Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to take this opportunity to extol the virtues of fish as a healthy food. With food scandals left, right and centre, there is surely nothing wrong with highlighting the benefits of healthy eating. Which is where fish come in. It is an established fact that an ever increasing proportion of the pro capita consumption of fish is in the form of processed products. That includes not just canned fish but the whole range of fish on offer, from smoked to frozen fish. In terms of turnover, the fish processing industry in the European Union is almost twice as large as the fisheries sector. Given the financial clout of this industry, with turnover in excess of EUR 10 billion, and its vital contribution to the food supply in the EU, I am surprised – with all due respect, Mr Fischler – that the Green Paper on the future of the common fisheries policy pays such scant attention to this sector, especially when the statistics are as follows. First, it provides almost 100 000 jobs throughout Europe. Secondly, it involves thousands of enterprises, especially small and medium-sized enterprises, often located in structurally-challenged regions with few alternative forms of employment. Thirdly, it has a long tradition of added-value processing in its many and varied forms. All this clearly illustrates that the few sentences on the fish processing industry in the Green Paper are far too little and fail to take proper account of this sector, which is why I proposed this own initiative report, to draw attention to this neglected sector and, more importantly, to test out the room for political manoeuvre here in the run up to the reform of the common fisheries policy. A hearing on the subject in the Committee on Fisheries gave us an interesting insight into the many and varied working conditions, production methods and problems in Europe. There are a few problem areas which I should like to highlight. First and foremost, the supply of raw materials. The fish-processing industry depends on imports for over 50% of its supplies. Admittedly, these are raw materials which the EU fleet cannot supply, which is why we need to improve conditions and guarantee security of supply. That includes reducing customs tariffs. Secondly, environmental measures. The profitability of the processing industry, with its piecemeal structure, has been drastically reduced in certain cases by the environmental measures taken by the EU. Environmental protection is important, whether it concerns waste water, packaging or emissions. But we need to avoid unnecessary distortions as the result of specifications coming too thick and fast. What good is the cleanest water to us, if there are no jobs left in coastal regions? Thirdly, food safety. One thing is clear; the fish-processing industry does not cause pollution and toxins. Rather, it is the victim of these, which is why it should not be left to shoulder the burden alone. Surely the purpose of consumer protection is not to set limit values on the basis of the principle: ‘Value XY might be dangerous, so let us stick a 150% safety margin on top of it’. Reliable, toxicologically proven limit values make sense, rush jobs and thrashing about in the dark do not. I should like the Member States in particular to take good note of that. Fourthly, enlargement. The candidate countries are knocking at our door. Some countries have done exemplary work on hygiene and health protection. But there are still massive problems to be resolved before adequate standards can be reached. Fifthly, fundamentals. We need more information on this sector, which is why we have called for an analysis from the Commission. The impact of aid from the FIFG must also be examined carefully, because we do not want a sector which is drip-fed by the EU, we want an industry which is vital and can hold its own in the twenty-first century. Waiving aid in favour of self-help should relate at most to areas which are highly dependent on fisheries in future. The moral of the story is that the fish-processing industry needs a higher profile in Europe. This was the opinion of the Committee on Fisheries, with just one vote against. I therefore trust that I can count on your full support for this report when we vote on it at 12 noon.

Political group: PPE-DE