WRITTEN QUESTION E-0951/00 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. The Objective 2 region of Hainaut.
19. 6. 2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 174 E/3 Supplementary answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission (5 January 2001) According to the information received from the Greek authorities, between July 1998 and April 2000 ESPEL carried out 1 253 routine inspections of projects part-financed by Community Funds. The findings show that 52 % of the projects are in order or have minor defects which the contractors will rectify (project category 1); 45 % of the projects have major defects which do not have safety implications but which will entail higher maintenance costs: these additional costs must be deducted from payments to the contractors concerned (project category 2); 3 % of the projects have serious defects which cannot be rectified: the contractors will have to redo these projects in full or in part and at their own expense (project category 3). In accordance with existing procedures, the Ministry of Economic Affairs ü as the managing authority for the Community support framework ü sent the 1 122 individual reports drawn up by ESPEL in respect of projects with quality defects to the public authorities managing the projects concerned, asking them to take the action provided for by law. In 198 cases, the Ministry of Economic Affairs instructed the authorities managing the projects to require the contractors to set up and operate on-site test laboratories in compliance with their contractual obligations. In 478 cases falling within project categories 2 and 3 referred to above, the Ministry of Economic Affairs submitted the files to the public works inspectorate. Lastly, as provided for, the 30 cases falling within category 3 were sent direct to the public prosecutorís office. On 5 April 2000, the public works inspectorate called on 136 authorities concerned with the projects at issue to submit a report on the measures taken in order to require the contractors to carry out the necessary repairs or in order to impose penalties on them in accordance with the law. According to the Greek authorities, on the basis of the reports available and depending on the various cases, the following measures have been taken: financial penalties; price reductions; repair orders issued, in some cases with complaints against the contractors; repairs carried out; responsibilities attributed for the non-operation of on-site test laboratories; basic geological and other studies where these were not done; additional quality controls. The Greek authorities have also informed the Commission that the reports are still being examined and that they will be published at a later date by the Joint Steering Committee on Public Works. The Commission has taken note of the quality controls which the Greek Government has requested, and welcomes this initiative. It would nevertheless like the files to be processed and monitored more quickly, and will ask for detailed information on the practical action taken in each case ü i. e. the economic, administrative or other penalties imposed. The European Anti-Fraud Office also states that no communication has so far been received from the Greek authorities on the basis of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1681/94 of 11 July 1994 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 (1). (1) OJ L 178, 12. 7. 1994. (2001/C 174 E/003) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0951/00 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission (29 March 2000) Subject: The Objective 2 region of Hainaut The awarding of Objective 2 aid to the Walloon province of Hainaut is leading to the relocation of firms which have been established for many years in the neighbouring province of Western Flanders. The businesses operators in question acknowledge that the removal of their activities to Hainaut is entirely dependent on their obtaining Objective 2 subsidies. If these business operators do not obtain any European aid, they will keep their operations in Western Flanders. In order to be considered for such aid they have to have their company headquarters in Hainaut. C 174 E/4 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 19. 6. 2001 How many applications have been made since 1 January 2000 for Objective 2 aid for new economic 1. operations in Hainaut, and to what do they relate? 2. When and where were the company headquarters of these firms registered? 3. (a) How many of these firms were formerly operating in the province of Western Flanders? (b) How many of these firms are currently operating in Western Flanders? Have the firms in question expressly been asked whether their relocation from Western Flanders to 4. Hainaut is dependent on the award of Objective 2 aid? (a) (b) If so, how many West Flandersí operators would choose to move their operations to Hainaut without Objective 2 aid? If not, will the Commission ask these business operators to what extent their relocation is dependent upon Objective 2 aid? Is the Commission prepared to take measures to prevent the relocation of West Flanders firms to 5. Hainaut? (a) If so, what measures? (b) If not, why not? Supplementary answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission (22 January 2001) During the 2000-2006 programming period, the Walloon