Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-12-14-Speech-3-325"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20051214.22.3-325"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". – Mr President, Commissioner, you have already outlined the contents of the partnership agreement and explained to us that it is one of the first – if not the first – to be negotiated by the Commission as part of the new philosophy agreed by the Council in July 2004. I am sure General Morillon will be pleased when I convey to him your commitment to trying to find a resolution to the problem of timing. The Committee on Fisheries would like you to think again about your acceptance of amendments.
We had the final proposal submitted to us on 18 October this year, 14 days after the deadline for first payment. I accept that you had already spoken about it with officials in the Seychelles and they were very understanding, but this again was nine months after the agreement was due to come into force. We appreciate the exigencies of negotiating a new type of agreement but we on the Fisheries Committee feel that we want to be kept better informed about what is going on. We also want to have some kind of input into the kind of agreement that is being reached, hence the emphasis that the financial contribution must be used for the development of coastal populations living on fisheries.
I revert to the point I made earlier this evening that we are now talking about fisheries partnership agreements in which both sides acquire rights but also take on obligations. There is a feeling on the part of the Fisheries Committee that we want to know what is going on, we want the Commission to submit a report to us and to the Council on the application of the agreement and on the conditions under which it was implemented, and to include a cost/benefit analysis. If we do not have that kind of information, when it comes to renewal, how can we give a considered opinion on the merits of the new agreement?
Please, Commissioner, with regard to our amendments, I would be very grateful if you could see what the Fisheries Committee is trying to achieve in this respect: fuller involvement of the European Parliament, not an attempt to take over the Commission’s negotiating mandate, but to have a real input into what is being decided. It is European taxpayers’ money that is involved. We are sure that the Commission is doing its very best to ensure that it is put to good use, but we are part of the budgetary authority. We would like to be reassured that we can have the observation and control, which is part of our mandate.
Please, Commissioner, think again about those amendments. I am sure that the Members of the Fisheries Committee and General Morillon, in particular, would be most grateful to you."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples