Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-12-14-Speech-3-300"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20051214.20.3-300"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, I would more or less follow on from Mrs Fraga’s last sentence. I do not know why it is precisely the common policy with the least funds that is most besieged by requests of all kinds. In this regard, although I am genuinely grateful for the work of the rapporteur ― as she knows ― I feel obliged to make a series of comments, or rather discrepancies, in relation to the text that has been approved in committee and on which we are going to vote tomorrow.
I am referring specifically to Amendments 6, 9, 11, 12 and 13, on which I shall comment briefly. Within the context of this Regulation, and aware of the beneficial consequences of international agreements in the Community’s regions in terms of employment, I understand the Commission’s position on this issue. Maintaining employment is a specific objective that nobody questions. To set this objective without specifically mentioning the Community, as Mrs Stihler does, could be a mistake. It is a laudable desire, but it does not fall within the scope of the CFP and furthermore it does not seem to me to be a realistic objective.
With regard to data collection for Natura 2000, proposed in Amendment 9, I believe that it should be financed by means of funds intended for the environment policy ― as I have always said ― and not by means of the CFP. Those of us who deal with the CFP know that through this policy we are paying for other obligations laid down within other Community policies, as demonstrated by the increasing economic weight of development cooperation within the fisheries agreements.
Furthermore, when, in Amendment 12, Mrs Stihler proposes the criterion of providing value for money as a determining factor in fisheries agreements, I feel obliged to ask what kind of value for money she is referring to. Value for money for the third country? Furthermore, Mrs Stihler, I believe that, if we work on the basis of this criterion of value for money, I do not know whether we will be able to implement the cooperation policy to which I have just referred, and to which you yourself refer. I genuinely do not know whether or not you, as rapporteur, have given this criterion of value for money, which I find so difficult to understand, sufficient thought.
I accept the two amendments presented by Mr Guerreiro, as well as Amendment 17, presented by Mrs Stihler."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples