Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-12-14-Speech-3-313"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20051214.21.3-313"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
".
Mr President, I wish to thank the rapporteur and the Committee on Fisheries for its report on this proposal from the Commission. I am pleased to note that the committee has given a favourable assessment to this scheme, which is aimed at improving the Member States’ control capabilities, and that it fully supports the extension of its validity for a further year. I also note that the committee is favourable to financing, under the Community budget, administrative arrangements with the Joint Research Centre with a view to developing new technologies in the area of control, and to the financing of studies on control-related areas, to be carried out at the Commission’s initiative.
The Commission has published four of these communications so far. In its comments on the tables annexed to the communications, the Commission stressed the need to reduce existing disparities regarding the level of sanctions imposed across the Community.
On the same communications, the Commission has also declared its preference for the use of administrative procedures and sanctions when dealing with breaches of the common fisheries policy rules, since they are imposed in a swifter manner and are more effective. The Commission believes that a sanction, such as the suspension of an authorisation to fish, decided by the administrative authority and entering into force immediately, subject to the possibility of a judicial review, is a stronger deterrent. The choice, however, between a penal or administrative procedure lies with the Member State.
In conformity with Article 25(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002, the basic regulation on the CFP, the Commission intends to present in due time a proposal aimed at harmonising at Community level sanctions for serious infringements.
The committee has, however, tabled seven amendments to the proposal. I regret that it is very difficult to accept any of the amendments, mainly for formal reasons, which I would like to explain.
Amendment 2 proposes a change to the time limit for the presentation of national programmes. We would like to keep the existing date of 31 January, as the submission of requests early on in the year will allow the Commission to adopt a decision granting the financial contribution in the first semester. This will, in turn, ease the planning requirements for national administrations. It should also be noted that the national administrations are already fully aware of this time limit.
On Amendment 3 and the related Amendments 1 and 6, the Commission shares the committee’s view that these expenses should be financed under a different heading. This can be done through a budgetary arrangement. However, it is not possible to finance these two new actions if they were not foreseen in the legal text. The Commission deems that this proposal is the appropriate legal text to introduce them and cannot, therefore, accept these amendments.
In Amendment 4, the committee asks the Commission to establish criteria in order to allocate grants when the amount of request exceeds the available appropriations. The Commission’s policy is to allocate grants only when the need for investment has been proven, namely through the national report on control activities, irrespective of the overall amount requested. Establishing criteria will introduce some rigidity to the selection of projects and could entail a risk that grants will be given for projects that are not of general interest. This amendment cannot, therefore, be accepted.
Amendment 5 refers to the contribution rate for the most expensive items, i.e. patrol vessels and aircraft. Increasing the rate to up to 75% of the eligible expenditure will reduce appropriations for other actions. The Commission considers a rate not exceeding 50% to be appropriate, as a general rule, for all kinds of investment. It cannot, therefore, accept this amendment.
Finally, the Commission cannot accept 7, since at the end of 2006 most of the projects will not yet have been completed, meaning a report on the decision will be of little use. I should like to recall that the Commission will present a report on this decision to the European Parliament by 30 June 2008 at the latest.
Concerning Mr Morillon’s oral question to the Commission, may I say that I fully share the view that sanctions, including in the fisheries sector, must be proportionate to the seriousness of the offences committed. They must also effectively discourage any further infringement of the same nature. Moreover, sanctions should be non-discriminatory between nationals and non-nationals of Member States. We cannot achieve compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy without creating a level playing field across the European Union for all fishermen.
With a view to promoting transparency and to encouraging the application of adequate and dissuasive sanctions against those who commit serious infringements, the Commission publishes an annual communication on serious infringements to the rules of the community fisheries policy."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples