Mr President, the aim of the current Commission proposal is to bring Community legislation into line with the recommendations adopted by NEAFC in 1998. In this way, earlier measures will be incorporated into a comprehensive and reinforced new control scheme designed to ensure respect for the conservation and management policy agreed under the Convention. The proposal has two main objectives: firstly, a scheme of control and enforcement is to be established for the Contracting Parties; and, secondly, a programme promoting compliance by non-Contracting Party vessels with NEAFC’s regulations is to be carried out. The recommendations are reminiscent of the rules which are applied within the organisation governing fisheries in the north-west Atlantic, NAFO. Through consultation and cooperation, NAFO contributes to the optimum utilisation, rational management and conservation of the fisheries resources within this Convention Area. The Commission has tabled a proposal for converting NEAFC’s recommendations into Community legislation which, in a simplified and coherent way, incorporates all the acquired experience from NAFO and is in keeping with Parliament’s previous position. The proposal has two aspects to it which ought to be emphasised. First of all, the implementation of Community policy. The present proposal contains only the general guidelines for the Community’s initiatives in this area. It was left to the Commission to adopt the technical aspects after having submitted these to a Management Committee. Nevertheless, the Commission may be assured that Parliament will closely monitor decisions taken under this procedure, and it will in particular ensure that the same methods for the reporting of catches and fishing effort are applied by all Member States. Secondly, the financial burden. When it comes to distributing this, the Commission believes that it is up to the Member States to provide adequate resources to meet their obligations of control within NEAFC. I would again draw a parallel with NAFO, where inspection and control are funded from the Community budget. I should like to see increased Community involvement in inspection and control in order to ensure that the rules are applied even-handedly. Openness and fairness are vital elements in obtaining fishermen’s support, and it is only through obtaining their support that any reinforcement of inspection and control arrangements will really be effective. Increased Community involvement in the future will naturally have budgetary implications and demand a reallocation of resources. This ought not however to deflect the Commission from taking the lead in pressing for change or to deter the European Parliament from calling upon the Commission to do so. Provided that the appropriate increased financial resources are made available, there is no reason why the Community cannot play a much more active role. The recommendations came into force on 1 July 1999. They were therefore already binding on the Community before the Commission tabled its proposal on 12 July 1999. The European Parliament has not therefore had the opportunity to make a contribution to the debate, and I should like, on behalf of the Committee on Fisheries, to criticise the Commission for this. This is an outrageous way of going on, to use one of the words employed during the debate in the Committee on Fisheries. Finally, I should like to emphasise the importance of informing the fishing industry of the purpose of the proposal and of making it clear that the rules are to the industry’s advantage. Despite the aforementioned reservations and criticism about the timing of the Commission’s proposal, this important legislation should be approved by Parliament without delay.

Political group: ELDR