CommissionhasofferedallitsassistancetotheItalianPresidencyandtheCouncilwithaviewtoensuring
thatthenegotiationsonthetwooutstandinglegislativeproposalscanbefinishedassoonaspossible,butinanycasebythenewdeadlinesetbytheEuropeanCouncilinThessaloniki.
4. OneresponsebyanumberofMemberStatestounauthorisedmigrationistheregularisationof
foreignersresidingillegallyontheirterritory.Differentpracticesandproceduresareused;somearecarriedoutonaregularbasiswithoutanytimelimitationandothersareone-offproceduresorprogrammeswhich,however,mayberepeatedfromtimetotime.Whileprecisefiguresarenotavailable,astudyofsuchpracticesineightMemberStates(
1)(Belgium,Denmark,Greece, Spain,France,Italy,Netherlands,
UnitedKingdom)carriedoutbyresearchersattheUniversitéLibredeBruxellesconcludedthatovertheperiod1973to1999some1845000personsintotalwereregularised.FurtherprogrammeshavesincebeencarriedoutinGreece,Spain,Italy,LuxembourgandPortugal.TheCommissiondoesnothaveprecisefiguresonthenumbersofthoseregularisedsince1999.SomeMemberStatesfixquotasfortheadmissionoflabourmigrants.Insomecasestheseareoverallannualtotals,inothersquotasmaybefixedwithin
bilateralagreementswiththirdcountries,bysectororwithintheframeworkof‘greencard’systemsor
otherarrangements.OtherMemberStatesdonotfixquotasbutissueworkpermitsfollowingproceduresrelatedtodemandinthenationallabourmarket.Atpresent,theCommissiondoesnothavecompleteinformationonquotanumberswheretheyexist.
5. The extent to which access to programmes organised by educational establishments in the
Communityareopentothird-countrynationalsisamatterfortheMemberStatesand,insomecases,fortheestablishmentsthemselves.Buton7October2002theCommissionadoptedaproposalunderthecommonimmigrationpolicyforadirectiveontheconditionsofentryandresidenceofthird-countrynationalsforthepurposesofstudies,vocationaltrainingorvoluntaryservicewiththeaimofpromotingtheadmissionofthepersonsconcernedbytheauthoritiesresponsibleforentryandresidenceofforeignersoncetheyareadmittedbyaneducationalestablishment.
(1) DeBruycker,Ph.‘RegularisationofIllegalAliensintheEuropeanUnion’,BrusselsBruylant,2000.
(2004/C58E/158) WRITTENQUESTIONE-2190/03
byJoséRibeiroeCastro(UEN)totheCommission
(2July2003)
Subject:Fisheries/dashWesternwaters/dashPublicanxietyabouttheimminentincursionofSpanishfisheries
intoPortuguesecoastalwaters
Followingonfrommylastquestion(E-2153/03(1)),Iwishtodrawattentiontoanotherarticlefroman
independentsourceonthematteratissue,publishedinthePortuguesequalitypress.Toquotepartofthearticle:ThefishingepisodehasrecurredatintervalssincetheearlydaysofPortugal’smembershipofwhatwasthentheEEC.Thereisnostoppingourpartners.IclearlyrememberthatwhenourcountrywasstillnegotiatingtojointheEuropeaneconomicarea(andreceivingsubstantial‘pre-accession’financialaid),themostperceptivefolkinBrusselswerealreadysayingthatfisherieswastobePortugal’srealquidproquo
foritsCommunitypartners.‘Theydon’tmindsendingmoneytoPortugalorhelpingwiththisorthat,
because,thankstofisheries/dashinotherwords,futureaccesstoPortuguesewaters/dashtheywillbeamplyrewardedforthesupportthattheyaregivingnow’,aPortuguesejournalistworkinginBrusselstoldmeintheearly1980s.Somuchfornationalwealth.ThemoneyofexchangewhichourCommunitypartnerswillbedemandingtothetuneofhalfasmuchagain.Because,ofcourse,itisnotallhandouts,contrarytowhatotherswouldsooftenhaveusbelieve.Therecomesatimewhenpeoplehavetopay.Theypaywithsuch assets as they might possess: in our case, that means the sea. An awful lot of sea. Spaniards,Dutchmen,andDanesarequeuingupfortheiradmissiontickets.Andtheyhaveamightyfishingarmadacapable,withhalfthecrewnumbers,ofcatchingtwiceorthreetimesasmuchasthePortuguese.Itisfortunatethatwearestilllaggingbehindbecausethatenablesustolandalittlefreshfishtoeatandselland,atthesametime,maintainreasonablestocksintheseathatcanregenerateattheirnaturalpace.That6.3.2004EN C58E/143 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanUnion
issomethingwhichhasalreadydisappearedfromseasinotherpartsoftheworld,whichhavebeenfished
drybyfishingtechnologyandtherelentlessbusinesstacticsofthe‘bigboys’.Thesamethingisindangerofhappeninginour200-mileexclusivezoneifandwhenitisinvadedbyallthoseEuropeanships.Bystoppingthemwewouldnotjustbelookingafterourselvesandournationalwealth;wewouldbehelpingtopreserveaheritagewhichbelongstothewholeworldandtowhichwe/dashbackwardthoughwemaybe/dashposelittleornothreat(JoaquimFidalgo,Público,18June2003).
Thoughperfectlyunderstandableinviewoftheseriousnessofthematter,theimpassionedtoneofthe
articleisnottheessentialpoint.
/dash IstheCommissionawareofthestronghostilitytotheUnionwhichtheunfairandinepthandlingof
thismattercouldpromptamongbroadsectionsofthepublicinMemberStates,notleastinPortugal?
/dash Doesitrealisethatnoonecansimplystandbyandacceptasituationinwhich,inthenameof
‘equality’thatexistsonlyapparentlyandtheconceptofso-called‘non-discrimination’,anattemptistobemadetosubjectboththePortuguesefisheriessectorandPortuguesecoastalseasuptothe200-milelimittoarrangementswhich,allthingsconsidered,giventhepolicythathasbeenpursuedforyearsattheinstigationoftheUnionandtheCommunities,wouldinfactdiscriminateagainstthePortuguese?
/dash Howdoesitrespondtothecomplaintsthatfreeaccesstotheseasinquestionwillseriouslyjeopardise
thePortugueseandCommunityfisheryresourceswhichhavebeenconservedsocarefullyandinanexemplaryfashionthroughtheyears,entailinghigheconomicandsocialcoststhathavebeenbornesolelybyPortugal’sfishermenanditsfisheriessector?
(1) OJC51E,26.2.2004,p.210.
AnswergivenbyMrFischleronbehalfoftheCommission
(1August2003)
In the reply to the Honourable Member’s Written Question E-2153/03, the Commission has already
outlinedthegeneralandbasicprincipleoftheCommonFisheriesPolicythatCommunityfishingvesselshave equal access to waters beyond 12 nautical miles off the baselines and why the transitionalarrangementsforPortuguesecontinentalwatersinInternationalCouncilfortheExplorationoftheSea(ICES)areaIXcannotbeupheld.
TheCommonFisheriesPolicyadoptedbytheCommunitybasedonArticle37oftheECTreatyaimsat
sustainablemanagementoffisheriesresources.AccordingtotheCommonFisheriesPolicyallwatersunderthesovereigntyorjurisdictionoftheMemberStatesareregardedasCommunitywaters,exceptforwatersaroundtheoverseascountriesandterritorieslistedinAnnexIItotheECTreaty.GiventhatPortugalisaMemberStateoftheCommunity,PortuguesewatersarethereforealsoCommunitywaters,inexactlythesamewayasisthecaseforDanish,SpanishorDutchwaters.InCommunitywaters,conservationandothermeasuresregardingfisheriesaretakeninaccordancewithCommunityprocedures,based/dashasinallCommunitypolicies/dashontheprincipleofnon-discrimination.
TheCommissioncanassuretheHonourableMemberthatitisconcernedtoensuretheconservationof
fisheriesresourcesinPortuguesewaters,asmuchasinanyotherareaoftheCommunity.Ifthereareconservation problems in Portuguese waters, they should indeed be regulated through conservationmeasures adopted at Community level. The Common Fisheries Policy provides us with the adequateinstrumentstodoso.TheCommissionisalwayspreparedtoexamineclaimsofthiskindandtotakeanynecessaryaction.HowevertheCommissiondoesnotbelievethatconservationpurposesmaybeachieved
simplybydenyingfishingaccesstovesselsfromotherMemberStates.
FinallytheremovalofthepreviousdivisionofICESareaIX,where themainbulkofthePortuguese
continentalwatersissituated,doesnotmeanthatnewquotaswillbeopenedforotherMemberStatesinthisarea.ItsimplymeansthatMemberStateswhichalreadyhavequotasinareaIXwillbeabletotakethemanywhereinthisarea,exceptforthewaterswithin12nauticalmilesfromthecoastswhichcontinuetobereservedforlocalfisheries.C58E/144 EN6.3.2004 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanUnion