WRITTEN QUESTION E-1430/02

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(23 May 2002)

Subject: Delays in the further development of a restrictive fisheries policy as a result of attempts to influence officials and deferring of decisions

1. Can the Commission confirm that the shaping of European fisheries policy continues to be affected by different views and demands, with, on the one hand, many fearing that sea fish stocks are rapidly diminishing as a consequence of overfishing, whilst, on the other hand, the economies of some Member States and in particular Spain and Portugal are overly dependent on fishing being maintained or even expanded?

2. Does the Commission agree that it is appropriate, with a view to pursuing a restrained fisheries policy, that those sections of the administration concerned with this policy should be as little liable as possible to be influenced by economic interests and political pressure from Member States with the greatest interest in maintaining fishing at as high a level as possible?

3. On what grounds was Steffen Smidt, the Danish official criticised by the Spanish Government, removed from his post as Director-General for Fisheries on 21 April, on full pay, bearing in mind that he had been in the post for less than three years and, prior to being removed from office, had not expressed any wish for a change of post?

4. For what reason did the Commission did not proceed in April with taking decisions on the reform of fisheries policy?

5. Has pressure been put by the Spanish Government on members of the Commission and/or officials with a view to weakening or obstructing a restrictive fisheries policy or revising the policy in Spain's favour, as stated publicly on television by the Spanish Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries?

6. Does the Commission intend to restore its credibility by making it absolutely clear, both in terms of the decisions that it takes and the make-up of the administration, that there can be no question of giving in to pressure from one or a number of interested Member States to revise the necessary proposed policy?

Source: Algemeen Dagblad, 1 May 2002.

Joint answerto Written Questions E-1430/02 and E-1563/02given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(23 July 2002)

1. It is correct and it is not surprising that there are very different views between and within Member States on the shaping of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP). Following a thorough consultation process, the Commission has identified the European interest and acted accordingly. This has resulted in the reform proposals sent to Council and Parliament.

2. Yes. Not only with this policy but with all policies. Every Commission official is required, under Article 11 of the Staff Regulations, to carry out his duties and conduct himself solely with the interests of the Communities in mind; he shall neither seek nor take instructions from any government, authority, organisation or person outside his institution. The Commission attaches great importance to the respect of this provision.

3. The decision to replace Mr Smidt has to be seen in the context of the Commission's mobility policy for senior officials. When Mr Smidt heard last autumn that his name had been mentioned in the context of this year's major rotation exercise of high officials,

on 25 November 2001 he wrote a letter to the Head of Cabinet of the Member of the Commission responsible for Personnel and Administration to confirm that he was interested in leaving the Commission in an orderly manner before the end of this Commission's mandate and indicated that a timing towards the middle of 2002 -alternatively middle of 2004- will turn out to fit best into my own intentions for the future. He also hoped that this could be taken into consideration in any conclusion that the Commission may want to draw in the meantime. The Member of the Commission responsible for Fisheries and Agriculture for his part made it clear that, while he was not seeking to replace Mr Smidt, he could accept Mr Smidt's departure provided it could take place before or after the reform of the Common Fisheries Policy and the best part of its implementation. Currently, Mr Smidt is still Director General for Fisheries. The post has been advertised on 8 May 2002. After a successor is appointed, Mr Smidt will take on the duties of an hors classe Advisor to the new Director General. Well before the drafting of the reform proposals, Mr Schmidt had been the subject of a smear campaign in various Spanish newspapers, among them Industrias Pesqueras, about his conduct as Director General. He had at some stage a rough time with the Parliaments Committee on Fisheries. However, the Member of the Commission responsible for Agriculture, Rural Development and Fisheries, stood always by his Director General and refused to give in to outside criticism.

4. The discussion of the proposals for the reform of the CFP in the Commission produced a number of additional questions which had not come up in the framework of the preliminary internal consultations. These additional questions related to the functioning of the future fleet policy and the relation to the MAGP's (multi-annual guidance programmes), to the biological status of a number of important fishstocks in Community waters, to the relation between scientific advice and measures to be taken, to industrial fishing, to the role and functioning of the Joint Inspection Structure, to the future structural policy in fisheries, to agreements with third countries and to the role and functioning of Regional Advisory Committee's in particular in connection with the institutional framework of the Community. In particular it was deemed necessary to expand the socio-economic impact analyses made in order to show the effects of the reform proposals on the fishing sector. There was also an intensive discussion on the need for additional financial means for scrapping fishing vessels and for socio-economic measures to help the fishing industry adjust to structural changes. The revealed need for additional information and additional work to be undertaken showed clearly that, although the substance was right, some more time was necessary to improve the wording of the draft proposals. The postponement by several more weeks was, however, due to the schedule of the Member of the Commission responsible for Fisheries and Agriculture, who in fact missed a few Commission meetings due to the informal meeting of the Agriculture Council in Spain and one important meeting, which had long been scheduled with the Prime Minister of Germany.

5. None of the positions expressed by the various interests concerned in the late stages of the reform preparations, after the conclusion of the formal consultation period (Greenpaper) orally, in writing and, most often, through the media had any impact whatsoever on the Commission's determination to act pursuing only the general interest and on the decision of the Commission, which approved those proposals without substantive change.

6. In proposing the reform of the CFP, the Commission has made full use of its right of initiative and proved its independence as established by the Treaties. While open to input from consultations, which have provided a number of good ideas, the Commission has proved impervious to any suggestion that could have led the draft proposal tabled by the Member of the Commission responsible for Fisheries and Agriculture to deviate from the general interest. Therefore asking it to restore its credibility is a procès d'intention that is totally unsubstantiated and unjustified.