Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-01-21-Speech-5-033"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000121.2.5-033"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, I would like to start by saying that the frequent legislative changes in the area of the common fisheries policy illustrate the fact that things are really happening in this sector. This is something which was not quite so readily reflected in the way the previous Advisory Committee on Fisheries operated and so this legislative proposal has been drafted. The purpose of this proposal is to create a more effective and genuine relationship between the Commission and the Advisory Committee on Fisheries.
It took the Commission three years to draft this proposal. In 1997, a survey was carried out by an independent office, from which two main ideas emerged. The first was that the common fisheries policy now extends beyond the fishing industry and concerns the whole of society. This is something we must take into account. The second was that the Advisory Committee’s mode of operation did not meet the requirements for handling complex issues.
The legislative proposal therefore falls into three categories. The first is the reform of the Advisory Committee, which now consists of 20 members instead of 45, with participation from fisheries organisations making up 60%, industrial and commercial enterprises within the sector 25%, and environmental organisations 15%. The Commission has thus endeavoured to consult not only professionals and entrepreneurs, but also society as a whole. The second part of the legislative proposal concerns measures to aid the representative organisations of those involved with the common fisheries policy and, in particular, European professional fishing organisations. The third part concerns improving communication between the DG for Fisheries and these groups.
The legislative proposal touches upon the latter two points, but I would like to reiterate that there were lengthy deliberations over the final proposal as regards the actual composition of the committee. On 26 October, the Council examined this proposal for the first time and is now awaiting the opinion of Parliament so that it can get on with its work.
I would like to commend Mrs Ramos in particular on the exceptional quality of her report, as well as Parliament’s Committee on Fisheries for its excellent cooperation and contribution to this text.
I would like to comment on the amendments and to express the Commission’s view on the matter. Three amendments have been tabled by the parliamentary committee. The first concerns Parliament’s desire to exercise tight control over payments to professional organisations so that they closely correspond to the purposes set out in the legislative proposal. The Commission agrees and accepts this proposal.
As regards the second amendment, the Commission obviously agrees with Parliament’s view as regards access to information concerning the work of the committee and the numerous debates it holds. However, drawing up an annual report of all this activity would be an extremely arduous task for the already overburdened directorate for community fishing and would not necessarily lend any added value.
The third amendment encompasses the second and refers to the representativeness of the Advisory Committee, that is the participation of all nationalities. We agree that, within the Committee, the whole sector must be safeguarded and represented on an equal basis, but we are uncertain as to the extent to which – and this is something which came up both in the survey and in discussions – this balance should be based on nationality. The Commission proposed to assist European organisations, which are entirely free to regulate national representation or representation of certain groups wherever they see fit.
In closing, I would like to say that the Commission adopts Amendment No 1 which calls on the Community to tighten its financial control, but it considers it advisable, for the aforementioned reasons, to reject Amendments Nos 2 and 3."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples