WRITTEN QUESTION E-1563/02 by Richard Corbett (PSE) to the Commission. Fisheries.
Date: 2002-06-03
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European Commission, European official, common fisheries policy, interinstitutional relations (EU), operation of the Institutions, personnel administration, power of initiative

12.12.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 309 E/123

Does the Commission agree that it is appropriate, with a view to pursuing a restrained fisheries
2.
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?

For what reason did the Commission did not proceed in April with taking decisions on the reform of

4.
fisheries policy?

Has pressure been put by the Spanish Government on members of the Commission and/or officials
5.
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?

Does the Commission intend to restore its credibility by making it absolutely clear, both in terms of
6.
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.

(2002/C 309 E/146)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1563/02

by Richard Corbett (PSE) to the Commission

(3 June 2002)

Subject: Fisheries

Can the Commission confirm or deny reports that it postpones its internal debate on the reform of the
common fisheries policy at the request of the Presidency of the Council?

Can the Commission confirm that it does not consider its role to be the secretariat of the Council and will
it, in future, resist attempts from the Council to direct its work and undermine its right of initiative under
the Treaty?

Joint answer
to Written Questions E-1430/02 and E-1563/02
given 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

C 309 E/124

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

12.12.2002

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) (cid:1) orally, in writing and,
most often, through the media (cid:1) 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.

In proposing the reform of the CFP, the Commission has made full use of its right of initiative and
6.
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.

(2002/C 309 E/147)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1434/02

by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(23 May 2002)

Subject: EU-Mercosur relations

Rodrigo Rato, the Spanish Minister of the Economy, recently highlighted the importance of a trade
agreement between the EU and Mercosur, calling for a firmer attitude on the part of the Union. What are
the obstacles preventing the signing of this agreement, given that the EU has already signed one with