92001E1141

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1141/01

by Theresa Villiers (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(10 April 2001)

Subject: Partnership with civil society to promote information on the euro

On 7 March 2001 the Commission announced that it had selected 34 projects out of 158 proposals received to subsidise in the context of the information programme for European citizens (PRINCE). It was stated in MEMO/01/66 that only transnational actions involving at least three Member States, at least one of which is in the euro area, and with the greatest possible multiplier effect, will qualify for financial support.

Six of the selected projects will be undertaken by organisations with partners in the United Kingdom:

- Eurochambres,

- Industrie-und Handelskammer Trier,

- Association Pour l'Union Monétaire de l'Europe (AUME),

- European Union of the Deaf,

- Institut Européen interrégional de la Consommation (IEIC),

- ASFORM (Asociación para el Fomento de la Formación Ocupacional y Continua el la Margen Izquierda).

1. Could the Commission confirm that it has secured guarantees from these organisations that funding will not be channelled into promotional projects in the United Kingdom, which has not expressed the wish to join the euro?

2. Could the Commission explain why it is considering proposals from transnational organisations involving at least three Member States, where only one of the three Member States has joined the euro, and the other two countries have not expressed a wish to join?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(3 July 2001)

A careful examination of the title and the text of the call for proposals published in the Official Journal of the European Communities(1) clearly shows that it was never intended to foster promotional activities in any Member State, let alone in Member States having not expressed the wish to join the euro. Furthermore, no project promoted by an organisation based in the United Kingdom has been registered, so that no British organisation appears as project leader in this framework.

Out of the six organisations mentioned, four are at European level, and naturally also have members in the United Kingdom. As for the two remaining ones (Industrie-und Handelskammer Trier and Asform), they are used to working with a certain number of partners, one of them happening to be British. Each promotor is free to choose its partners in a given project and each project rests on a division of labour between the partners, so that a British partner can never retain a major share in a project.

This allows the Commission to confirm that funding will not be channelled into promotional projects in the United Kingdom, as none was received in the framework of the call for proposals. Moreover, all projects are controlled during their implementation and financial reports are due halfway and after completion of each project to obtain payment of the second and of the last part of the grant awarded.

The text transnational actions involving at least three Member States, at least one of which is in the euro zone should not be read as imposing one member of the euro zone and two having not expressed the wish to join, but sets one of the minimal conditions at which a given project can be taken into consideration, at the risk of otherwise becoming pointless. None of the 34 selected projects actually presents such a configuration, which means that there was no misunderstanding regarding this point among the applicants.

The euro is nevertheless of concern to British enterprises, and notably to small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) involved in imports and exports. In this respect it is worth noting that the British Government has spent several million pounds on informing them on the implications of the changeover to the euro.

(1) OJ C 212, 25.7.2000.