Hearing of Mr Fischler

Transcription

1 1-102 Hearing of Mr Fischler IN THE CHAIR: FRIEDRICH-WILHELM GRAEFE ZU BARINGDORF Chairman. Ladies and gentlemen, we have met together for the hearing of Commission Member-designate Dr. Franz Fischler. He is well known to us in the Committee on Agriculture. Whilst you still hold office as a Commission Member, you are not here today in that capacity, but because you wish to become a Commission Member once again. For this reason, we will now put our questions so that we can then form a judgement to be issued in the form of a statement which will then be adopted in the deliberations on acceptance or rejection for the entire Commission Fischler, Commissioner-Designate. Ladies and gentlemen, firstly, I am delighted to see so many familiar faces here once again, although there are also many new representatives in this Committee. I would therefore like to briefly introduce myself. I grew up on a small farm in Austria. I studied agriculture in Vienna. I then worked academically for several years, after which I worked for nearly ten years representing agricultural interests. I was then Austrian Minister for Agriculture for more than five years, being elected twice to the Austrian Parliament. I have been a Member of the European Commission since , in which capacity I have been responsible for agriculture and rural development. You have already heard that there will be an opportunity afterwards for separate discussion of fisheries issues. I will not therefore speak now concerning these issues, but will return to them at and concern myself now with some general issues and issues relating to agriculture. I have made a genuine effort, as the Chairman has already said, to fully answer the questions which you put in writing. But now let me turn to the general questions. Firstly, the question arises as to why I am again taking up office as a Member of the present Commission and why I wish to be a Member of the future Commission? You know that the present Commission collectively resigned. I still consider the decision which was made then to be correct because it was the only way at that time and in that situation to prevent further damage to the European Union and the integration process. Nevertheless, I defended myself from the outset against blanket criticism by Commission Members and I would like to point out that the expert report cited nothing against me personally. I also believe that over a period of almost five years now I have shown that I am not guided by national outlook, but that I try to advance European integration. From the beginning I had a multinational cabinet. I have a non-austrian Cabinet leader and a non-austrian deputy-leader, and in the directorate-general for which I am responsible I have also carried out a full rotation of all deputy directors-general. In this way I have already anticipated in the present Commission what is required of the future Commission in terms of forming cabinets. Furthermore, I have also tried to increase the number of female officials. In 1995 the reality was that there were only two female department heads in the Directorate-General for Agriculture. There are now four female department heads and also one female director. I think this is an acceptable start. It is also important for me to refer to another matter, namely the preliminary findings of the Court of Auditors regarding the FAIR programme, which became public during the summer. I would like to say to you that I share the opinion of the Court of Auditors that this FAIR programme, in which three directorates-general are involved, has shown deficiencies in co-operation. In future, this will no longer be possible in the agricultural sector because the new Commission will be set up so that this FAIR programme, where it concerns agriculture or the responsibility of the Directorate-General for Agriculture, will be transferred to the Directorate-General for Research. I can also inform you that not only have I taken seriously the deficiencies which have come to light but that I have also rectified them. There is no question that back-dating contracts is a clear violation of the rules, even if no direct harm is done. However, long before the findings of the Court of Auditors, i.e. at the end of 1997, this matter was rectified and it has not recurred since. Furthermore, I would like to point out that, contrary to public claims, at no time did the Court of Auditors speak of fraudulent dealings or of double financing taking place. Now to agricultural policy. The Berlin resolutions now provide a seven-year structure for our agricultural policy to which all 15 government heads have signed up and, hence, a sound political basis for action. Whether what was resolved in Berlin is adequate, who knows? None of us are prophets. However, I would like to say one thing: we should not underestimate the importance of the reviews which will take place in the coming years. Furthermore, I also believe that we should give consideration to further possibilities for developing the Common Agricultural Policy. I am thinking in particular of possibilities for reducing the risk of fluctuations in income, or of possibilities for improving our financing instruments, or even new forms of common agriculture.

2 2 13/09/1999 If I may turn to the priorities for the coming years, these are, I believe, fairly clear. The Berlin resolutions have created the legal basis for a new rural development policy, but the second pillar, of which so much is being spoken, is still to be built; it is not yet in place. Secondly, there is no question that it is our job to also safeguard the European agricultural model internationally. Primarily this means the Millennium Round. We must ensure a multifunctional agriculture which is quality-orientated, which takes account of the environment and which, above all, places major emphasis on food safety, to say nothing of the fact that this agriculture must also be competitive. We must therefore concentrate on these central themes in the coming negotiations, not least because I believe that we must prevent a situation where the peace clause expires without an agreement having been reached. The second focal point is enlargement. Here it is primarily a matter of setting in motion the preparations for enlargement. From next year we will have 520 million euros each year to forge ahead with the preparations. However, we also need to shape trading conditions so that we draw closer together rather than start to move apart. Finally, I believe that it is of major importance that in these enlargement negotiations we develop models with which we can carry out the transition. I could say so much more here, but I will just make one more point: if we wish our agriculture to be successful in the future, we must rebuild the partially destroyed bridge of trust to the consumer. What do I mean by this? In my opinion, it is a matter of the safety of food and feedingstuffs. It is a matter of GMOs. It is a matter of quality. It is a matter of preventing contamination. All of these are themes well known to you and, although in future I will no longer bear sole responsibility, I will, together with my colleague Byrne, provide solid support to ensure that all goes well. (Applause) Goepel (PPE). Mr Fischler, as Commissioner-Designate you have stated that, within the scope of your work during the coming legislative term, you have an eye primarily on the WTO negotiations. This was stated quite generally, and rightly so. We have also posed questions and received your replies. However, what interests me and this was the outcome of AGENDA 2000 which you asked for is how will agrisocial standards, how will environmental standards, for example the problem of hormone-treated meat or similar matters which play a major role, how will these issues come into your work? Ultimately, what ideas do you have for presenting these matters in Parliament? How do you feel about Parliament finally getting a new legal form through Article 37? In the interests of my colleagues, I will leave it there Fischler, Commissioner-Designate. Concerning the WTO, there are, I believe, several instruments which can be exploited and through which we will make proposals on how WTO regulations can be developed further. In all there are four areas. Firstly, we need to ascertain whether reviews or improvements will be needed with regard to the procedures which were agreed in the Uruguay Round, above all settlement of disputes. Secondly, there are the classic trade issues such as market access, export repayments, and so on. Thirdly, there are these new non-tariff issues, specifically the question: how can we safeguard our agricultural model? Fourthly, there are special issues relating to the developing states. How can we proceed in order, above all, to ensure our European interests in these matters? I see here several points of departure of which I will mention the most important. Firstly, we must battle to keep the option of direct payments and, more precisely, what is agreed today in the Green Box and in the Blue Box. Secondly, we must put the SPS Agreement to the test and see whether it is appropriate for making suitably clear what we have always demanded, namely that it must be our right to establish the level of protection. Thirdly, concerning social standards or, for instance, matters of animal protection, this is partly a new issue. Here, I believe that we must first see in discussions with our GATT partner which solutions are possible. One thing and please bear with me here I forgot to say in my introduction but made clear in my written answers: further development of the European agricultural policy must, in my opinion, take place within the framework of the co-decision procedure. I advocate that this co-decision procedure form the basis. I advocated this at the last governmental conference and I will advocate it again at the future conference. I believe that it is simply not right that more than 40% of the budget cannot de facto be approved by the Parliament Görlach (PSE). Mr Fischler, in your answer to the written questions you gave a generally positive impression of the possibilities for the reformed CAP. My specific questions to you: do you really think that the CAP, as we have now reformed it, is adequate to bring about more even distribution in the future in terms of regions and production sectors and that the average medium-term investments for environmental spending in agriculture and rural development are sufficient? I know you will say that everything needs to increase, but then I would ask specifically: why have the margins, totalling 800 million ecus, not been fully utilised by the Commission? 1-108

3 13/09/ Fischler, Commissioner-Designate. I will begin by answering the last question: the problem is a specific problem for the year It is to be anticipated that the transposition and implementation of rural development measures in the Member States will not, unfortunately, progress with the necessary speed to make it possible to utilise the full amount in the first year. I see no problems for the following years and would therefore ask and I have already expressed this to the Parliament that this matter be addressed again and that it be considered whether it would not make sense to provide for a degree of transferability of non-utilised funds in the area of rural development. This is not currently provided for in the rules. Concerning distribution fairness, I would certainly not wish to say that this must increase, although I do perceive here a quite different problem. We have acknowledged and in a decision that rural development must be addressed from the bottom up. We have also acknowledged that the degree of redistribution will be left to the Member States. This means that we have created a legal and political basis. To what extent the Member States will now make use of this in order, for example, to utilise the elements of the general Regulation or to put into practice the options for labour-intensive and less labour-intensive forms of farming is down to them alone Busk (ELDR). Mr Fischler, I would like to ask a question further to your written answer to the question about your personal responsibility for the management of your cabinet and also your future directorate-general. You answered that you take full personal responsibility for your cabinet and the staff which you yourself have chosen. But you also answered that you do not assume full responsibility for the directorate-general which you have under you. I would like to ask you to clarify this, partly because you are the senior political leader, and I would also like to ask, who then is responsible? Fischler, Commissioner-Designate. Thank you for this question, Mr Busk. Of course I am the person with political responsibility in this area. But you must not forget that as well as political responsibility there is also administrative responsibility. I think that it is good and I advocate this personally to clearly establish the responsibilities which anyone in the hierarchy of a directorate-general will bear in future. It cannot then be the case that the Commissioner is made directly responsible for everyone and everything; but rather it should be clearly decided what responsibilities exist at the level of officials. I have tried to make this clear in my written answer. I even believe that this will have a positive effect on the motivation of officials. It is also frustrating for an official if he has no real room for decision-making. This room for decision-making must be guaranteed in the context of administrative performance. Only in this way can administration function effectively in the future. President-designate Prodi has also made it clear that with this in mind these considerations must come into the reform of the Commission as a whole and into the Code of Conduct Busk (ELDR). In that case, I would like to ask you: until such time as the reforms have been carried out, who has political responsibility in respect of the Directorate-General which is under you? Fischler, Commissioner-Designate. I believe I have clearly stated that I always assume total political responsibility. You should not form the impression that I am seeking to absolve myself of responsibility. But since we have not yet determined precisely what responsibility the officials in the directorates-general have, we would be well advised, I believe, to remedy this matter as soon as possible so that this issue or the reservation which you have voiced here will not arise again Jové Peres (GUE/NGL). Mr Fischler, I have been reading your replies attentively and I would like to thank you for having made them so exhaustive. Nevertheless, I found one aspect surprising throughout. You speak a great deal, in relation to the European Social Model, about the multifunctional character of European agriculture, and yet you say very little, throughout your replies about what I consider to be the fundamental specificity of the European Social Model: the role of family-based farming. With regards to this matter, I would like to relate it to a fact which seems surprising. As I spent these holidays waiting for you to be able to send us the questionnaire, on August 18, the most important newspaper in my country published Eurostat s latest figures on the farming sector, and employment, according to which, in 1998, 115,000 jobs were lost from the farming sector. With regards to this matter, I feel that throughout your replies, there is no specific section relating to it, and think that this is a serious omission, particularly as far as the matter of unemployment is concerned, and the way this matter stands in terms of farming policy measures. In my opinion, this matter is crucial for trying to protect family-based farming.

4 4 13/09/1999 In this connection, Mr Fischler, I would like you although I know that you have very little time left to clear something up concerning this matter. That is, what precautionary measures do you have in mind in terms of the change in the number of farms and in terms of unemployment in farming? This is one of my main concerns. Within the framework of Agenda 2000, we have lowered prices but have only partially compensated farmers with direct subsidies and the accompanying measures for rural development have yet to be applied. Mr Fischler, this is a matter which I would appreciate you going into more deeply, because I feel it is extremely important. To conclude, I shall confess my group will be making an exhaustive assessment of this that reply 23 caused me considerable surprise, because I think that the matter of public subsidies is crucial to the role of familybased farming, and to the efforts to save jobs, given that you even reproach the United States, almost accusing them of being over-protective of their own farming industry, compared with the loss of subsidies that has taken place, and in terms of European agriculture I would like you to clarify this matter, if only briefly Fischler, Commissioner-Designate. Mr Jové, when speaking of the European agricultural model, we mean, first and foremost, the structures on the basis of which we want to run agriculture in Europe, and here the family-run farm is undoubtedly in first place because, as before, it forms, in practice, the backbone of European agriculture. When I speak of the European agricultural model, I intend it to encompass all your concerns. Regarding your question as to how we can promote employment, here I believe that we must be honest and open. There will also be some structural development in the future. It is an illusion to carry on as if this simply won t happen. There is of course the very real opportunity of exerting a positive influence on employment. Here I see above all a major difference between our export structure in Europe and that of the USA. The USA is a typical exporter of raw materials, an exporter of agricultural raw materials. Europe s strength lies in processing. I therefore believe that we must have a policy which does not result in us exporting fodder cereals but in us producing pigs and poultry from these fodder cereals and processing these pigs and poultry into highly-refined products. That creates jobs. We must not forget that the European food industry is, as before, the largest branch of industry in Europe. If we create favourable conditions for this branch, that is also good for employment levels. In all this, however, we must not overlook one thing: this branch only has a chance if it can be competitive, otherwise it will be a lost cause. It is therefore important to be able to maintain the balance between the competitiveness of European agriculture and how it functions in terms of employment and social issues. I would like to draw your attention to yet another point, namely the fact that in this matter the USA also represents other interests. If, for example, you reflect that we have tried to negotiate with the Americans over compensation in the issue of hormones, and that this was rejected even though the American cattle breeders themselves were in favour, then you will see that there are completely different viewpoints and other priorities here Wyn (Greens/ALE). The increasing emphasis on market orientation as a precondition for a viable European agri-food sector and improving the competitiveness of European agriculture is having an adverse effect on the sustainability of many of our communities. Are you prepared to consider possibly in the mid-term review that you have mooted changes to the present policy of suspending the calf-processing subsidy that has led to catastrophic effects on the income of farmers in certain parts of the European Union, including my own nation of Wales which has suffered a cut of 80% in farm income over the last two years. Specific conditions have been adopted for arable crops in both northern and southern Member States. Could this not also be applied in the beef industry in some areas in special circumstances? Finally, can the EAGGF Guarantee Fund for rural development, for example, be spread over a longer period of time to assist not only the depressed beef industry but rural communities in general? Fischler, Commissioner-Designate. If you are saying that sustainability is affected by market orientation, then you must, I think, bear in mind where we are coming from and where we are going. In the past we had a system in which we in practice produced an artificial market, selling products at prices which were internationally anything but competitive. This meant that we had to invest large sums in export subsidies and interventions.

5 13/09/ So I ask you: isn t it more attractive for a farmer to impoverish the land if he receives the highest possible prices for increased production and, in the interests of sustainability, isn t it a superior system, as we have now decided, if a major part of the payments from the Community budget are no longer spent on intervention costs and export promotions but on ensuring that the farmer maintains the relevant minimum standards, which we refer to as sound agricultural practice, and on ensuring that the farmer is able to take on more agricultural duties? I am fully convinced that the current system takes greater account of sustainability. When you mention Wales, you need only consider that sheepgrazing increased enormously under the earlier system, how it led to overgrazing, and that is anything but a sustainable system. However, when it comes to making greater use of the EAGGF for direct payments for rural development, etc., I ask you to remember that it was exactly this idea which we discussed together in the Parliament. I was always in favour of having a greater liquidity of market outlay and outlay for rural development, but this matter was resolved otherwise albeit in conjunction with the Parliament Chairman. You re referring to the Council? Fischler, Commissioner-Designate. I believe that Parliament approved the decision of the Council, unless I am completely mistaken. Chairman. Yes, in retrospect Wyn (Greens/ALE). May I again ask you to answer specifically the point I made concerning the calfprocessing scheme which is creating a catastrophic situation in my own nation of Wales? Is it possible that that can be amended in some way in specific circumstances in areas which are very badly hit? Fischler, Commissioner-Designate. I am fully aware of the difficulty here. But I must say to you in all honesty that this is, of course, partly a consequence, as before, of the regulations in force in connection with the BSE crisis in Great Britain. Until this crisis is finally over there will, unfortunately, always be problems in this area. I am quite prepared to seek ways, where possible, of remedying the situation. But I think this would be a matter which would have to be directly addressed more extensively since the situation in Wales is unique and cannot simply be projected on the other parts of Great Britain or the United Kingdom Souchet (UEN). Mr Commissioner, I was struck, in your written responses, by the rather vague and general nature of your statements on the forthcoming cycle of WTO negotiations, yet this is absolutely crucial to the future of our farmers. You say, The European Union must soon specify its objectives and its strategies, and you are saying this at the very time when we see the representatives of other countries clearly stating that, for them, dismantling the CAP is a priority objective of the negotiations. I would like to ask you what personal contribution you expect to make in defining and defending a very firm European Union negotiating position in favour of the European model of agriculture in the face of the enormous pressure that, as we know, this model is going to be subjected to from all those who consider agricultural products as just another raw material. I would also like to ask you, Mr Commissioner, if you think that it is reasonable that European producers in sectors totally unconnected with the sector in which there is conflict with the United States, yet who are affected by American sanctions, may not be compensated either by the European Union or by the Member State to which they belong. I believe that, considering the commercial clashes expected, this is not a question which applies to this instance alone Fischler, Commissioner-Designate. Regarding our WTO strategy, it may well be the case that what is in the written answer is described rather generally. However, I think that we ought not to kow-tow to the others. Although it is correct that the CAIRNS Group has, of course, long maintained its position, it is, however, also a very simple position: namely, to abolish everything. The Americans have not previously taken up a position. Although they are currently holding political talks on this subject, there is not yet any position and there will not be one for some time because it is known that ahead of the presidential elections in America the Congress will never be willing to give the American negotiators a negotiation mandate. For our part, it is currently the case that we are preparing in all intensity for a negotiation mandate. There will soon i.e. in a week or a week and a half be the opportunity to discuss this matter in detail in the informal meeting of Agriculture Ministers in Finland. On the basis of this informal discussion, the Commission will then

6 6 13/09/1999 draft a proposal for a mandate. This mandate will be adopted as quickly as possible in October by the Council. Given this, there will certainly be ample opportunity to discuss this issue here in the Parliament. Finally, you should not overlook one thing, namely that the Berlin Council pointed out in its conclusions that the Berlin resolutions were a fundamental element for preparation for the WTO negotiations. This means that for us the result of Agenda 2000 is the basis on which we negotiate and nothing else Souchet (UEN). Mr Commissioner, you have not answered my second question regarding non-compensation of producers affected by American sanctions. We have seen the example of hormone-treated meat, but it is clear that, in view of the anticipated commercial clashes, there is a risk that this case will be repeated. Do you consider it normal that producers who are in no way connected to the sector where there is conflict may not be compensated either by the European Union or by the Member State they belong to? Fischler, Commissioner-Designate. Concerning the sanction-related measures which were conceded to the Americans by the WTO with regard to hormone-treated meat, we are striving primarily to keep to a minimum the period during which the Americans might use this. This means that we must therefore do our utmost to make our regulations compatible with the WTO, which means simply that we continue with what we have been advocating for so long, namely that we carry out a risk assessment in line with the WTO and, on the basis of this risk assessment, we believe that we are able to maintain the hormone ban given that a first interim report by our scientists states that there is clearly a health risk. This needs to be better safeguarded and built into the Regulation, but in principle this is the way forward. Regarding the question of how we can now compensate our own farmers and I must inform you that it is not only farms but also industrial enterprises which are affected: I find this matter somewhat difficult because, firstly, no Member State has ever made such a demand from us and, secondly, because we would then have to do the same with, for example, the banana question. If we wish to pay out all these compensations, then I will have to approach the Parliament with the question of what funds we will or can use to finance all this because the budget at least next year s makes no allowance for it Jackson (PPE). This is, to some extent, a question and answer session on your record rather than on your great thoughts for the future, and I have three questions on that on behalf of my committee. First of all, on the question of the controls on feedingstuffs. We read in the answer to your Question 34 that various new proposals are in preparation. Why have you taken so long to produce proposals regarding controls on feedingstuffs when we have been dealing with the BSE crisis now for many years and the question as to the content of feedingstuffs lay at the heart of the BSE issue? Why do we read that new proposals are in preparation? If the existing proposals were inadequate, why have you moved so slowly? Second question, tobacco subsidies are not mentioned at all, I think, in your answers to this committee s questions. Are we to take it that heavy subsidisation of a carcinogenic product is part of the European model of agriculture? And when do you plan completely to phase out tobacco subsidies? Can you please give us an idea as to your proposals on this front? Thirdly, on the question of animal welfare, your answer to Question 36 shows a touching faith in the ability of the European Union to reach agreement within the WTO on animal welfare standards. How happy are you that we are continually adopting new legislation on animal welfare, most recently in relation to battery hens, when in recent replies to me, your services have told me that you have no idea at all to what extent existing animal welfare legislation is being complied with in any of the Member States as regards battery hens? Fischler, Commissioner-Designate. I would like to begin by saying that in the future my colleague, Mr Byrne, will be responsible for the areas which you mention those concerning feedingstuff controls and animal protection and also for legislation. Tobacco subsidies are different; I will continue to be responsible. So let me begin with my responsibility. As you know, we have carried out a reform of the market organisation for tobacco after long and difficult discussions, above all with the Member States in which tobacco cultivation plays a major role. This reform will result in a significant restructuring in this area. But I ask you to understand that there is also an obligation for the Commission to pursue cohesion. The market organisation for tobacco itself is an important question of cohesion as there are actually regions for example, in Greece in which more than half of the farmers working there depend solely on tobacco cultivation. So this isn t an issue which can be resolved overnight. It s just not that simple. Besides, I must point out that the carcinogenicity of tobacco is really the crucial factor and we must, of course, also concern ourselves with developing, producing low-nicotine and, above all, low-tar types of tobacco, carrying out research, etc. Here we also have a contribution to make. In all honesty, Madam representative, even though I am sure that that you will not want to hear it, we must decide to what extent we will promote tobacco cultivation. Otherwise there will not be any. That s what the

7 13/09/ decision says. But I am also convinced that even if we no longer cultivate tobacco in Europe, smoking will not be given up by all Europeans and will continue to be practised. Concerning animal protection and feedingstuff controls. Recently the issue of feedingstuff controls has been raised several times by the Commission. Proposals have been made, but the Commission can only make proposals. Corresponding decisions must be taken, and these must be taken by the Council. I hope, in the future, that the Council will also accept that at least in those cases for which the legal basis is already available to them, the co-decision procedure will be followed and that here long discussions on the question of the codecision procedure in the area of feedingstuffs or other health-related matters will no longer be carried out. If I may say one more thing: animal protection is a shared responsibility, the substantially greater part of the responsibility, as before, lying with the Member States, both in terms of legislation and implementation. Where Community regulations are concerned, competence lies with the Member States Chairman. Mr Fischler, the proposals which you make in the written response concerning the open declaration nevertheless go beyond the proposals which the Commission has previously made. I welcome that. I just wanted to say that what you have now taken up is what the BSE Committee had asked for Jackson (PPE). I am afraid that was a beta double minus. On the question of monitoring, the Commissioner- Designate says that the Commission can only make proposals and that it is essentially up to the Member States to decide whether or not they want to put these monitoring measures into action. Would the Commissioner-Designate not agree that it is about time that the commissioners themselves took a different approach because waiting for the Member States to monitor themselves is clearly not working? Also, would the Commissioner-Designate undertake during the next five years, specifically in relation to animal welfare Directives, where there is a danger that Member States will adopt different levels of implementation, to make available and publish reports for the Member States, for the Members of the European Parliament, for the European public that go into some detail on the state of implementation of the kind of animal welfare legislation that the European Union adopts? I know we have an annual report, a big document on implementation, but would the