President. – The next item is Question Time (B5-0253/2002). The following questions are addressed to the Commission.

Part I

  President. –

Question No 54 by Ewa Hedkvist Petersen (H-0487/02):

Subject: Measures to ensure legal certainty

A debate has ensued in the Swedish Parliament about legal certainty in conjunction with the adoption of a European arrest warrant. The current guidelines as to how the Member States should meet the requirements of legal certainty are far too weak. In order to progress with legal harmonisation, fresh, clear rules must be drawn up. Otherwise, there is a risk that the reforms will increase uncertainty and mistrust of the project. There should, for example, be a limit on the length of time suspects may be remanded in custody before trial.

At the beginning of the year, the Commission drew up a consultation paper on this matter. What practical measures does the Commission plan to take on the basis of the outcome of the consultation process?

  Vitorino, Commission. – (PT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Mrs Hedkvist Petersen, the Commission has published a consultation document on procedural safeguards for suspects and defendants in criminal proceedings on the web-site of the Directorate-General for Justice and Home Affairs. The deadline for responses fell due on 15 April 2002. Having studied the responses, the Commission intends to adopt the following practical measures: a meeting of experts will be held, in September, in which the various measures submitted for consultation will be discussed; on the basis of these discussions, the Commission intends to produce, at the end of 2002, a Green Paper on safeguards in criminal proceedings, which will probably cover the issue of time limits on pre-trial detention.

In addition to the work that has already been undertaken on the general aspects of procedural safeguards, the Commission has begun to study the issue of remand in custody and of alternatives to such detention. This issue will be the subject of another Green Paper, to be presented at the end of the year or at the beginning of 2003, which will examine the issue of legal certainty in relation to individuals who are remanded in custody. In accordance with the case law of the Strasbourg Court of Human Rights, the concept of a reasonable period of time before the trial cannot be translated into an exact number of days, weeks, months or years, or into a variety of terms set according to the seriousness of the offence. The competent European bodies in the field of human rights have approved very long periods of remand, of up to two-and-a-half years.

Detention will only be justified, however, if it is considered necessary to achieving a legitimate objective. When considering whether the provisions of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, specifically Article 5(3), are being complied with, the European Court always studies and assesses the adequacy of the grounds for detention in accordance with the standards of respect for individual freedom and for the presumption of innocence, which underpin any detention without trial.

The framework decision on the European arrest warrant is based on the principle of mutual recognition, which also requires mutual trust in the criminal justice systems of the Member States. In order to achieve mutual trust and the respect required for a true area of freedom, security and justice, standards of protection conferred on suspects and defendants in criminal proceedings must be equivalent throughout the Union. People travelling abroad should be confident that the existing standards offer equivalent protection whatever the Member State so as not to impede their free movement for fear of encountering a system operating lower standards.

  Hedkvist Petersen (PSE). (SV) Thank you, Commissioner, for your reply. As we make a framework decision in the EU which means that EU citizens can be extradited and taken to court for crimes in all Member States, we must also guarantee the Rule of Law. This was also clear in the reply, which pleases me greatly. This lies at the heart of our union, and we have declared this in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. Citizens must be aware of their rights.

I listened with great interest to what the Commissioner said about time spent on remand. It is clear that there are various reasons for different lengths of time on remand, but it is still important that citizens know what times apply and that it is possible to have a decision on remand time reviewed. I therefore wonder whether the right to a review of arrests could be a consideration in the issue of remand times. I also wonder whether there may be a need for some form of EU function to guarantee the Rule of Law which I seek and on which the Commission will clearly be drawing up proposals.

  Vitorino, Commission. – (PT) Mrs Hedkvist Petersen, I fully agree with you and I would draw your attention to the fact that the European arrest order must respect fundamental rights, and specifically the principles laid down in Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union, which refers to the European Convention on Human Rights in the field of procedural safeguards. And when an individual’s freedom is under threat, the European Convention on Human Rights clearly provides for the possibility of revision by referral to a judicial body.

Following this consultation, the Commission intends to look into whether a legislative measure is needed at European level to approximate these rules, which are common to the Member States and which are contained in the European Convention on Human Rights and, in this way, to increase mutual trust between Member States, whilst at the same time providing guarantees of legal certainty. I hope to be able to present the conclusions of this investigation to Parliament and the Council at the end of this year.

  President. –

Question No 55by Marit Paulsen, who has been taken over by Olle Schmidt (H-0493/02):

Subject: Concentrations in the foodstuffs sector

The foodstuffs sector in Europe is currently marked by a clearly increasing degree of concentration, since a few perishables retail chains have taken control of ever larger shares of the market. Excessively close cooperation – particularly on the purchasing side – between such large chains jeopardises free competition and the consumer’s freedom of choice. There is also a serious risk of regional products and small producers being excluded from the market, since they cannot stock the large volumes required by the large-scale system.

Has the Commission ever been forced to restrict the concentration of ownership in the trade in perishables in Europe? If so, what are its views about the threat to the freedom of choice and European diversity in the foodstuffs sector? If no restrictions have been imposed, does not the Commission consider that it impose them as soon as possible?

  Bolkestein, Commission. – The honourable Member is right in pointing out that the last few years have witnessed a number of concentrations between large retail chains in Europe and in that respect the Commission has had to review among others such transactions as Rewe/Meinl, Carrefour/Promodes and Ahold/Superdiplo. The Commission will generally review parties' positions by distinguishing the different product groups and distribution channels.

In the Carrefour/Promodes and Rewe/Meinl cases, for example, the Commission has observed that, in those instances where the share of a particular client in the turnover of a particular supplier reaches beyond a certain level, risks that the supplier might go out of business as a result of losing this particular client will appear. The Commission will therefore examine whether the respective and combined shares of the parties in the turnover of their suppliers reach critical thresholds.

Where suppliers face a limited number of powerful clients, each representing a significant share of their turnover, the risk of the creation of a collective dominant position on the part of purchasers might arise.

In the Carrefour/Promodes decision the Commission assessed this risk on the French market, but concluded that the criteria necessary to find a collective dominant position had not been met. Another factor taken into account in assessing market power on the purchasing market is the possible vertical integration into production on the part of a retail chain or its strategic use of own brands. The analysis of the purchasing market will be particularly relevant in those cases where the merged entity would be a major player on the retail market. As may be apparent from what I have just said, the Commission remains sensitive to the issue of purchasing power on the part of retail chains.

  Schmidt, Olle (ELDR). (SV) I will do my best to replace Mrs Paulsen who put the question.

Commissioner, I understand from your reply that you actually share the concern of Mrs Paulsen. The question contains a suggestion that the situation is extremely serious across Europe. The Commission needs to take special measures and review the situation. From the Commissioner’s reply, I understand that you share the view that such a review is necessary. What we would like to see, and what Mrs Paulsen would like, is for Commissioner Bolkestein to promise here and now that the matter is being monitored carefully and that there is a readiness to implement measures and carry out an investigation and an analysis.

Finally, I would just like to tell Mr Bolkestein that in my country, Sweden, where we have the highest food prices, there is a movement to improve the situation. We know that food prices account for a great deal of what European citizens have to pay out each month, not least those on the lowest incomes.

  Bolkestein, Commission. – I well understand the concerns of the honourable Member who has just spoken and his fear that diversity in the foodstuffs sector might be reduced. I should like to repeat that the Commission has reviewed the latest developments in that area. Indeed this is reflected in the latest decisions which the Commission has taken in the Carrefour/Promodes case, about which I spoke earlier.

While the Commission currently has no official position on possible future developments in that sector, it wishes to underline that it will take the same care as before to analyse and decide on the potential impact of any future concentration in the relevant area. I should like to assure Mrs Paulsen and Mr Schmid, her replacement, that the Commission will keep this matter under active review. Everything depends on first making a correct analysis. If circumstances are such that the Commission should take a legal position in this area, I assure Mrs Paulsen and Mr Schmid that it will not hesitate to do so.

  Rübig (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, commercial chains are generally well capitalised, which is obviously not the case with the small and medium-sized enterprises in competition with them. On the contrary, most small and medium-sized enterprises have no capital of their own and no venture capital. What effect do you think the Basle II negotiations will have on this? Have you already drawn up a sort of Basle II opening balance sheet for each country in order to see how these new rules will impact on our small and medium-sized enterprises?

  Bolkestein, Commission. – I would like to state clearly that the Commission is of the view that the Basle II negotiations concern the capital adequacy of banks and not of retail chains whether or not they are well capitalised.

Basle II concerns the capital base of banks. Small and medium-sized enterprises also enter into the Basle discussion because, particularly in Germany, they are financed with long-term credits. These credits are valued by banks in a different way from short-term credits and this is why the whole issue of small and medium-sized enterprises enters into the Basle discussion.

This is perhaps neither the time nor the place to discuss the ins and outs of the Basle proceedings, although I remain at the disposition of the honourable Member to go into detail into this area. I would like to assure Members of Parliament that the whole Basle II discussion takes the position of small and medium-sized enterprises fully into account.

In these discussions we are working towards a satisfactory solution which will take adequate account of the interests of small and medium-sized enterprises. To that extent I believe that the honourable Member will have no need to worry.

  President. –

Question No 56 by Brian Crowley (H-0500/02):

Subject: The euro and bank charges

Is the Commission aware of the practice of banks in the eurozone applying charges to euro withdrawals being made from ATMs machines in another Member State, does it agree that such charges on euro transactions are unjustified and contradict the spirit of the euro, and will it investigate and report back on this situation as a matter of urgency?

  Bolkestein, Commission. – The question by Mr Crowley concerns withdrawals of money from cash-dispensing machines. The Commission is aware that charges for withdrawals of euro notes in the euro area differ if the transaction takes place outside the country of residence.

However, the situation changed yesterday, 1 July, because Regulation 2560/2001 on cross-border payments in euros was adopted on 19 December last year. Charges for withdrawals of euros from cash machines and for the use of euro payment cards must be the same for both domestic and cross-border transactions as from yesterday. Until yesterday payment card issuers could impose a different set of charges on cross-border euro transactions. That is no longer possible.

At the moment the law states that the charges that apply to a domestic transfer of money – i.e. cash withdrawals from cash dispensers – must be the same as those applied across borders. A feature of the regulation, which I have just quoted, is simplicity. The rules stipulating identical charges is easy to explain to tourists using a payment card or a bank card for withdrawals from cash machines. The Commission issued a press release at the end of June explaining the new rules, which I assume will be to the satisfaction of Mr Crowley.

This Parliament played an important role in the drafting of the regulation, which provides an example of the practical advantages that Community action can bring to every citizen of Europe and of other countries, should they be in the euro area – advantages as soon as they wish to withdraw money from a cash dispenser.

  Crowley (UEN). – I thank the Commissioner for his response.

I have to declare a personal interest in this matter. As someone who has a bank account in Brussels, occasionally comes to Strasbourg, has a bank account in Ireland and travels to other countries, I have noticed in my transaction charges over the recent past huge costs per transaction, particularly here in France, as against in Belgium.

I am delighted by the fact that Regulation 2560 of 2001 has now come into operation as of 1 July. I also welcome the fact that we have a press release from the Commission on this. However, if we discover that banks have failed to comply with their obligations regarding similar or equal charges both domestic and abroad, and if we find that there are usury rates being added by banks with regard to operation of a card from one Member State to another, what action can be taken by an individual consumer, without going through the whole rigmarole of making an official complaint to the Commission?

What action has the Commission taken to ensure that the public is fully informed with regard to these rules and their rights? Maybe an onus on banks to put up notices in all their branches displaying these rules and regulations could be one way.

  Bolkestein, Commission. – Mr Crowley began by saying that he has a personal interest in this matter. May I reply by saying that we all have a personal interest in the matter. It applies to all citizens of euroland who travel abroad and who wish to obtain their cash from a cash dispenser. It is a commodity which is available to all citizens, and all those who leave their own country to go to another part of euroland will be happy with it.

Mr Crowley also asks what users of cash machines can do if they find out that the charge for cash obtained abroad is not the same as the charge for cash obtained domestically. There are three ways in which users can obtain redress. Firstly, they can go to a bank and complain, ask why the bank does not do what the law says. This can be followed up in writing, and I am sure the bank will take notice. That is the second way of obtaining redress.

If, however, the user is of the opinion that the answer given by the bank is insufficient, he can go to a banking ombudsman. In French this is a médiateur bancaire. He can obtain the services of such an ombudsman on the Internet via "FIN-NET". This provides a list of all such ombudsmen who can deal with any problems of that nature. If that does not work then the person concerned can address the authorities in his or her Member State because in this case, as elsewhere, enforcement here is carried out by national authorities. I am sure that the national authorities in Ireland will be sufficiently alert and active to help any dissatisfied customer in obtaining what he wants. These three ways of obtaining redress should prove to be quite adequate.

As regards the last point on how the Commission intends to tell all 370 million citizens of Europe about this facility, I would firstly like to say that the tourist who goes abroad, at least within the euro area, will immediately know about this facility because when he draws cash out of the wall he will see on the slip what the charges are. He can think back to what has happened domestically and thus will immediately know whether the law is respected or not.

Secondly, the banks are under an obligation to inform customers not only about the rates which they charge on transferring money or obtaining money through cash dispensers abroad, but also to advise all their customers if there is a change in the rate. One of the other stipulations of this regulation is transparency. Because there is transparency, customers will know what they are asked to pay and they will be able to compare that with what other banks charge. It is hoped that in this way, competition will see to it that the lowest charges possible are being charged to the customer.

I hope this answer satisfies Mr Crowley. I hope he is happy with the situation which I am sure he has wanted to see for many months.

  Korhola (PPE-DE). – (FI) Mr President, out of purely general interest, I would like to ask the Commission if Mr Crowley’s question had anything to do with the timing of the regulation becoming effective or if it was just coincidence. You will certainly understand that this is, in a certain way, a matter of interest to Members. At the same time I would like to say how glad I am that the matter has been settled.

  Bolkestein, Commission. – I am not sure whether I understood the question, but I believe that the honourable Member wants me to say whether the question by Mr Crowley was organised by the Commission today so that the whole thing could be explained again publicly in Parliament.

I can assure the honourable Member that the Commission is very adroit and active in organising sufficient support for what it does, but in this case, it was a purely fortuitous occasion. Mr Crowley and I have not met all that often. I do not know his telephone number. I am sure he does not need any prompting from any Commissioner to ask in Parliament what he wishes to know.

This regulation on the charges for cash withdrawals was passed extremely quickly by both the Council and Parliament. I can recall no other instance where a regulation was approved and adopted so quickly. That is because the public has wanted this sort of regulation for many years. Mrs Korhola made a point of insisting on that. Fortunately the Commission is now able to assure Members of Parliament that as far as cash withdrawals are concerned, the situation is as Parliament wishes. Next year there is the possibility that the same sort of thing will apply to transfers of money other than by cash dispensers.

  President. –

Question No 57 by Bernd Posselt (H-0513/02):

Subject: Agreement concluded with the Czech Republic concerning traditional recipes

Reports continue to appear in the Czech media that ‘Utopenec’ (an extremely popular sausage speciality which consists of a sausage pickled in a glass jar with vinegar, paprika and onions, consumed slice by slice, and which is also available in restaurants, where it is kept in an airtight glass jar) and the traditional method of distillation used in the making of the famous Moravian plum brandy ‘Slivovitz’ would have to be prohibited in the event of Czech accession to the EU. Has the EU already concluded agreements with the Czech Republic with a view to saving these traditional recipes, or what stage have the negotiations reached?

Part I

Questions to Commissioner Lamy

  Fischler, Commission. – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I have the following to say in response to Mr Posselt's question: the Commission is not aware of any application from the Czech Republic for an exemption from the acquis communautaire on EC food laws for Utopenec sausages. The Commission therefore assumes that the method of manufacturing and distributing Utopenec complies with the Community's food safety laws or at least will do so at the time of accession.

Nor did the Czech Republic make any specific application to register Utopenec as a traditional or local product during the course of negotiations, although it did so for other products. However, the Czech Republic has notified us of its intention to make further applications for registration once it has acceded.

As far as Slivovitz is concerned, the manufacturing method used for it does not comply with the Community definition of fruit spirits set out in Article 1(4) of Regulation No 1576, because ethyl alcohol, i.e. industrial alcohol is added to Slivovitz. According to the regulation, a spirit drink to which ethyl alcohol is added loses the right to use the generic name fruit spirit in any form in its presentation. The Community therefore takes the view that Czech Slivovitz cannot be granted a permanent derogation from the definition for fruit spirits. The Czechs could continue to use the name Slivovitz for these spirits, but they would either have to label them as spirits or change the manufacturing process so that they comply with the rules for fruit spirits.

  Posselt (PPE-DE). – (DE) Thank you, Commissioner, for such a precise reply. This issue is very important in Czech domestic politics and the eurosceptics are making a real song and dance about it. Thank you for clarifying the situation as regards Slivovitz, although I must say that I think Moravian Slivovitz is one of the best there is. As far as Utopenec is concerned, I shall investigate the matter. I should just like to point out to you that this is obviously a hygiene issue. I would be most grateful if you could look into this and, when you have a moment, let me know what specialities have been included in applications for derogations.

  Fischler, Commission. – (DE) Mr President, my dear sir, I should be glad to comply with your final request and let you have a list of products for which applications for derogations have been made; that is a perfectly straightforward matter. As to your second question on whether all the food standards are complied with during the manufacture of the sausage, the Czechs do of course still have time to make changes before they accede and, as they have not notified this as a matter for negotiation, they will have to do so. For the rest, I am most obliged to you for raising this question here, because the fact of the matter is that eurosceptics in the Czech Republic keep spreading these false reports in the international press and there is absolutely no foundation for them.

(Applause)

  President. –

Question No 58 by Lennart Sacrédeus (H-0496/02):

Subject: Steel tariffs and jobs in Europe

The USA has decided to introduce 30% tariffs on steel produced outside that country in order to protect domestic production. The EU has responded by imposing tariffs on US products. Has the Commission assessed what impact the US tariffs will have on jobs in the steel industry in Europe? If so, does the Commission also have specific statistics per country from which it is possible to assess the impact of the fall in production on the individual Member States in the EU?

  Lamy, Commission. – (FR) In response to the protectionist measures taken by the United States, the European Union has put in place a three-pronged strategy, whose aim is to enforce respect for our rights within the multilateral trading system. The first point is to bring action before the WTO seeking condemnation of the American measures; the second point is to adopt a European safeguard designed to maintain access to the European market whilst protecting it from trade flows which, without access to the US market, would stream back to the European market; the third point is to demand compensation from the United States for the losses suffered by European exporters as a result of the American measures, which is in line with our understanding of the WTO texts on safeguard clauses.

We have not yet imposed additional customs duties on American products, but we now have a Council regulation that was adopted on 13 June 2002 and which gives the Union the option of suspending tariff charges, to use the appropriate language of the WTO, on certain American products, as of the 18 June 2002.

Our main objective is to obtain, in the short term, an exclusion and/or compensation package, which may mean further time will need to be spent at the negotiating table, and we shall, as agreed with the Council, report back before 19 July on the progress made on this issue. In the light of this report and our recommendations, a decision may or may not be taken to impose additional duties on a limited number of American products, to a value of approximately EUR 400 million.

This regulation will impose increases in custom duties on a trade amount equivalent to the loss incurred, in other words for a much greater amount, of more than EUR 2 billion, if the United States do not withdraw their measures after they have been condemned by the WTO, which means towards the middle of 2003.

The question is; what is the impact of the American measures on employment? An assessment of the impact of the American measures on employment in the steel manufacturing industry in Europe is both difficult and premature. Difficult because the American measures only have a limited life span and because, following the increase in steel prices in the United States and elsewhere, European steel companies tend to delay their reaction to events for several months and continue, therefore, to employ workers whom they have trained and who are competent and productive. Premature because the impact will depend on the level of exemptions that we obtain from the American Administration and also on the openings that European steel industries find in other markets for products that are banned from sale in the United States. This being the case, it is clear that European steel companies that must pay these customs duties – which can increase prices by up to 30% – are at a huge disadvantage compared to companies that do not have to pay them. At this stage, therefore, we cannot give any more statistics. We do not have any specific statistics on the impact of the American measures in each Member State, since this is managed at Union level and since our partners in dialogue are the steel companies, most of which are now based in several European countries. Paradoxically, it is in the United States where the impact on employment risks being acute, particularly in the sectors of the American economy that use steel and which will probably be the most affected in the short term, due to their inability to pass price increases onto their own customers or due to the fact that such a situation will lead these customers to look to other continents.

  Sacrédeus (PPE-DE). (SV) I would like to thank Commissioner Lamy for his reply. I can understand that it may be good negotiating tactics not to be too precipitous in assessing the number of jobs, the amount of export income and the export volume we are losing. Will the Commissioner consider at a later stage, when it becomes necessary, producing some form of statistical background? Many ordinary citizens wonder about the future consequences. I am thinking in part about people in a number of places in my own country, Sweden, e.g. Borlänge in Dalarna, which has a large steelworks.

Do you believe that this will be a long-term conflict with the US, or are you hopeful that the countermeasures currently planned by the European Union will lead to the Americans coming to their senses?

  Lamy, Commission. – (FR) Our aim, Mr Sacrédeus, is to avoid there being a ‘later’, by that I mean that the Americans withdraw these measures as soon as possible, in other words, before they are condemned by the WTO – which would obviously be the best solution, but quite unlikely, to be honest – or when they are condemned by the WTO, which should happen, we estimate, towards the middle of next year.

Therefore, this is a ‘later’ which is not ‘very late’, and that is our main aim.

In the meantime, we wish to make use of all our rights within the WTO to put pressure on the United States so that, as I said, we can obtain compensation and/or exemptions, so that the impact on our steel industries – as and when the Americans grant exemptions, which are, in fact, derogations to the tariff increases in aid of our exporters – is as positive as possible. A number of exemption packages have already been announced, more are expected and we must continue to exert the necessary pressure. We shall use the measures that the WTO allows us to take in view of our interests and the fact that the United States will ultimately have to comply with international rules.

