Mr President, Commissioner, I trust that we have not bitten off more than we can chew this late in the day because this first fisheries debate of 2001 really is a far-reaching debate. It gives me special pleasure, Commissioner Fischler, to be able to welcome you here today. For a long time, fisheries debates were held in Strasbourg on Fridays. This year we have done away with Fridays and brought the debate forward to Tuesday, and while many Members are still not listening to us today, you at least are here and I thank you for that. The new year is a time of hope and expectation, especially for our fishermen. I need only mention the reform of the common fisheries policy and the Commission's eagerly awaited Green Paper. However, I am forced to admit that the worry lines on my fellow Members' brows and – as far as I can see from here, on your brow, too, Mr Fischler – are still as deep as ever. One reason must surely be the continuing and difficult negotiations on the fisheries agreement with Morocco. I am afraid that there is still no light at the end of that particular tunnel. The Commission's cautious and diplomatic approach – if I may express it thus – be it on your part, Mr Fischler, or on the part of Commission President Prodi, has met with little response and hence no real progress on the other side – I am tempted to say the opposing side. I think that is a crying shame because I want an agreement although, let there be no mistake, I do not want an agreement at any price. The financial framework is limited and EU payments must be in proportion to the benefits granted in return. In the final analysis, the Kingdom of Morocco needs to take a realistic and trustworthy approach. Otherwise, Morocco's obstructionist stance hitherto may well come back to haunt it, because fisheries are not the only link between Morocco and the EU. The EU should not be the bull in diplomacy's china shop, but nor should it merely be an irritating fly buzzing around. The next round of financial compensation for Spanish and Portuguese fishermen is coming up. It really is time we started thinking about and naming alternatives, however drastic they may be, because aid cannot and should not be a permanent solution. We are looking forward, at last, to taking a closer look at the study on the cost-benefit analysis of the fisheries agreement and drawing the necessary conclusions. Mr Gallagher addresses this particular point in his report. We had an initial presentation an awfully long time ago and after that mum was the word. But we must watch out – it could be the calm before the storm, because there is every sign of a storm brewing. But first I should like to thank Pat Gallagher for his excellent report. As one of our most active comrades-in arms in the Committee on Fisheries, he has yet again done a creditable job. There really is no longer any need to make a point of stressing just how important an analysis of measures and developments is, especially in view of the reform of the entire fisheries policy. But just what will the Commission's long-awaited Green Paper propose? The objective – on this we are clear – must be to reconcile the need to improve fish stocks with the social and economic importance of fisheries, in which case it is vital for interest groups to be more involved and, given the considerable shortcomings now coming to light in the agricultural sector alone, for example as the result of BSE, it also means finding a new, attractive way of marketing fish as a healthy, protein-rich food. As I am sure you are all aware, a huge programme of work awaits us. I am looking forward to a stimulating and controversial debate in the interest of the future of European fisheries. In any case, I think we should not slacken in our efforts.

Political group: PPE-DE