WRITTEN QUESTION E-0420/04 by Brian Simpson (PSE) to the Commission. Fluoridation of drinking water.
Date: 2004-02-17
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EC Directive, application of the law, dangerous substance, drinking water, public health, water protection, water treatment

C 84 E/584

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

3.4.2004

As far as the other two species are concerned, the information from the Honourable Member suggests that
derogations from the prohibiton to hunt these species have been granted by the Netherlands for reasons
related to crop damage caused by birds. In principle, it is possible for the Netherlands, on the basis of
Article 9(1)(a) of the Directive, to validly derogate from the provisions of Article 7 in order ‘to prevent
serious damage to crops, livestock, forests, fisheries and water’.

Pursuant to Article 9(3) and (4) of the Directive, the Netherlands is obliged to provide the Commission
regularly with a report on the implementation of Article 9. The report on the derogations for 2003 has not
yet been received by the Commission and is not due until the end of 2004. In these circumstances, it is
not evident that the Netherlands is necessarily in breach of the Directive. The Commission will examine
the report carefully once it has been received and, if necessary, take appropriate steps to ensure that the
derogations are not incompatible with the Directive. The Commission would like to emphasise that the
Member States must comply with the provisions of Article 9 as interpreted by the Court of Justice. The
Court ruled, for example, that a derogation from the general prohibition on hunting in Article 7 is only
allowed by measures which refer in sufficient detail to the factors mentioned in Article 9(1) and (2)
(see e.g. case C-118/94, WWF, judgement of 7 March 1996).

As regards the agri-environment expenditure, the Commission informs the Honourable Member that at
present the national rural development plan for the Netherlands does not contain any specific agri-
environmental measure aimed at the protection of the above-mentioned geese. With the amendment 2002
to the Rural Development Plan, that was sent on 2 April 2002, the Netherlands aimed to introduce the
packages ‘Winter migrant meadow for short stays’, ‘Winter migrant meadow for medium stays’ and ‘Winter
migrant meadow for long stays’. These packages protect the brent geese and the greater white-fronted
geese. The protection of the pink-footed goose is not included. However, by letter of 8 July 2003 the
Commission was informed on the withdrawal of the packages ‘Winter migrant meadow for short stays’,
‘Winter migrant meadow for medium stays’ and ‘Winter migrant meadow for long stays’ from the
amendment 2002. As amendments to the Rural Development Plan are negotiated at bilateral level between
the Commission and the Member State, it is not possible for the Commission to assess the extent to which
the province of Zeeland has made use of its possibilities to obtain subsidies for agricultural environment
management.

If applicable, subsidies for agricultural environment management would most probably be granted under
the Dutch Rural Development Plan 2000-2006; the Structural Funds Objective 2 Programme for South-
Netherlands, which also covers part of the Zeeland province, does not appear to be an appropriate
framework for such measures.

In the framework of the sub-programme for the ‘Euregio Scheldemond’ under the current Interreg IIIA
programme in favour of the ‘Grensregio Vlaanderen-Nederland’ a cross-border project ‘Organic farming’
(‘Grensoverschijdend biologisch boeren’) with two partners from Zeeland is being financed.

(1) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.

(2004/C 84 E/0661)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0420/04

by Brian Simpson (PSE) to the Commission

(17 February 2004)

Subject: Fluoridation of drinking water

Could the Commission say why the new Drinking Water Directive (98/83/EC (1)) continue to allows the
addition to public water supplies of a ‘priority hazardous substance’ prohibited by the Water Framework
Directive (2000/60/EC (2)), hexafluorosilicic acid,
listed in the EC Dangerous Substances Directive,
in obvious violation of its own directives,
a persistent, bioaccumulative pollutant and toxic chemical,
including Article 4(2) which prohibits Member States from adopting measures leading ‘to any increase in
the pollution of waters used for the production of drinking water’?

(1) OJ L 330, 5.12.1998, p. 32.
(2) OJ L 327, 22.12.2000, p. 1.

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84 E/585

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(23 March 2004)

Concerning dangerous substances, the Council and the Parliament have adopted a list of 33 substances or
groups of substances of which 11 have been classified as ‘priority hazardous’, 14 as ‘priority’ which are
under review and eight not ‘priority hazardous’. For the moment, hexafluorosilicic acid is not covered by
Decision No 2455/2001/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 20 November 2001 establishing the
list of priority substances in the field of water policy, and amending Directive 2000/60/EC (1).

For Council Directive 98/83/EC of 3 November 1998 on the quality of water intended for human
consumption, the approach followed in the Council Directive has been to set limit values, which should
not be exceeded, for a series of substances including fluoride; the maximum permitted levels have been
fixed on the basis of available scientific knowledge in order to protect human health. The choice of the
means to bring the quality of the drinking water in line with the Community legislation is left to the
Member States themselves.

The list of parameters of the Directive has been limited to those which are of most importance for the
quality of drinking water in the Community. The substances on the list are not the only substances which
could present a risk or even a potential threat to human health if present in drinking water. However, to
include all potential contaminants without regard to how likely or unlikely their presence may be would
have created an unworkable Directive. This would have implied disproportionate monitoring obligations
and very little gain in safety.

(1) OJ L 331, 15.12.2001.

(2004/C 84 E/0662)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0423/04

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(17 February 2004)

Subject: Closure of the Brax factory in Portugal

Brax Portuguesa, clothes-making factory, Ltd., situated in Serzedo, Vila Nova de Gaia, has just closed its
doors, throwing 450 workers on the dole. The Brax multinational, funded by German capital, has already
opened new factories in Romania and other candidate countries. The documentation which was handed
out to the Portuguese workers reveal that the company states that it has not paid salaries for the last two
months, and does not intend to pay them in subsequent months. It should be noted that the company
used Portuguese workers from Brax Portuguesa to train Romanian workers. Now it is sacking the former,
quite illegally and unacceptably, although it is retaining the factory building and other significant property
next to the factory. Brax Portuguesa obtained Community funding, and will undoubtedly continue to do so
in Romania and elsewhere.

The Commission:

1.

2.

Is it going to demand that the Brax Group reimburse the Community funding it received, if it persists
in closing down its Portuguese operations?

Is it going to refuse to give the Brax Group any further Community funding, whatever country it is in,
if it keeps the Portuguese factory shut?