  Rübig (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen. First may I thank Commissioner Lamy for his strategy on this issue. One the one hand, consistently enforcing our rights at WTO level is, I think, an essential starting point. On the other, at the end of the day, the lack of competition for steel products on the American market is pushing prices up and causing quality problems, which in turn means that European industry has a better chance of selling processed products from the European Union. Do the statistics already show that European products are now being sold much more successfully on the American market?

  Lamy, Commission. – (FR) Mr Rübig, the answer to your question is yes. The protectionist measures taken by the US have caused a significant price increase in the American market. Elsewhere, including in Europe, prices are currently suffering a short-term decline. The price difference between the American market and the European market has increased. To take the example of hot-rolled steel, the price in Europe is approximately EUR 250 per tonne compared with EUR 400 per tonne in the United States. The difference is therefore considerable.

This difference can be compared to a safety net, created by the American protectionist measures, which leads to a more comfortable situation for American manufacturers in terms of their prices, profitability and finances. We are told that they are supposed to make use of this safety net for restructuring. The question is to know whether, in the very short time that the WTO is allowing them and that we are allowing them, there is a realistic chance that the American industry will restructure and tackle the problems relating to their competitiveness that lie at the root of their problems. We have not yet received an answer to this question, but my personal prediction is unfortunately not optimistic.

The second point is I think that we are trying to protect the Union’s interests and to ensure compliance with international trade rules. If all the members of the WTO decided to use the safeguard clause in generating the interpretation that the Americans are currently using, there would undoubtedly be chaos in a number of world markets. I would like to reassure Mr Rübig, so that he knows that when the Council of Ministers and Parliament are united in support of the negotiator, the negotiator’s task is made much easier.

  Purvis (PPE-DE). – The Wall Street Journal came to the conclusion that the shift by Mr Bush to declare these steel tariffs in March, followed by his agricultural subsidies and his protectionism on timber with Canada, was the turning-point from being a free-trade regime to a protectionist, America-first regime. Would you think this is the case or are your friend, Mr Zoellick, and Mr Bush still genuinely free trade?

  Lamy, Commission. – (FR) Mr Purvis is forcing me to comment on press articles, which is always extremely dangerous, but let us say that, once again, I am not entirely in agreement with what is written in the Wall Street Journal. This has happened before and it will certainly happen again. At this stage, I believe that it would be excessive to describe the measures that the Americans have taken as a turning point in their trade policy. At least that is what we were told, when we met with them, both by Mr Bush at the European Union summit, and Mr Zoellick, with whom I speak on a regular basis. I personally feel that the measures were primarily taken as a result of election fever – which I hope will pass – rather than a complete change of direction.

In fact, the outcome, Mr Purvis, will be determined in a few weeks’ time when the last word will be spoken on the issue of Fast Track legislation, which is now called Trade Promotion Authority. When Congress, namely the Senate and the House, decides to grant the American Administration the authority to negotiate both multilaterally and bilaterally, we will see, essentially, whether American policy continues to practice trade liberalism, which has, admittedly, occasionally deviated from the accepted path, as usual, to protect United States’ interests, or if, on the other hand, we shall again experience much more testing times, in which case our own options will certainly be reviewed very carefully.

  President. –

Question No 59 by Margrietus J. van den Berg (H-0508/02):

Subject: The TRIPS Agreement and access to medicines

Would the Commission outline the progress which has been made at the WTO towards meeting the Doha commitment to ensure that the TRIPS agreement does not obstruct affordable access to medicines in countries with little or no domestic manufacturing capacity in the pharmaceutical industry?

Would the Commission confirm that the EU will press for a solution which ensures access to medicines for WTO member countries on terms equivalent to those set out in the Doha Declaration on TRIPS and medicines?

Does the Commission accept that an agreement to allow production for export under Article 30 of TRIPS most clearly meets the spirit of the Doha Agreement, by locating any decision on compulsory licensing only in the country of consumption?

  Lamy, Commission. – (FR) The question is concerned with intellectual property rights and access to medicines. You know that the Doha Declaration on intellectual property rights and public health instructs the WTO Council for TRIPS to find an expeditious solution to the problems facing WTO member countries whose production capacity in the pharmaceuticals sector is insufficient or non-existent or who are experiencing difficulties in the effective use of compulsory licensing.

These poor countries have neither sufficient flexibility nor the capacity to negotiate with the pharmaceutical companies located in the countries which are able to issue a compulsory licence. It is therefore perfectly possible that they will encounter more difficulties than other countries in benefiting from any sizeable reductions in the prices of essential medicines. We, for our part, believe that an expeditious solution is a solution that would enable the situation within the WTO to be resolved before the end of the year.

The WTO Council for TRIPS has held several meetings recently. In March, the Union submitted a communication proposing two courses of action. The first of these is based on the interpretation of Article 30 of the intellectual property agreement and the other is based on an amendment to Article 31. We were the only WTO member to propose a written document adopting a clear position. Other Members made oral proposals and four options were put forward: either to interpret Article 30, to amend Article 31, to declare a moratorium on the settling of disputes or, finally, to make provision for a system of derogations.

A further meeting of the Council for TRIPS took place last week and at that meeting we submitted a new document, based on our reflections and on our examination of proposals from various quarters, suggesting an amendment to Article 31. We propose that a new paragraph be added to that article, establishing a clearly defined exception to the restriction laid down by Article 31 in the area of the granting of export licences for pharmaceutical products manufactured under compulsory licence.

We believe that, as things stand at present, Article 30, which is an alternative, only authorises overly limited exceptions to the rights attached to exclusive licences, and that the solution we envisaged at Doha goes further than the limits laid down by Article 30. Moreover, we must take into account the positions of our partners, and propose a solution that we think will ultimately be acceptable to most of the members of the WTO. With this in mind, an amendment to Article 31 would have better prospects than a clarification of Article 30, in so far as no member of the WTO has ruled out the possibility of amending Article 31, whereas some members, and not the least important ones, are firmly opposed to any clarification of Article 30. The developing countries in question, which are our main concern, have indicated that they would be willing to look at the amendment to Article 31 that we have proposed.

In fact, we believe that adding a provision to this agreement on intellectual property would provide a clear, legally reliable and permanent solution that would not disrupt the current regulatory framework, i.e. that of Article 31. This agreement, reworded in the way we are proposing, would clearly specify that a country that is unable to produce a medicine may ask another country to grant it a licence for export purposes. This proposal seems to us to be the most simple and, ultimately, the most likely to resolve the problem raised in the Doha Declaration which has forced us to seek a solution to this issue. That is our position. Other views are being expressed in Geneva and we shall continue, in the spirit in which we have acted so far, to try to find a solution that will reconcile the major principles of intellectual property, on the one hand, with the possibility, on the other, of enabling the poorest countries to have access to the medicines which are absolutely essential to them.

  van den Berg (PSE). – (NL) I should like to thank the Commissioner for his answer. In my view, Parliament has fought with him a successful battle towards a breakthrough in Doha on this score. He rejects a waiver, a moratorium or an exemption by way of solution, and we share his view on this.

Regarding Articles 30 and 31, he states that he intends to obtain support so that what we set out to do there can actually be achieved. Needless to say, we are aware in this House of the pressure of the United States and also of a number of Member States. The pharmaceutical industry is probably behind this. What is now up for discussion is whether it is possible, if use is made of Article 31 – and you are aware that we are now awaiting the legal opinion which we have requested as Parliament – to assume that the country that at some stage asks to import a licence from a different country, is allowed to take this decision regarding its own health situation at its own discretion. Indeed, many legal experts claim that, where Article 31 is concerned, this decision is no longer in the hands of the country in question but is to be taken at WTO level. We would like to have certainty in this area.

  Lamy, Commission. – (FR) In principle, Mr van den Berg, I admit that the way in which you present the problem is correct. As I have already pointed out, we have to reconcile the major principles of intellectual property with the ability of those countries which do not have a pharmaceuticals industry to obtain supplies of generic medicines by means of imports.

We do not think that the derogation is a good idea, because it is only a temporary solution which, as it were, merely patches up the problem in the hope that better days will come. I do not believe that this is a good way of reconciling, in the eyes of the public, these two imperatives which we have to obey.

We favour Article 31 over Article 30. In the case of Article 31, the problem of determining whether the country requesting imports of generic medicines is experiencing an emergency situation is not a question that must automatically be referred to the WTO. Together, we can formulate a restrictive definition, as we did in the case of Article 6 at Doha, of what constitutes a national emergency.

I would remind the House that, in the cases to which Article 31 applies, the country which wants to import medicines will have to ask either a developed country that has the production capability and which holds a compulsory licence, or another developing country. If the latter solution is chosen, the developing country which will be responsible for supplying the generic medicines in question will, by necessity, benefit from doing so.

I believe, therefore, that, from this point of view, there is no risk of the system being too restricted, which is, I believe, what is worrying you. On the contrary, I believe that it is precisely by making use of Article 30 that we would multiply the imperatives involved, which would make access to the medicines more difficult.

Questions to Commissioner Wallström

  President. –

Question No 60 by Mihail Papayannakis (H-0469/02):

Subject: Visit of delegation from Commission environment directorate to Greece

A delegation from the Commission's environment directorate recently visited Greece for the second time within a period of three months to investigate the circumstances surrounding complaints against that country.

What were the findings of the investigation into the complaints? What was the Commission delegation's assessment of the infringements of Community environment law in Greece? In particular, did the Greek authorities notify the Commission's delegation of the measures they have taken to comply with the Court of Justice ruling concerning Greece's failure to protect the Caretta caretta turtle?

  Wallström, Commission. – In the context of meetings between the Commission and national authorities in order to examine the application of European Community law in Member States – the so-called package meetings – a delegation from the Commission Environment Directorate-General visited Greece in May this year.

The main objective of the meeting was to debate on issues related to atmospheric pollution. In particular the Commission inquired about measures adopted by the Greek authorities to transpose and implement Directive 96/61, the so-called IPPC, and reviewed technical issues related to infringements and complaints concerning bad application of Directive 84/360, concerning combating air pollution from industrial plants. In addition, the Greek authorities provided updated information on several other infringements, including the caretta caretta case – the loggerhead sea turtle.

The Greek authorities have promised to submit to the Commission detailed replied for all those cases. The information contained in those replies will be assessed with a view to checking whether Greece has respected its obligations under European Community environmental legislation. In particular regarding the measures to comply with the Court's judgment concerning failure to establish and implement an effective system of strict protection of the caretta caretta sea turtle, the Greek authorities have described the system of protection which contains the legislative and concrete protection measures. The written notification to the Commission is under way.

  Papayannakis (GUE/NGL). – (EL) Commissioner, you said, did you not, if I understood you correctly, that you have not yet evaluated the answers given to you in Greece? None of them? I should like in particular to take the example which you too referred to of the caretta caretta. I do not know what you have been given in writing, but dozens of testimonies and on site inspections, including by me personally and by environmental organisations, have now proven that what is down in writing is not being applied. And never has. Be that as it may, will you be evaluating the answers given to you?

  Wallström, Commission. – We have not yet received the replies, the notifications, from Greece. We expect the notification on the caretta caretta case in July. For the rest of the issues raised in this so-called "package meeting", we expect the replies before the end of this year.

We will have a chance to assess them as soon as we have received them and then come back on these issues.

  President. –

Question No 61 by Nuala Ahern (H-0482/02):

Subject: Tritium measured off the Welsh coast

What assessment has the Commission made of the report by the United Kingdom National Radiological Protection Board, issued in May 2002, on the levels of radioactive tritium measured in the sea off the west coast of Wales and the Bristol Channel; and has measurement of tritium releases from Member State countries been part of the Commission's Marina II radio-ecological study?

  Wallström, Commission. – The Commission is aware of the scientific paper published in the journal Radiation Protection Dosimetry of May 2002 and the related publication of the UK National Radiological Protection Board on the same issue. Both publications refer to the RIFE report (radioactivity in food and the environment) issued by the UK Food Standards Agency and the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency. This report includes measured concentrations in seafood off the Welsh coast and Bristol Channel near Cardiff.

The results of these investigations show enhanced levels of tritium in fish and mussels caught close to an industrial facility manufacturing radioactive materials for use in medicine, research and industry. The basic safety standards directive 96/29/Euratom gives those coefficients per unit of intake by ingestion both for organically-bound tritium and for tritiated water. Even assuming seafood consumption above average, the measured levels of tritium in fish from Cardiff Bay result in radiation doses far below the annual dose limit for the members of the general public.

References to tritium releases into the marine environment and to the issue of organically-bound tritium are included in the Marina II study on the radiological exposure of the European Community from radioactivity in North European marine waters. This study is due to be published at the end of August 2002.

  Ahern (Verts/ALE). – Thank you for your answer Commissioner. I take it, and I would like an expression of concern from you, that nuclear regulators have miscalculated the health risks from one of the world's most widespread nuclear pollutants. Adults are twice as likely as previously thought to develop cancer after being exposed to tritium and this particular tritium was discharged by a factory.

However, the discharge of Tritium from the BNFL Sellafield reprocessing plant in Cumbria and Chapelcross Nuclear Power Station, to mention only one discharge, is extremely large – millions of litres of tritiated water and air every year. In fact the dose could be 12 times more dangerous for children according to the recent study.

I think this is a major cause for concern, since the regulators have miscalculated. I am glad that you say that it will be referred to in the Marina II study. But as these facts have only recently come to light, it seems unlikely that the study can look very closely at the issue and I would like an assurance from you that it will be seriously followed up.

  Wallström, Commission. – There is always reason for concern when we see changes and an increase of discharges into our waters. We also assume that the UK authorities will look at this seriously. I understand that they have initiated research on the problem and will look at the reasons for the increase in the doses.

It is also an issue for the Commission in the sense that EU legislation does not provide for maximum permitted levels of tritium in foodstuffs. Together with the International Commission on Radiological Protection and with a group of experts set up under the terms of Article 31, the Commission is currently discussing the possibility of fixing maximum permitted levels of tritium in foodstuffs. That is an important piece of information for you and of course the Marina II study will also have to look into this issue. We take it seriously, we will continue our discussions and we will definitely follow up. It is an obligation for us to follow these cases very closely and to make sure that we act accordingly.

Question to Commissioner Fischler

  President. –

Question No 62 by Carlos Bautista Ojeda (H-0471/02):

Subject: 'Pescaíto Frito'

Does the Commission know whether Fisheries Commissioner Franz Fischler knows what ‘pescaíto frito’ (fried fish typical of Andalucia) is? Does the Commission know where the ‘pescaíto’ which most of the citizens of southern Europe currently consume comes from? Does it have proof as to which fleets are now catching the ‘pescaíto’ which is eaten every day in Andalucia? Does it have proof of the level of commitment to the environment and preservation of stocks displayed by the third countries which are now catching our ‘pescaíto’?