Commissioner-Designate not agree that it is about time that the directoratesgeneral of the European Commission took this subject more seriously and introduced their own reports? Fischler, Commissioner-Designate. When you say these directorates-general, then you mean the directorate-general which will in future be responsible for food matters and for animal protection, namely Directorate-General XXIV. I must inform you that it will not, in future, be my responsibility to make proposals in this area. For this reason I am restraining myself somewhat in this regard. I cannot interfere directly in the areas of competence of other commissioners, but in one thing we are completely united: what we must do in these matters also is simply make greater use of public assistance to draw attention to abuses and remedy them. Furthermore, we must also get tough and, if necessary, where there are actual violations, introduce appropriate measures. These are the instruments which are available to us Theato (PPE). Mr Fischler, on the subject of democratic accountability, you have given a number of answers to the European Parliament. Accountability to the monitoring authority, the European Parliament, has been extended in recent years during which we have joined with the Parliament in order to facilitate closing of accounts for the EAGGF sector. To this end, we have developed certain methods. Nevertheless, we have not previously succeeded in narrowing the gap between the two in terms of time and performance. This means that we are about to discuss the closing of accounts for 1993 and 1994 in order to possibly include this in the 1997 discharge. What do you make of that? What are your ideas for narrowing the gap in time? What possibilities do you see for putting more pressure on the Member States so that we get the information sooner? For example, the problem could be solved by us not having, in practice, two procedures for closing accounts and not having to look back at things which, over the course of time, have probably been forgotten or at least become vague Fischler, Commissioner-Designate. Mrs Theato, firstly, you know that, thanks to the co-operation of the Parliament, it is now possible for us to do more in this area and also to work faster because, quite simply, we now have more staff and it will be one of my main political aims to reduce this timeframe. But I must also say one thing in this regard: it will be difficult to achieve complete coherence, for the specific reason that, in respect of the closing of accounts procedure, we also wish to and must take account of the audits of the European Court of Auditors in the charges which may already be necessary. Seen thus, the charging procedure must always lag somewhat behind, although you are completely right that it must not be years behind. In this matter I can only offer you my good will. I am certainly committed to substantially reducing this time lag. In certain sectors we have already caught up a year, but in others there is undoubtedly work to be done, I freely admit.

8 8 13/09/ Theato (PPE). Thank you for your answer. Another question on this subject. Mr Fischler, we have the arbitration service entrusted with those cases where a party does not accept that arrears must be paid, in which, therefore, use is made of the right of objection and agreement is to be achieved. Do you not think that this arbitration service is called upon too frequently, thus delaying the procedure for closing accounts? What can we do, and what can and will you do, in order to prevent this arbitration service being in almost constant use? Fischler, Commissioner-Designate. In response, I would first like to say that this arbitration service is not an arbitration service in the sense that it can, so to speak, take decisions in the place of the Commission, but rather it is a service which can be called upon to take the opportunity of reviewing additional arguments or the question of the proportionality of measures. I am also one hundred percent in favour of the competence of the arbitration service remaining as it is and not being extended. That the Member States some at least in the past tended to appeal to the arbitration service in practically every instance is certainly not as it was meant to be and I have discussed this matter with the head of this arbitration service and with the members. I think what should happen is that the arbitration service should, of its own accord, simply reject certain cases in which it is obvious that the appeal to the arbitration service is simply to gain time. Furthermore, I must advocate one further argument in favour of the arbitration service. The number of cases which are brought before the European Court has significantly reduced as a result of the setting up of the arbitration service and, whenever a case comes before the European Court, it automatically means a further delay of two years before the Court pronounces its judgement. Seen in this way, considerations concerning the arbitration service come out in favour of retaining it. However, as I have already touched upon, there are also discussions within the arbitration service itself as to whether it ought to tighten its internal rules so that no more cases appear which do not belong there Theorin (PSE). Mr Fischler, the principle of equality, as you know, has been introduced in the Amsterdam Treaty. It is to permeate all our work. It is for this reason that all the nominated Members of the Commission have had a question on this subject. We have received answers from eleven of the Commissioners-Designate. I am not sure whether the question reached you or not but I will repeat it and await your answer. Article 3(2) of the Amsterdam Treaty states that the EU shall eliminate inequalities and promote equality between men and women in all areas. What practical initiatives will you take within your sphere of competence and how will you inform Parliament about those initiatives? I note you said that you had increased the number of female heads of department from two to four during your term. You thought that this was an acceptable beginning, which may be debatable. Naturally, this is only a part of the issue involved, but with four female heads of department out of 42, it is possible that there is still a long way to go before equality is achieved. My question is, therefore, what practical initiatives you will take within your sphere of responsibility Fischler, Commissioner-Designate. You are quite right. Firstly, I must put straight that not only has the number of department heads doubled, but that for the first time in the Directorate-General for Agriculture there is a female director. I believe that in itself is noteworthy, but without doubt the imbalance in the agricultural sector is traditionally fairly high, so that we certainly have quite a long way to go in this matter. I imagine that in the coming years we in the directorate-general will purposefully set up a working group which, as well as staff development, will examine the possibility of how, in the Directorate-General for Agriculture in particular, we can increase the number of female managers. I can state one thing: The imbalance among young officials has improved considerably. However, it is not just a matter of bringing about a better balance at the level of officials. It is also a matter of achieving certain things in agriculture itself, and here I would like to mention the rural development policy in particular. This is the area where our programmes can purposefully promote female staff, the training of female staff, possibilities for females to take over farms. These are the two main areas in my opinion. Irrespective of this, I must freely admit to you that, insofar as concerns public management, we are clearly lagging behind what has already been achieved in the Scandinavian states in terms of equal opportunity. Concerning the taking over of agricultural farms, it seems to me that there is no great difference throughout the European Union. As before, it is the case that in a great number of instances the son takes over a farm and not the daughter Theorin (PSE) Thank you very much for your answer. I assume that Commissioner Fischler will now tackle equal opportunities with great enthusiasm both in agricultural policy and within the Commission. We on the Committee on Women s Rights and Equal Opportunities eagerly await reports to that effect

9 13/09/ Redondo Jiménez (PPE). I shall be very brief, and I shall ask the Commissioner about the matter of association agreements, some of which have already been signed, such as those, in the Mediterranean basin, with Morocco, Tunisia and Israel etc, and yet others remain unsigned. To my mind, this is worrying. I would like you to clarify for us the role you think the Committee on Agriculture should play in the negotiation of these agreements. We know what that role currently is, but I would like to know if you agree with the current role of ratifying a decision, which has already been taken, which we cannot amend. Are we going to try to place the same requirements on third countries as we do on ourselves in all areas of agricultural production, especially concerning veterinary products, pesticides etc.? Fischler, Commissioner-Designate. I am happy to answer this question. Firstly, we should not overlook one thing, namely that all these agreements and the negotiation mandates which are issued for them are adopted by the Council for General Affairs. This means that the agricultural ministers therefore have no opportunity of having a genuinely decisive influence, and I think this is similarly the case, due to the internal organisation, here in the Parliament, i.e. that it is not the Committee on Agriculture which is the primary committee concerned with these matters, but the Committee on Foreign Affairs. I don t want to interfere in the internal organisation of the Parliament, but one thing seems important to me - and here, if you recall, there was a similar comment in the Amsterdam Treaty namely, that before new mandates are issued, the possible effects on agriculture must be assessed. If I may just mention one example. We have now begun to avail ourselves of a mandate regarding an association agreement with the Mercosur states. If you just look at the conditions in the Mercosur states for producing, for example, cattle, and the fact that significantly more cattle are kept there today than in the entire European Union, then you will also see that this is a sensitive area. Incidentally, I am personally of the opinion that we should give priority to multilateral initiatives and not continue in future to bank primarily on these bilateral agreements, even more so because, in accordance with the currently valid rules which, I grant you, have still never received the support of GATT, it is the case that in setting up a free trade area no important sector may be left out. It is therefore not possible to conclude an agreement which leaves out, for example, agriculture. It is for these reasons that we should exercise a certain caution, and all the more so if the negotiating partners include primarily states of the CAIRNS Group, because if they push through their plans here, we will no longer need to do any negotiating at Geneva within GATT. Then things will have already got away from us. I can only ask for a certain caution Garot (PSE). Mr Fischler, the growth of international trade is the prime objective of the World Trade Organisation. You recommended that the latest reform of the CAP, enacted in Berlin, should move in this direction. I would like to know how you mean to reconcile the concept of growth in the international trade of food products and the concept of development, particularly of ACP countries whose economy is often reliant on national agricultural production? Fischler, Commissioner-Designate. I must remind you that the European Union is the second largest agricultural exporter in the World, and I must also remind you that there is not one serious scientific forecast which does not show that in the future our own markets within the European Union will, in the case of the most important agricultural products, stagnate, if not actually go backwards, which means that if we want to genuinely realise our highest performance potential we must participate in exports. So we must improve our export opportunities for the future. Otherwise we must move over to rationing and restricting our production even further. With regard to the ACP states, you all know, I think, that we have begun this year to negotiate a new Lomé Agreement and this means that the trading conditions with these states need to be practically re-established. Finally, we are also giving preferential treatment to the least developed of these states. Here I see no particular risk for