Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Mr Fischler, we know that you have done everything you can. Others left you a veritable time bomb preventing you from reaching another agreement: the promise and the agreement in the previous one not to renew it. We all knew that it was difficult for you. Even so, after seventeen months, thirteen technical meetings, your personal involvement on seven occasions and that of the President of the Commission himself on one occasion, which is unprecedented, Morocco was persuaded to sit down and negotiate. It was little more than that, however. Morocco never wanted the agreement and showed it by imposing its intransigence and its unfair and unacceptable conditions, which the sector itself rejected as uneconomical and impossible to take on. We always said that we would prefer no agreement to a bad agreement; and this is what Morocco is proposing, despite the generous, reasonable offers from the European Union, which are beneficial to both parties. Morocco is within its rights but, having got to this point, should we carry on? I think that if Morocco wants an agreement with the European Union, it knows perfectly well what it has to offer. However, if it has not been reached in seventeen months, I think it unlikely that it will be reached now. Therefore, Mr Fischler, you should take note of this and inform the College of Commissioners of Morocco’s intransigence in co-operating with the European Union. We will be watching the development of bilateral relations between the European Union and Morocco very carefully, both in political terms, as you mentioned, and in economic, financial and trade terms. Why is Morocco rejecting more than EUR 200 million in three years, investment from European ship owners, the possible creation of joint ventures to develop its sector, the wealth that the catches could generate in its ports? Why is it rejecting a gradual reduction of the European fleet over three years, while in private it authorises private Asian companies to use its fishing grounds? This is quite legitimate, but can the European Union not guarantee better than anyone that its resources will be rationally preserved and fished responsibly? Who in Morocco is really going to benefit from the lack of an agreement? These are the key points. I stress, Mr Fischler, that you should take careful note of all this but, following this upset with Morocco, I think that we must look to the future. The situation is of course difficult, serious, and unprecedented. It is not impossible to solve, however. I therefore ask everyone for generosity and solidarity, employers and fishermen, unions and political parties. And we need to ask the European Union to make a special effort. The Nice European Council, incidentally at the request of the Spanish Government and José María Aznar, agreed – another unprecedented thing – to support the demands and, if they failed, the negotiations and, if these did not succeed either, asked the Commission for a specific action programme, as set out in No 59 of the Nice conclusions. I ask you, Mr Fischler, for your commitment and understanding. Fishing in the European Union asks for it now more than ever. I ask for your personal political commitment to get involved in the pending fishing negotiations with third countries, Senegal and Mauritania first of all, and to open up new negotiations and explore new fishing grounds. This is the future for redeploying the fleet, which is the priority aim; and at the same time, with the funds not used for Morocco, I ask you to support a broad social programme for fishermen and for the most affected areas, with alternative economic projects to restart their economies. Your experience with the CAP should be useful to us so that, for the first time, programmes of this type can be adopted in fisheries. I will conclude by saying that Morocco dealt a hard blow to the European fisheries sector and therefore to the European Union. Now, however, we have to adopt a realistic, constructive and responsible attitude. It has the support of Parliament, which will actively defend the sector.

Political group: PPE-DE