Is the Commission aware of the fact that the fleets which caught ‘pescaíto frito’ until a few years ago were the only fleets which respected the biological rest periods, and are now the only fleets lying in the breakers’ yards?

If so, why this insistence on turning the same screw ever tighter with its Common Fisheries Policy (CFP), which by means of commercial agreements of whatever kind, favours and encourages these third states which do not respect biological rest periods nor stocks, and which moreover allow enormous commercial industrial fleets, some of them belonging to European shipowners, to catch the ‘pescaíto frito’ which we eat?

Does the Commission not believe that in reality, its CFP proposals, hiding behind a false sustainability criterion, are actually seeking to wipe out the in-shore fishing fleet, the only one which generates employment and respects the environment and replace it with an industrial fleet with a far greater fishing potential, which does not respect stocks?

  Fischler, Commission. – (DE) Mr President, honourable Members, in reply to the honourable Member's question, may I assure you that I not only know what ‘pescaíto frito’ is, I have also eaten this dish in Spain on several occasions, and I also know that ‘pescaíto frito’ is often prepared using fish which are below the minimum size prescribed in Community law. The fish used for this dish are caught both in third countries and by the European fleet. However, the same minimum sizes apply both to fish landed from the Community and to imported fish and it the responsibility of the Member State's authorities to monitor this in both cases. I should like to point out here that we concluded, following numerous inspections in Spain, that Spanish monitoring leaves a great deal to be desired because large quantities of undersized fish are reaching the markets. We therefore drew the logical conclusions and instituted infringement proceedings against Spain.

The Commission is also aware that this fish used to be fished by the Spanish fleet under the Morocco agreement. As you know, we have been unable to renew this agreement, but the Community has recognised its responsibility and has agreed on measures for the benefit of the ships and crews affected.

Finally, may I point out that we also make a clear commitment to responsible, sustainable fisheries in non-Community waters in our proposed reform of the common fisheries policy. We want to use our fisheries agreements to help third countries manage stocks in a sustainable manner. And that of course precludes catching and selling juvenile fish.

In reply to your final question, I must reply quite categorically that our reform proposals do not seek in any way whatsoever to wipe out part of the Community fleet. There is nothing in our proposals which gives cause to believe that industrial fleets are being given preference over small in-shore fisheries. We recommend reducing fishing efforts, by which I mean the number of days at sea, wherever necessary, i.e. where stocks are endangered. Each Member State can then decide how these days at sea are to be divided between ships, and hence between larger and smaller ships, on the basis of social and economic considerations.

  Bautista Ojeda (Verts/ALE). – (ES) Commissioner, with all due respect, the phrase I used, "pescaíto frito", is a colloquial phrase that we use in Andalusia to describe fresh fish that is caught and eaten daily, fried in top-quality oil, as you know.

The truth is that the combination of the failed negotiations with Morocco and the CFP proposals with a view to sustainability, which also concerns us, is going to mean that small-scale fishing will almost entirely disappear. My question, Commissioner, would be, given this concern for sustainability, would you accept my invitation and that of my Group to visit Andalusian fishing ports, to come fishing with us for a couple of days, to see the problems of sustainability, the social and economic problems and the alternatives? I think this is very important if your position is to be credible and it would be fundamental with regard to the citizens and all the criteria that we, who defend fishing, also want to incorporate.

We are worried about the fishing-grounds – we know they are depleted – but, as you are well aware, we are leaving the sea in the hands of industrial fleets, who are the ones that do not respect biological rest periods, and whose nets we cannot monitor, as we do with small-scale fishermen.

I respectfully repeat our invitation, Mr Fischler.

  Fischler, Commission. – (DE) Mr President, my dear sir, thank you very much for your invitation to visit you in Andalusia. I love that part of Spain, as you know. We must make the necessary arrangements, although basically I am, of course, prepared to visit Andalusia in the same way as I travel to numerous other coastal regions in the Community.

But back to the subject in hand. I understand your concern about small-scale fisheries and it is true that these smaller ships tend to be at a competitive disadvantage compared with large ships. When we decided on the fisheries reform proposals in the Commission, we also said that we were prepared to discuss continuing help for these small in-shore fishing fleets in particular with the Member States, and of course with Parliament, during Council negotiations. We take exactly the same view here. I too feel that we must do everything we can to sustain these small in-shore fishing fleets.

  Μarinos (PPE-DE). – (EL) Mr President, I too should like to voice my concern and ask the Commissioner a question. I am an amateur fisherman and I have noticed, as I think most people have that, in the Mediterranean in particular, there are no controls on fisheries by large trawlers whose nets literally fleece the seabed, destroying flora as well as fish spawn and eggs and wiping out all forms of life. What I want to know is if anyone is actually taking an interest in whether the fish they catch are large or small. Mind you, the size of the fish is no longer an issue; all the fauna on the seabed are being wiped out. And I should like to know, because I often see these vessels literally laying waste to the seabed, in Greece at least, if they are allowed to do so and if there are any plans to take measures to halt this wastage.

  Fischler, Commission. – (DE) Mr President, honourable Members, my dear sir, the question of how to guarantee sustainable fisheries in the Mediterranean is, without doubt, a very important one. May I reiterate that you will see in the proposals which we have submitted that we plan to table a separate communication to Parliament and the Council dealing solely with an action plan especially for the Mediterranean.

It deals with far more than the question of the industry or the large ships which also fish in parts of the Mediterranean. The problem here, unfortunately, is that we have far fewer scientific data on the Mediterranean than we do in comparison, for example, with the north-east Atlantic and there is no institution which compares with the ICES for the north-east Atlantic. So the first problem is how or where we can obtain the data needed to make reasonable management decisions.

The second problem in the Mediterranean, as you quite rightly said, is that the Mediterranean is fished both by Community ships and by those of other countries bordering it. In the Aegean, as we all know, there are repeated problems with one of Greece's neighbours. We also need to see if we can introduce and involve third countries in regional management in this area. And finally, we then need to look into the specific social and socio-economic aspects of Mediterranean fisheries.

But one thing is clear: compared with the Atlantic, the proportion of small ships is several times bigger in the Mediterranean and most fishing is done by these small ships, not big ones.

  President. –

Question No 63 by John Joseph McCartin (H-0474/02):

Subject: Introduction of new fishing capacity through Irish fleet

Can the Commission comment on the accuracy of newspaper reports that a new fishing vessel, the 'Atlantic Dawn' (144 metres long and with the greatest fishing capacity in the world), has been incorporated into the Irish fishing fleet register and is being permitted to fish for Irish quota? Can the Commission explain whether existing tonnage to match the capacity of this newly-introduced vessel is being taken out or has been decommissioned, and has the European Commission discontinued its legal proceedings against the Irish Government on the grounds that the introduction of this much fishing capacity was in violation of the Common Fisheries Policy?

  Fischler, Commission. – (DE) Mr President, honourable Members, the Atlantic Dawn is duly entered on the official Irish fishing fleet register and has therefore also been entered on the Community fleet register. However, the activities of this fishing vessel are a matter for the Irish Government, not the Commission. The Member States are required to comply with the targets for fishing capacity and fishing effort set for them in the multiannual guidance programme. As long as these values are not exceeded, the Member States can deploy their registered ships as and how they choose. The Atlantic Dawn is entitled to fish in European waters under the Irish quotas.

As far as MGP targets are concerned, Ireland has already exceeded capacity targets in its pelagical segment, which is why the Commission instituted infringement proceedings against it. Ireland then reduced its capacities in this segment and notified the Commission that it would withdraw further fishing capacity by the end of this month in order to attain the target. We shall see if it in fact does so during the course of this month and shall monitor these developments very closely.

  McCartin (PPE-DE). – While in many ways we welcome the progress that the introduction of this particular vessel brings and we welcome modern technology, in a situation where fishermen cannot find sufficient stocks in order to justify the capacity that was already there, it seems strange to introduce a new vessel which may be licensed and accepted and which could catch half or perhaps two-thirds of the entire Irish quota.

My understanding is that the European Commission initiated proceedings against the Irish Government with respect to this vessel and that these proceedings have now been withdrawn. Could the Commission explain what has changed and why it does not see any illegality at the moment, whereas a year ago it seemed that the Irish Government was in breach of the common fisheries policy regulations by allowing this vessel to fish in Community waters?

  Fischler, Commission. – (DE) Mr President, may I briefly reiterate exactly what is at issue here. The fact is that the Irish Government applied for this ship, which is a very big ship, one of the biggest ships there is, to be included in the fleet register, but it took some time at the beginning for Ireland to comply with the terms of registration. According to the notifications received by the Commission, these terms were met or the Irish Government stated that it would meet them. It then turned out that MGP targets were being exceeded in the pelagical segment. At which point we instituted proceedings. The Irish Government then notified us during the course of these proceedings that it was making further capacity reductions so as to ensure that it did not exceed overall capacity in this segment in the future. If it does so, we no longer have any grounds on which to institute proceedings.

But, at the end of the day, this is a decision for the Irish Government. If the Irish Government feels that it is better from its point of view to allocate the corresponding quotas to this huge ship, and hence smaller quotas to smaller ships, there is nothing we can do about it. We have no legal authority to do so.

  McKenna (Verts/ALE). – On a point of order, Mrs Jackson's question No 67 should have been taken with this. Perhaps if Mrs Jackson comes in there will be time for her to ask a supplementary because the two are on the same issue.

I should like to ask the Commissioner whether Mr McHugh, the owner of the Atlantic Dawn, has applied to use the EU-Mauritanian fisheries agreement? The Atlantic Dawn and the Veronica are landing in Las Palmas. Since the Veronica is now a flag-of-convenience vessel, what is the Commission doing to stop the Veronica from offloading in Las Palmas?

When you mention the reduction of capacity in the Irish fleet, you are overlooking the fact that the Veronica is the reduction and that it has now gone to a flag-of-convenience country where it can fish without any controls whatsoever. I thought the Commission was going to come down hard on this whole issue.

Quite frankly, you have not answered the question by Mr McCartin in relation to the fact that you have taken legal action against Ireland on two counts, one of which concerned the registration of this vessel. It was registered as a merchant marine vessel and then given a fishing licence. The Irish Government was wrong and now Mr McHugh has found ways to get around the Commission to basically facilitate himself. As far as I can see, the registration problem still stands because it is now in the fleet but it was irregular to begin with.

  President. – (ES) Mrs McKenna, I am indeed aware that Question No 67 is similar to Question No 63, but the Commission communicated it to us as a separate question and it has been accepted. In any event, Mrs Jackson is also going to ask a supplementary question and I think that will be the last answer to this question.

  President. –

Question No 67 by Caroline F. Jackson (H-0505/02):

Subject: The 'Atlantic Dawn' and the Mauritanian fishery

Can the Commission confirm that the Irish vessel ‘Atlantic Dawn’, based in Las Palmas, is currently fishing in Mauritanian waters under the EU fishing agreement, or private agreement, with that country, having got round the rules for the size of trawlers by registering not as a trawler but as a merchant ship? If so, what is the Commission doing about it, since it cannot pass all the responsibility for this to the Mauritanian authorities?

  Fischler, Commission. – (DE) Mr President, as you quite rightly said, the question which the honourable Member just asked is in fact identical to the question raised by Mrs Jackson. I am quite prepared to answer these questions jointly now. Perhaps I should do so straight away.

The fact is that a size restriction of 9 500 GRT was introduced for the pelagical segment in the agreement with Mauritania, thereby preventing the Atlantic Dawn from fishing under the Mauritania agreement. However, that has nothing to do with flags of convenience. The Atlantic Dawn then made private arrangements and is fishing in Mauritanian waters under a private licence. The owner of the Atlantic Dawn obtained this licence directly from the Mauritanian Government and it is therefore beyond our control. We can only monitor the part covered by the agreement. Any agreements over and above that which the Mauritanian Government concludes with other countries or private individuals are beyond our control.

In order to clear up any misunderstanding on the question of infringement proceedings, I said that Ireland is outside the MGP targets for the pelagical segment. Which is why these proceedings have not been withdrawn. But the Atlantic Dawn has been properly registered, which is why proceedings against the Atlantic Dawn have been suspended.

  Jackson (PPE-DE). – The Atlantic Dawn seems to be something of a mystery ship, operating off the coast of Ireland, Mauritania or wherever. I have a very simple question for the Commission. Was the Atlantic Dawn built with the aid of money which originated in the European Union budget, going to Ireland to help with this, or not? If so, how much money?

  President. – Commissioner, you may reply now or after the next question, if you need further inspiration.

  Fischler, Commission. – (DE) Mr President, I do not need five minutes for such straightforward questions. The fact is that the Atlantic Dawn was not subsidised by the Community and no Community money is therefore involved. However, I should point out that this is not something which only applies to an Irish ship. Dutch ships, for example, are fishing in Moroccan waters under private licences and here again we have no authority to intervene. We have to abide by national laws here. We cannot go marching into Mauritania or Morocco because they have granted a private ship a licence.

  President. –

Question No 64 by Camilo Nogueira Román (H-0476/02):

Subject: Fishery resources in Community waters and the Danish fleet's catches for fish meal

Denmark enjoys a privileged position as far as its fishing rights in Community waters are concerned, with a maximum allowable catch equal to that of France and Spain together. A large part of Denmark’s fishing rights concern catches used for fish meal. Commissioner Franz Fischler says that this meal is used for aquaculture, and has no influence on resources and species caught for direct human consumption.

What quantitative data exist on the total or partial use of this fish meal in aquaculture? What objective data is there to prove that these catches for industrial use do not affect the state of fishery resources for human consumption?

  Fischler, Commission. – (DE) Mr President, the use of fish meal and fish oil in aquaculture has increased considerably over recent years, mainly because aquaculture per se has increased considerably. According to figures from the international association of fish meal and fish oil manufacturers, 10% of fish meal and 16% of fish oil were used in aquaculture in 1990. By 2000, these figures had risen to 35% for fish meal and 60% for fish oil and we may safely assume that this growth will continue.

