Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/1999-12-02-Speech-4-030"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.19991202.3.4-030"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, the current common organisation of the markets has been showing signs of running out of steam. This is due to its inability to meet the new challenges of a highly globalised and competitive market in fishery products, in a European Union very dependent on imports. This House has, on many occasions, highlighted this problem and called for substantial changes.
We are now finally debating the Committee on Fisheries’ report on a proposal for a regulation which does not just reform the COM but establishes a completely new system. This is not just any old debate but one which affects one of the four pillars of the Community fisheries policy. It must therefore be as productive and responsible as the debate we had in the Committee on Fisheries because this report, which I ask you to approve, is the result of a hard-won compromise between the political groups and the various sectorial and national interests.
As rapporteur, I believe we should acknowledge that the Commission’s initial proposal significantly improved the current COM. In particular, it reinforced the fundamental role played by the producers’ organisations in the marketing of products. It also granted them increased and improved mechanisms for ensuring correct operation and more responsible fishing and marketing.
However, our committee had to change the text of the proposal on two major aspects. In both cases this was achieved through the compromises which I have mentioned. The first compromise was reached by including aquaculture products and shellfish gathering for which no marketing aid was provided. Yet these are both subsectors which, like fishing, must be fully included in a system whose aim is to match supply to demand. They are also developing sectors in which production must be well planned so that crises, such as those which are periodically suffered by salmon producers, can, as far as possible, be avoided from the outset.
The other aspect which we corrected is even more serious, if this is possible. As I mentioned at the beginning, this type of regulation should be prepared very carefully, particularly when proposing a change from a quota system to a system of indefinite tariff suspension for imports. Yet the Commission acted not just thoughtlessly but even frivolously and irresponsibly.
Please understand that the Committee on Fisheries is not opposed to the system of tariff suspension. However, we must be certain that this system, which actually involves the voluntary removal of tariff duties, will not threaten Community companies which produce and market the same products. The Commission’s proposal included several products which are produced in the Community on a large scale. This is proven by the study being prepared at the request of the Council because the Commission’s figures lacked justification.
For example, for one of these products – tuna fillets – this study establishes deficit levels of between 1 500 and 3 000 tonnes. Without considering any comparative information, the Commission was therefore recklessly prepared to stifle a Community sector which provides thousands of jobs. This would also have blocked its own systems of aid for the development of GSP-Drug and ACP countries just because of an actual import requirement of less than 3 000 tonnes which can be completely covered by the current system of tariff quotas. Although the compromise reached by our committee on this issue was particularly difficult to achieve, the facts seem to justify this. Following the political agreement achieved in the last Council of Ministers, both tuna fillets and herring now fall outside the tariff suspension system, in addition to another set of corrections affecting other products contained in Annex V.
I therefore feel that the Commission’s proposal was not well prepared. In fact, it was dangerous and we are pleased with the Council’s correction which matches ours in making the compensation for withdrawals more flexible. With these two major changes incorporated in committee, together with others such as greater precision in labelling and information to consumers, this House is helping to prevent a text which has its good points from being ineffective due to its lack of realism. I therefore ask you all to approve this report.
It only remains for me to thank all the Members who helped to achieve this compromise for their hard work and assistance. I ask you again to approve this report. Thanks should also go to Mr Gallagher for his excellent report."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples