WRITTEN QUESTION E-2513/99 by Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission. Third-country crews on board Community vessels.
C 280 E/58 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3. 10. 2000 Can the Commission account for this discrepancy in the figures for the countries other than the United Kingdom? When are the Commissionís files to be updated? What is to be the final figure selected, and why? (1) OJ C 170 E, 20. 6. 2000, p. 34. Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (20 January 2000) The Commission relied on the data supplied and verified by the Member States in question regarding the number of vessels using drift nets in 1995, 1996 and 1997, but became aware that these did not tally with the number of vessels observed by inspectors during the inspection and monitoring campaigns carried out since 1995. Prior to 1998 Community legislation did not require lists of vessels using drift nets to be reported as access to this method of fishing was unrestricted, nor did vessels need permits to use such nets. It transpires that some vessels did start casual fishing for tuna only to abandon it again, sometimes after only a few trips, whereas the figures in the annual reports on implementing Community legislation concerning use of drift nets in the north-east Atlantic and the Mediterranean relate to known vessels. As stated in its reply to the Honourable Memberís questions P-1537/99 and E-1561/99 (1), the Commission wishes to emphasise that its inspectors will verify Member Statesí data for 1995-97 when carrying out checks in accordance with Article 29 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 of 12 October 1993 establishing a control system applicable to the common fisheries policy (2). (1) OJ C 170 E, 20. 6. 2000, p. 34. (2) OJ L 261, 20. 10. 1993. (2000/C 280 E/059) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2513/99 by Rosa MiguØlez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission (22 December 1999) Subject: Third-country crews on board Community vessels Since the beginning of the year, in order to take advantage of the liberalisation of cabotage and in their eagerness to cut costs, some European shipowners in the merchant navy and fisheries sectors have tried to replace their crews of Community seamen with low-cost crews made up of seamen from non-Community countries. According to reports from trade unions in the sector, the sole purpose of facilitating access by non-Community seamen to the market in question is to encourage precarious employment under working and social welfare conditions which are inferior to those laid down by law in the European employment market. What view does the Commission take of this development, which effectively undermines the social rights of Community workers? What measures is the Commission adopting and what action does it intend to take in order to put a stop to this practice of social dumping? Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission (14 February 2000) The Commission is very concerned by the decline in employment of Community seamen and the corresponding increase in the employment of seamen from third countries under non-Community conditions both in maritime cabotage and transport between the Member States. There is no harmonisa- tion at Community level with respect to the Member Statesí right to employ seamen from third countries. 3. 10. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 280 E/59 The national legislation of most Member States authorises the employment of seamen from third countries under the conditions applicable in their country of origin for international services and, to a lesser extent, for cabotage services. A minority of Member States only authorise the employment of Community seamen or seamen who are paid the same wages as their own nationals for these services. Council Regulation (EEC) No 3577/92 of 7 December 1992 applying the principle of freedom to provide services to martime transport within Member States (maritime cabotage) (1) authorises the host state to impose its own rules with respect to manning nationality, minimum rates of pay, working conditions and social security. This allows Member States which prohibit the employment of non-Community seamen to put on an equal footing all competing operators in the very sensitive island cabotage sector. With regard to transport between Member States, on 29 April 1998 the Commission adopted a proposal for a Council Directive on manning conditions for regular passenger and ferry services operating between Member States (2). The proposal defines at Community level minimum working conditions, including pay, for seamen from third countries. The objective is to put operators on an equal footing by eliminating social dumping in this very labour-intensive sector. The Commission also adopted a proposal amending Regulation (EEC) No 3577/92 on maritime cabo- tage (2). This proposal allows the host state to impose its rules regarding the proportion of Community nationals in the crew for regular passenger and ferry services. This should rule out the employment of seamen from third countries under non-Community conditions in this sector. in 2000 the Commission will present a communication on the employment and training of Lastly, seafarers. One of the objectives will be to promote the use of Community crews. (1) OJ L 364, 12. 12. 1992. (2) OJ C 213, 9. 7. 1998. (2000/C 280 E/060) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2515/99 by Mikko Pesälä (ELDR) to the Commission (22 December 1999) Subject: Taking processing projects into consideration in the proposal on flax The Commissionís proposal for a new EU regulation on flax fibres creates problems for Finland, because it proposes that the production of flax for fibres should be made subject to a quota based on quantities cultivated in the past. In Finland, the growing of flax for fibres has hitherto been a small-scale operation. The growing of flax for fibres is only in its infancy in Finland, and this is why the amount cultivated in recent years has been small, at only a few thousand hectares per year. At present Finnish agriculture is undergoing a structural change, with farms being forced to diversify into new directions and find new profitable forms of crop. One promising alternative seems to be the production of fibre flax, a plant which suits Finnish conditions very well. We have had per-hectare yields of the same order as in the best growing areas in the EU, and the cultivation of flax for fibres is therefore expected to increase considerably in the future. The imposition of quotas is the worst thing that could happen to Finnish flax production at this juncture. At least three new flax processing plants are currently being built in Finland, which will require in total by way of raw material the yield of at least 12 000 to 12 500 hectares of flax. If the Commissionís new flax regulation is implemented in its current form, it will deprive us of the opportunity to expand domestic cultivation and the new factories will thus have to operate with imported raw materials. These are not realistic conditions for developing the Finnish flax industry. Furthermore, the requirement in the proposal that the product once made into fibre should contain not more than 5 % of shives is too strict for the Finnish insulating wool production industry. The Commission