province of Hainaut will receive Structural Funds aid under Objective 1, not Objective 2. To that end, on 15 May 2000 the Commission approved the single programming document (SPD) submitted by the regional authorities. A task force comprising representatives from the authorities, university lecturers, delegates from employersí associations and an outside consultant will be responsible for appraising projects submitted under the new programming exercise. Investment aid features among the programming documentís principal measures, but at this stage it is too soon to say how many businesses will benefit from such aid and certainly too soon to say exactly how many businesses currently based in West Flanders might relocate their headquarters to Hainaut. During the 1994-1999 programming period, investment support was available under two schemes: aid for setting up businesses, and aid for expanding businesses. The statistics available show that assistance under one or other of those schemes was given to about fifty businesses located in Flanders, accounting for approximately 7 % of all investment projects supported under Objective 1. The statistics provided by the Walloon Region relate only to aid approved between 1995 and 1999. Various places in Hainaut are involved, but those which recur most frequently are the towns Mouscron, Tournai and Comines. The regional authorities Honourable Memberís questions about Flemish businessesí previous and current activities. responsible have not yet updated the figures needed to answer the Neither the Commission nor the Walloon Region authorities investigated the motives of the businesses which applied for investment aid and which set up their headquarters in the province of Hainaut so as to receive that assistance. The Commission does not intend to undertake such an investigation. 19. 6. 2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 174 E/5 The Commission is responsible for ensuring that investment aid schemes which regions or national authorities introduce comply with the competition rules laid down by the EC Treaty. During the negotiation of programmes, the Commission also examines whether development plans are consistent with the general guidelines which it has proposed to Member States. On the general issue of relocation, the Commission would ask the Honourable Member to refer to the answers given to Written Questions E-1396/99 by Mrs Keppelhoff-Wiechert (1), E-1446/99 by Mr Meijer (2), P-1805/99 by Mrs Figueiredo (3) and P-1706/00 by Mrs Randzio-Plath (4). (1) OJ C 170 E, 20. 6. 2000. (2) OJ C 203 E, 18. 7. 2000. (3) OJ C 219 E, 1. 8. 2000. (4) OJ C 81 E, 13. 3. 2001, p. 75. (2001/C 174 E/004) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2666/00 by Elly Plooij-van Gorsel (ELDR) to the Commission (1 September 2000) Subject: Safety of nuclear power stations in the applicant countries The very controversial Temelin nuclear power station in the Czech Republic is currently being made ready to go on stream. It was built in the 1980s on the basis of a Soviet design. Last week, after years of debate about that nuclear power station, authorisation was issued in a suspicious manner. Accordingly, for a few months, reactor 1 of the power station may run on a test basis, despite powerful protests from citizens and the concern expressed by President Havel and the Austrian Government. the safety of 1. Does the Commission agree with me that, with a view to the accession of the applicant countries, Community standards relating to the safety of nuclear reactors in the European Union, including minimum safety requirements as regards design, construction and use, are urgently required? 2. What is the Commission planning to do, in the light of the accession negotiations, prevent the commissioning of nuclear power stations, such as Temelin, which are unsafe? in order to Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission (29 November 2000) Construction of the Temelin nuclear power plant (NPP) was started in the 1980s and later halted. Parts of the plant are still under construction. Electricity production is planned to start in 2001 (Unit 1) and 2002 (Unit 2). The reactor is of an upgraded VVER 1000 design and will incorporate new safety-related systems of recent design. The Community has repeatedly recalled the need for nuclear power plants to respect high nuclear safety standards. The Commission has taken in Agenda 2000 a clear position in this respect. The December 1999 Helsinki European Council recalled the importance of high standards of nuclear safety and called on the Council to consider how to address the issue of nuclear safety in the framework of the enlargement process. The Council is currently looking into this matter, drawing on the expertise existing in the Member States, and the Commission is supporting this process fully. Nuclear safety is the national competence of Member States. This principle applies to candidate countries by analogy. The Temelin NPP is one of very few nuclear power plants that might be commissioned in the period prior to the accession of candidate countries. The Commission has no means to prevent the commissioning of specific plants under the authority of the national regulatory responsibility within a candidate country. However, the Commission will continue to work with the Czech authorities to assist the continuous