the European Union. Rather, it is a case of us being able to offer a certain contribution so that the least developed states also have a chance for development, which means, in most cases, agriculture or sometimes the cultivation of mineral resources, i.e. ore or mining, but predominantly agriculture, and we must meet this challenge. I think, however, that the matter is not quite so dramatic given that many of these states are primarily interested in trade in tropical products which we do not produce in the Union Pesälä (ELDR). Mr Chairman, Mr Commissioner, I would like to ask you about the Northern Dimension. This is a new issue, with which it is desired to consolidate and extend co-operation in the northern regions of the EU and in north-western Russia. This would utilise the natural resources and all the opportunities present in this region. When one considers that Finland and the EU itself have 1,300 km of borders in the north, then in my opinion it is an issue of very great importance and value in terms of activities which promote stability and

10 10 13/09/1999 security. Agriculture and forestry also need to be respected. Conditions in north-western Russia as regards agriculture and forestry are very similar to those in Finland. This being the case, this new opening presents the reasonable possibility of defining security policy as well as agricultural and forestry policy. I would like to ask for your opinions and actions regarding this new opening Fischler, Commissioner-Designate. Nevertheless, the northern dimension has led to a situation where the European Union is so vast that, as a rule, in the same week in which the first barley is being threshed, in Finland the last barley is being planted. Seen thus, this has enormously expanded the diversity of our agriculture. However, you wanted, Mr representative, to particularly address the question of forestry and its link with agriculture. You know that forestry is not subject to Community policy. The term forestry does not even occur in the Amsterdam Treaty. Here I share the majority opinion of the Parliament as before. There was a separate parliamentary conference where it was determined that basically forestry would continue not to be a Community matter. I am of the opinion that this is correct. On the other hand, however, we have created a separate chapter on forestry in the new rural development policy which not only provides for the possibility of afforestation of agricultural areas and receiving support for them, but also provides for certain cultural elements being supported in cases where particular care is afforded to forest areas in the public interest. Furthermore, no particular distinction is made in investment support in agricultural enterprises. If a Member State finds that the purchase, for example, of a tractor should be supported, then logically this equipment is used both in agriculture and in forestry. It is therefore up to the respective Member States to take account of such needs in their future programmes Keppelhoff-Wiechert (PPE). Mr Commissioner-Designate, in the previous legislative term, the Committee on Agriculture frequently had to undergo the sobering experience of the Commissioner passing over the political requirements of elected representatives. You have stated that you are in favour of fully implementing the codecision procedure and I think that in this way you personally would have been able to make a pretty good start of things. In the statement from just now, I therefore see a real contradiction to what we have, to a certain degree, experienced, and the answer to question 5 allows me to conclude that we will also have great difficulties in future with our amendments, unless they clear the 314th hurdle. So here is my question: isn t there something more to expect here in the way of concessions than what has been written down? We Christians always say: I hear the Word, but I lack the faith Fischler, Commissioner-Designate. Mrs Keppelhoff-Wiechert, I know that you are person of solid faith, as am I. May I answer your question as follows. Firstly, the contract is valid, and the contract must be respected by all the institutions of the Community. Secondly, there is no question that the amendments which you adopted by majority here in the Parliament will be treated with all seriousness by the Commission and irrespective of the majority with which they were adopted. Primarily, I believe, the democratic principle of majority applies here. But I ask you to understand that we must place these amendments in an overall context and this, in all honesty, will probably be the most difficult point in the coming years. We have clear budget restrictions for the coming years. If, for example, amendments entail additional expenditure, then I must make you aware of this. Unless we find alternative financing, I will have difficulties accepting such amendments. A second consideration is, of course, that we must take into account whether such an amendment accords, for example, with various international obligations or with other valid Community laws. I ask you to understand that we cannot blindly say yes to everything, although you can be sure of one thing, and you have my word on this, that in future we will consider extremely carefully whether we also take up amendments which you do not adopt by majority. But you should also not forget that the debate generally takes place in advance and I do not know which amendments you will subsequently adopt by majority. You want me to give my approval before you have actually voted Chairman. I would like to refer again to question 5. There you stated what the Commission needs to be aware of. But all this also applies, of course, to the co-decision procedure. It is not therefore a specific matter for our agricultural vote. I would like to point this out because otherwise things will carry on in the same vein, the agricultural sector being unable to also take account of budgetary effects. I don t want to go into this any further, but I just wanted to point it out at this juncture because this is an important problem for us Fischler, Commissioner-Designate. I also do not want to go into this any further, but you must not forget that for this eventuality and I hope it will come soon there is the Trialogue Institution Chairman. Then we will need to proceed further into the argument, on the part of the Parliament also, I agree