You are on page 1of 1

8.5.

2003 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 110 E/53

(2003/C 110 E/055) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2376/02


by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(2 August 2002)

Subject: GATS

Both the UK Government and European Commission have indicated that GATS will not affect the delivery
of health and education services, given they are deemed to be services ‘supplied in the exercise of
governmental authority’ and not supplied on a commercial basis or in competition with one or more
service suppliers. Given that, in the UK, the private sector is already involved in the delivery of health and
education services on a commercial basis, could the European Commission clarify whether these services
are indeed exempt from GATS?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(17 September 2002)

According to the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS), only services which are not supplied on
a commercial basis and are not in competition do not fall under its coverage: the evaluation of the
application of these two criteria must be done on a case by case basis. However, the positions that the
European Communities and its Member States have taken in GATS on education and on health and related
services do not impair the prerogatives of the Member States with regard to the establishment of an
appropriate organisation for the delivery of services in these sectors. In particular, GATS safeguard the
right of its Members to regulate in order to ensure the achievement of national policy objectives.

(2003/C 110 E/056) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2434/02


by Ian Hudghton (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(26 August 2002)

Subject: Commission failing to act upon sound and verifiable scientific advice in fisheries

Why is the Commission proposing measures/agreeing to compromises in the regulation of fisheries


management which are based on scant scientific advice?

In particular:

1. How can the Commission agree to the proposed regulation of deep sea stocks through a TACs and
quota regime when there is little scientific evidence upon which to base such regulation and Member
State statistical submissions may be considered suspect at best? Why has the Commission not
considered an effort reduction scheme as an alternative until clear and unequivocal scientific advice is
available?

2. How can the Commission propose the regulation of the North Sea purely based upon a TACs and
quota regime and remove the current access restrictions currently in force, when by its own admission
(see written answer P-1902/02 (1)), there is no scientific advice to base this proposal, with the
Commission having little knowledge about non-quota species and admitting that non-quota species
would almost certainly incur by-catches of species subject to quotas, many of which are already in a
dire state?

How can the Commission expect fishermen to have confidence in and comply with fisheries management
measures which are not based on scientific advice but on what can only be described as overt political
manoeuvres?

(1) OJ C 28 E, 6.2.2003, p. 154.