Danish landings processed into fish meal and fish oil total between 1 and 1.5 million tonnes of fish a year. The main species are sandeel at 60%, sprats at around 20%, Norway pout at around 6% and blue whiting, again at around 6%. All these stocks are managed with TACs and quotas based on scientific reports from the ICES. The ICES evaluates the state of the most important commercially exploited fish stocks every year. These evaluations show that by-catches of table fish by industrial fisheries are now very small and that, as a result, there is little effect on the development of stocks of table fish. Before 1996, industrial fisheries in the North Sea, the Skagerrak and the Kattegat were still taking by-catches of herring, whiting and haddock. In 1996, the Community introduced by-catch rules and a comprehensive monitoring and control system and, since then, by-catches really have fallen massively and no longer present any risk to table fish. The working party within the ICES on the repercussions of fishing on ecosystems has also evaluated the indirect impact of the large quantities caught by industrial fisheries on the marine food chain and has found no evidence that catches of species used industrially limit the productivity of table fish stocks. As far as fisheries of blue whiting are concerned, the ICES has warned that there may be fairly large by-catches of juveniles of the same species. We have therefore already written to the ICES asking for scientific advice on how these by-catches can be avoided in future.

  Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE). – (PT) Mr President, Commissioner, I really must confess, before asking my question, that the figures I gave for Denmark’s catches in comparison with those of Spain and France were wrong: I did not mean to say Spain and France together, but six times more than Spain and six times more than France. Denmark has, according to what is known as the principle of relative stability, 44% of the fishing rights in Community waters, whereas the sum of France and Spain’s fishing rights add up to only 13%. I find the figures supplied by Commissioner Franz Fischler extremely confusing and I hope that the working group studying the impact on resources for human consumption finishes its work before the reform of the common fisheries policy is implemented.

In any event, my question is the following: some countries in the European Union are clearly given preferential treatment at the moment when it comes to catches and I ask you whether any reform of the CFP is possible without implementing the principle of relative stability, which is so anti-European? What political reasons exist for maintaining it, as stated in the Green Paper and as stated now in the reform of the common fisheries policy?

  Fischler, Commission. – (DE) Mr President, my dear sir, the assertion that Denmark fishes six times as much as Spain and France together sounds more like rumour-mongering to me, but there is little point, I think, in our hurling figures at each other. I suggest we proceed as follows: we shall send you data on the extent and specific quantities of industrial fisheries in writing. Then you will have it all down in black and white. I think that is the easiest thing to do.

The question you touched on in connection with relative stability is an altogether different matter. There are basically two issues here: first the continuation of the twelve- or six-mile zone and, secondly, relative stability in relation to the allocation of TACs and quotas. As you well know, until now there has been a special provision, which is a throwback to the accession treaties of Spain and Portugal and which expires at the end of this year, and please believe me when I say that, once this provision expires, everyone – including Spain and Portugal – will be subject to the same laws and therefore the same principles when it comes to setting TACs and quotas and the same principles will apply to access to fishing-grounds. We shall be making the arrangements, we shall be taking care of this and the first time it will affect you will be when the TACs and quotas are set at the end of this year for the coming year.

  Miguélez Ramos (PSE). – (ES) I would like to ask the Commissioner something very simple, which might have more to do with the questions asked earlier. I am rather late in asking my supplementary question.

Commissioner, do you consider to be fair the situation that you and other Members have just described – in which huge ships from the Member States are fishing in the very fishing-grounds in which the Community fleet is trying to conserve stocks – or do you believe that this is a situation we should be able to avoid, for example through a series of measures that we are now going to implement over the remaining months of debates to reform the common fisheries policy?

Do you consider it acceptable that, in the fishing-grounds abandoned by the Community fleet, or in those with very high Community requirements to conserve stocks, large ships should be putting such great pressure on stocks even if they are not receiving any Community funds?

That is my question.

  Fischler, Commission. – (DE) Mr President, my dear Madam, I would be delighted to discuss this issue because the Commission takes the overall view that there is no sense in using large sums of Community money to buy new ships and that it would be better to use the money so that poor, small fishermen facing serious economic difficulties have more of a chance in the future.

This is one of the basic concepts of our proposed reform and I am sure we shall have plenty of opportunity to discuss it.

  President. –

Question No 65 by María Izquierdo Rojo (H-0497/02):

Subject: Tobacco cultivation

How many women workers are employed in tobacco cultivation in the EU? How many young farmers are engaged in this activity?

  Fischler, Commission. – (DE) Mr President, my answer to this is as follows: of course the Commission knows how many farms grow tobacco in the European Union. There are around 100 000 tobacco farms. As for the distribution of workers in the tobacco sector according to the criteria mentioned by the honourable Member, in other words, how many of these are young farmers and how many are women, unfortunately we have no statistics on this and there are no figures I can quote in answer to your question.

  Izquierdo Rojo (PSE). – (ES) Mr President, with regard to the continued production of tobacco in Granada, I would like to know if the accession of Poland, a producer country, or trade with Zimbabwe, could lead to a reduction in the quantity of tobacco grown in the province of Granada.

The first part of the Commissioner’s response, with regard to women, is highly unsatisfactory. I can provide you with the number of women working in the tobacco sector in Granada, but it is surprising that, when the level of cultivation in Europe is so high, you, as European Commissioner for this sector, do not know the number of women – which is what I was asking you – or the number of young farmers.

In any case, I would ask you to answer my supplementary question, as it comes from the tobacco growers of Granada themselves, who are concerned because it is rumoured there that the accession of Poland and trade with Zimbabwe will be detrimental to them. It remains to be seen whether you can allay their fears.

  Fischler, Commission. – (DE) Mr President, my dear Madam, I too am sorry that I am unable to give you any information on the number of women working in tobacco cultivation, believe me. But, unfortunately, the Statistics Office does not have the figures needed to differentiate between male and female workers. Perhaps we could take the initiative of approaching the Statistics Office and suggesting that these data be broken down by gender in future.

On your other question: I fail to see why the accession of Poland to the European Union should cause any particular problems for tobacco cultivation per se in the European Union. The problem we shall face within the European Union in the future will basically be determined by the fact that there is a Parliament initiative to stop subsidising tobacco cultivation. I can see that this may be a problem, because it will obviously have social consequences on the farmers in question.

But the accession of Poland to the Community will have little effect on cultivation. There is one other important point you should bear in mind here and that is that different types of tobacco are cultivated which do not compete directly with each other.

  Miguélez Ramos (PSE). – (ES) Given that we are currently reforming the CFP, given that farmers are being encouraged to commit themselves to multifunctionality, that the rural economy is to be protected through diversification, and given that the important role played by women in this diversification was recognised, for example, at the meeting of the Agriculture Council of 27 May 2002, I would like to ask the Commissioner if he believes that perhaps the Commission should hold a similar discussion with regard to the reform of the common fisheries policy, because – as I have said many times – the number of women active in this sector is tremendous. Furthermore, those who are not directly involved play a secondary role at their husbands’ side – which is even more serious, as their work is invisible and they do not receive any social or economic recognition.

I should like to ask the Commissioner if the Commission has prepared any documents or actions in this regard.

  Fischler, Commission. – (DE) Mr President, my dear Madam, I quite agree that jobs done by women are very important in the fisheries sector, and not just in processing. A great many women work in the processing industry and in the canning industry, but they are also playing an increasing part in fishing itself. It is well worth considering special measures for women here, especially in connection with fisheries structural policy and the future of fisheries structural policy, which is all about setting subsidies, just as we have done in rural development policy.

I would rather not promise any separate document here and now, but I shall consider the matter, give it due attention and notify you of whatever action we propose.

  President. – As the time allocated to Question Time to the Commission has elapsed, and given that Question No 67 was answered together with Question No 63, Question No 66 and Questions Nos 68 to 86 will be replied to in writing.

That concludes Questions to the Commission.

(The sitting was suspended at 7.45 p.m. and resumed at 9 p.m.)

IN THE CHAIR: MRS LALUMIÈRE
Vice-President