to add, Mrs Kinnock, that aid from the European Social Fund may be granted using the Objective 1 single programming document, which covers the West Wales and The Valleys region and represents EUR 591 million. The East Wales region is covered by the Objective 3 programme, which receives a budget of EUR 132 million. Both these programmes contain measures which can relate to training, the professional retraining of those made redundant, as well as measures designed to help staff with ongoing training. Lastly, the Commission also has resources from the ECSC budget until July 2002. A payment of this type could be granted on an individual basis to redundant steelworkers to help them train for other employment. The amounts are not huge but they do, nonetheless, come to a maximum of EUR 3000 per person and the Member State in question is obliged to contribute the same amount.

These are the details that I wanted to give you in addition to the Commission press release that I issued on 2 February 2001.

  Kinnock (PSE). – Commissioner, thank you for the enormous support and commitment you have made to Wales at a very difficult time with the job losses in the steel industry.

I was very interested, Commissioner, to hear that you have met Members and officials from the National Assembly of Wales and I wondered whether you had been given any idea of the timescales that are envisaged before any suggestions for programmes are made.

Secondly, Commissioner, my Labour Welsh colleague and I wrote to you last week inviting you to come to Wales to see first-hand what the problems are, what needs to be done and also to have an opportunity to meet some of the key people in the National Assembly and other areas. So, Commissioner, I very much hope, although I do not expect an answer now, that you will look seriously at that request and that we will see you in Wales before too long.

  Barnier, Commission. – (FR) Thank you very much for your invitation, Mrs Kinnock. I was very pleased to receive an invitation from you and from your colleague, and I can, in principle, accept to come, as I intend, in any case, to visit all the regions of the UK – as I visited Scotland some weeks ago – and to hold discussions with the National Assembly of Wales, local partners of representative bodies and leaders of social and professional organisations. I accept your invitation, therefore, in principle, although at this point, I am unable to give you a firm date.

Let us move fairly swiftly on to the subject of implementing new guidelines for some of the programmes, following the first meeting that was held with the representatives of the National Assembly of Wales. I informed you that we were expecting very firm proposals, in accordance with the guidelines that were outlined the other day. I promise that I shall act very quickly as soon as I receive these proposals for reallocation, concentration or redeployment to target more specific funds in the region for the men and women affected by these restructurings in the steel industry. With regard to East Wales, which is an Objective 2 region, I hope that we will be able to finalise the adoption of the Objective 2 programme before 31 March 2001. I wanted to confirm this date with you in my answer to your question.

  President. –

Question No 61 by Giorgio Celli (H-0144/01):

Subject: Quality of projects in receipt of delayed spending under the 1994-1999 structural funds in Italy

Twenty-five per cent of the funds granted to Italy for the 1994-1999 programming period have not yet been spent. The Commission has set a final deadline of the end of 2001 for the funds to be spent. A similar situation arose in respect of the 1989-1993 funds, which resulted in the loss of around 3% of the funds allocated. Faced with the delays, the Italian regions and the Commission were forced to reprogramme investments, which resulted in the danger of having to grant funding to projects that were not compatible with the principles of environment-friendly development and the rational use of natural resources. Can the Commission guarantee that this will not happen again and that, if reprogramming is necessary, it will be directed towards investments that promote sustainable development (in sectors such as energy, transport, biodiversity, tourism, agriculture and human resources, etc.)? And if this is not possible, can it guarantee that the funds will instead be withdrawn? In particular, can the Commission provide assurance that dubious investments will not be made in the areas of road infrastructure, hydraulic works and the management of water resources, such as dams and channelling?

  Barnier, Commission. – (FR) As briefly as possible, I would like to inform Mr Celli that we have committed all the commitment appropriations earmarked for the 1994-1999 period for objectives 1, 2 and 5b and for Community initiatives. It is true that, on the basis of the latest figures supplied to us by the Italian Ministry for Finance, the situation for payments is much less healthy, and I would like to write to you, Mr Celli, to give you precise details of how quickly the payments for each objective are being made. They are unsatisfactory, particularly for Community initiatives. I have informed the Italian authorities on several occasions that they must step up the pace of spending and that control activities must be improved so that projects can be completed and payments can be made within the specified timescales.

Ladies and gentlemen, I would also reiterate that the rules governing financial management for the 1994-1999 period do not allow us to reprogramme the resources after the deadline for making payments. The last reprogrammings to be carried out in this way were in 1999.

In relation to the 2000-2006 programming period that has just started, I would like to inform you that coordination between our departments has again been improved, in order to achieve better interaction between the Habitat Directive and Structural Funds programming. Mr Celli, I share your concern to ensure the environment, biodiversity and sustainable development are respected in line with the principle of subsidiarity. It is up to the Member States to identify programmes and projects to be financed which adhere to the legislation in force.

  Celli (Verts/ALE). – (IT) Commissioner, I would like to know whether, in effect, all these projects, which have been reviewed and maybe altered, are genuinely in line with adequate environmental impact studies. I regret to say that, in the past, we have been confronted on several occasions with a number of occurrences: in Italy, for example, the Trasimeno Lake protection proved to be maize planted along the banks of the lake which draws up water and thus reduces the level. We have even had Directive 2078, which authorised the use of insecticides instead of reducing it. Therefore, my question is this: are all these projects – which have been reviewed because the funds had not been used until shortly before the deadline – all compliant at the current time? Has the Commission genuinely ensured that the environment will not suffer at precisely the time that it should be being protected?

  Barnier, Commission. – (FR) Mr Celli, I am not going to go into the good or the bad aspects of how this was managed in the past. I cannot say that all the projects, both here and in other countries, worked perfectly, but, to tell you the truth, I am not very pleased to have had to carry out urgent reprogramming at the end of 1999, which involved very considerable sums of money, for Italy and for other countries. This had to be done after I noted that the projects that were initially devised were not or were no longer feasible. I was not very pleased to carry out this enormous reprogramming exercise in the very last months of the previous period, 1994-1999, but I did this so that the money would not be lost and I intend to make sure that we do not find ourselves in the same situation in this period. The general rules agreed at Berlin allow us to impose increased sanctions and restrictions on Member States, and so avoid this sort of reprogramming.

Now, Mr Celli, with regard to what was carried out at the end of the year, all the assistance provided from the Structural Funds should, in practice, be consistent with Community policies, and should therefore respect the legislation in force, particularly with regard to the environment. If irregularities or infringements do come to be identified – whether you inform us of them, whether we carry out inquiries or evaluations or whether Member States also inform us of them – the Commission will, by virtue of the regulation, be able to eradicate the irregularities in conjunction with the Member State and consider reducing or sometimes even withdrawing some financial assistance. In this respect, I can assure you that, in conjunction with the Member States, the greatest care and attention will be paid to the issue of the environment during the period for which I am responsible, in other words 2000-2006, as, personally speaking, it has always been one of my overriding political concerns.

  President. – Thank you, Commissioner Barnier.

Since the time allotted to Questions to the Commission has elapsed, Questions Nos 62 to 113 will be answered in writing.⁽¹⁾

That concludes Questions to the Commission.

(The sitting was suspended at 8 p.m. and resumed at 9 p.m.)

IN THE CHAIR: MR SCHMID
Vice-President