Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-06-14-Speech-4-018"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010614.2.4-018"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, my report also relates to the implementation in the fisheries sector of Article 299(2) of the Treaty of Amsterdam, which concerns the EU’s ultra peripheral regions. The Treaty acknowledged the specific nature of these regions, and also defined them according to both their handicaps and the difficulties they face, which are due to their remoteness, their insularity, often because of their difficult topography and climate, and even occasionally their economic dependence. Since the Treaty was signed, it has enabled the policies affected to be legitimately adjusted whilst safeguarding the coherence of the Community legal system.
In the fisheries sector, three Member States are affected; Spain, Portugal and France. Seven regions are also affected and these are the Azores, Madeira, the Canary Islands, Guadeloupe, French Guiana, Martinique and Réunion. Many special measures are therefore permitted, namely, the Structural Funds, for both fishing and regional policy.
This adjustment has, of course, been approved in the report that I am presenting. Some amendments have also been tabled, which I would like to take you through briefly. I tabled one in particular, which was adopted by the Committee on Fisheries. This is Amendment No 5, which concerns the FIFG intervention level, the financial instrument, in the ultra peripheral regions, which is very important for those involved, in other words, the fishermen. The Commission is proposing to increase the Community contribution for these regions, which is a positive step, up to a maximum of 85%, with the exception of fleet renewal and modernisation of fishing vessels and pilot projects, where the contributions remain exactly the same as in the previous regulation and are therefore unchanged.
My amendment and the amendment tabled by the Committee on Fisheries are therefore based on this ‘exception’. Basing its argument on the current state of stocks and the need to protect them, as well as the obligation to maintain equivalent fleet capacity, the Commission is proposing that neither should the rate of Community assistance be raised nor the rate of private self-financing reduced for fleet renewal and modernisation.
This position does not appear to point in the right direction and does not fulfil the Treaty objectives designed to help the economies of the ultra peripheral regions catch up with the remainder of the EU. We should, therefore, and this is what is being proposed to you, adjust the rates in Group 2. This would have a positive impact on the development of inshore fishing and the improved processing of catches and would also meet the expectations of those working in the sector. Moreover, even though there may be over-capacity in more central areas, this is not the case in all the ultra peripheral regions, or at any rate, it is much less certain.
Lastly, Parliament has stressed the need to improve safety on board vessels. Vessel renewal and modernisation in the ultra peripheral regions is a key element in providing fishermen with proper working conditions. This amendment proposes, therefore, to increase the A rate or the proportion of the European Union to 50% and the C rate or the proportion of other national or regional contributions to 40%. In my view, this amendment to the report is essential.
There is a second amendment, Amendment No 6 by Mrs McKenna, which does not present any problems. It states in the report that these adjustments and changes must not be used to maintain the system of flags of convenience; we must, therefore, include a sentence in this report which refers to some kind of legal precautionary principle in this matter.
Lastly, there are Amendments Nos 7 and 8, which raise the issue of
non-retroactivity. This issue was raised at the meeting of the Committee on Fisheries. The Commission was, moreover, not very specific, and was even hesitant, not to mention the fact that it did not provide an answer in its reply. The amendment is still on the agenda, since it was re-tabled. The opinions of the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism and the
Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development are positive. At the beginning, the Committee on Fisheries did not deliver a favourable opinion, at least not wholly favourable, and took the view that this principle of non-retroactivity was a fundamental principle of Community legislation. Given that the two other committees delivered a favourable opinion, however, and that the European Commission was not very specific, I propose to deliver a favourable opinion. If this turns out to be absolutely impossible from a legal perspective, the law will settle the affair. If it is possible, we must do so, and if we do, we will have voted in favour of a very good cause."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples