21. Retail Financial Services in the Single Market (
°
° °
Romana Jordan Cizelj
(SL) I would like to comment on the remarks made at the beginning of voting when fellow members attempted to use the unplanned event at the Krško nuclear power station as an illustration of the unsafe performance of nuclear power plants. I should point out that the event was indeed unplanned, that it involved a component failure, that the plant was not shut down but rather had its operations safely suspended, and that repairs on it are under way. The operation of the power station is transparent and fellow members can find information on it on the website of the country's nuclear safety administration. I should also add that by all performance indicators the Krško nuclear power station is one of the safest nuclear power plants in the world.


Explanations of vote
Oral explanations of vote
Filip Kaczmarek
(PL) Mr President, I voted in favour of the resolution on the European Strategy for the Danube Region, because I think the European Union needs such regional strategies. I am convinced that implementation of such strategies can have a very positive influence on regional development and, as a consequence, can influence the lives of the region's residents and improve their quality of life. For surely it is the residents of the European Union who are the objective of our action - of Parliament's and the European Union's action. This is why I voted in favour of adopting the resolution.
Bernd Posselt
(DE) Mr President, I welcome the Danube Strategy as something that is profoundly European. It connects a founder Member of the EU, namely Germany, with the two most recent Members, Bulgaria and Romania. It also connects the next candidate country, Croatia, with a country that is striving for candidate status, namely Serbia. I am pleased that the intention is to also include the Czech Republic, Montenegro and a few others which, historically and geographically, belong to this group, although they are not directly situated on the Danube.
However, I would ask that Bavaria not be neglected in all this. If it was independent, Bavaria would be the second largest state on the Danube after Romania. Bavaria has a particular interest in the Danube Strategy. I am therefore grateful and pleased that we are now pressing forward with this strategy.

Daniel Hannan
Mr President, we see once again how the European Union elevates appearance over substance, how it elevates motive over outcome. We have just voted through a series of resolutions condemning human rights abuses in China. What, though, is the European Union doing in the real world? We are isolating Taiwan; we have agreed in principle to sell weapons to the Communist regime in Beijing; and we are collaborating with it to create a rival to the American system of GPS, which President Chirac refers to as 'technological imperialism'.
See how hypocrisy has been elevated into a governing principle! We bleat about human rights, and then we funnel money to Hamas. We refuse to deal with the anti-Castro dissidents in Cuba, we disregard democracy within our own borders when referendums go the wrong way, but we convince ourselves that we are still the good guys because - look at the text of our resolution on human rights!
We are now going to have the extraordinary spectacle of sending Baroness Ashton as our foreign representative to Iran and Cuba and these places to tell them that their democracy is inadequate, when she has never once in her entire career subjected herself to the ballot box, or invited her fellow countrymen to vote for or against her.
I shall finish, if I may, by congratulating the good people of Massachusetts for taking a stand against excessive taxation and excessive government. It was the people of Massachusetts who began the revolution in order to get away from the idea that taxes could be levied without popular consent. We need such a revolution again here in Europe.
Mirosław Piotrowski
(PL) Mr President, I want to express my satisfaction at the adoption by the European Parliament of the resolution on attacks on Christian minorities. Members of the European Parliament must not remain silent in the face of attacks on Christian minorities around the world, because this matter concerns the foundations and roots of the nations of the European Union. For our voice to sound credible, today we should have adopted two amendments put forward by the European Conservatives and Reformists Group to distance ourselves from the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights on crosses. I regret this did not happen, because we must remember the fundamental role which Christianity has played in forming Europe's historical and cultural identity, and promote and protect these values in the world as well as inside the European Union.
President
Mr Piotrowski, I allowed you to speak even though you did not have the right to do so, because explanations of vote are admissible only on the Strategy for the Danube Region and not on emergency resolutions. However, you have spoken now; therefore, for future reference, I will state that there shall be no explanations of vote on emergency resolutions. Therefore, I will also state, for the benefit of the speakers who have registered, that explanations of vote may refer only to the European Strategy for the Danube Region.

Oral explanations of vote
Motion for a resolution
Ryszard Czarnecki
(PL) Mr President, I, too, would like to speak about the discrimination experienced by Christians in Africa and Asia, but I am going to speak, of course, about our strategy on an extremely important matter. Let us remember that the Danube is the second longest river in Europe, after the Volga. The Danube flows through 10 European states, and as many as 17 states lie within the Danube river basin. This is, of course, a question of a certain responsibility, a certain challenge, for the European Union, because, in addition, some of these countries are currently affected by the very severe crisis. I am also talking about Member States of the European Union. The European Union is showing a certain solidarity in this way. I hope it will also be like this in other cases.
Bogusław Liberadzki
(PL) Mr President, I voted in favour of the resolution on the Danube Strategy. Why? - because it shows that the European Union is open to specific regions, to regions which have a feature in common like, for example, a long river flowing through them. I would also like to express my satisfaction that the amendments which were put forward by the European Conservatives and Reformists Group were not accepted. This has made our resolution clearer. I would like this resolution to be followed by a focus on other characteristic regions, too, including perhaps the Odra Corridor.
Written explanations of vote
Maria Da Graça Carvalho
I welcome the European Council's conclusions of 18-19 June 2009 in which it asks the European Commission to draw up a European strategy for the Danube Region by 2011. I am voting in favour of the motion for a resolution presented here. The Danube Region is facing several challenges, and a strategy for this region will improve connections and communications systems, preserve the environment and encourage growth, job creation and security. It is important that the Commission makes the most of the operational experience that it acquired with the strategy for the Baltic Sea, and that its strategy is based on the determination of the governments and citizens of the Member States and the regions to overcome immediate common challenges. It is also important to bring this strategy into line with the EU 2020 Strategy and the Commission report entitled 'Regions 2020', to tackle the major challenges that Europe is currently facing, such as globalisation, demographic trends, climate change and energy use and supply. I would also urge Parliament to develop a process of reflection on the future of the European Cohesion Policy and to devise new possible strategies for other regions in order for them to adapt to the changes and pressures of a global world.
Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă
I think that the importance of reinforcing a European Union strategy for the Danube Region will facilitate the EU's external action in its immediate neighbourhood, highlighting its potential role in helping bring stability to the regions of south-eastern and eastern Europe through implementing specific projects supporting the economic and social development of these regions. The fact that Member States bordering the Danube have assumed responsibility for promoting at EU level the proposal for creating this strategy for the Danube Region confirms their ability to make a specific contribution to promoting major initiatives capable of ensuring the continuation of the European integration process.
Ioan Enciu
I voted in favour of the European Parliament joint resolution on the Danube, proposing that a European strategy be drawn up for this region as a matter of the utmost urgency. This strategy will give a considerable boost to inter-regional cooperation and will have the following objectives: the development and modernisation of river transport on the Rhine/Meuse-Main-Danube waterway, as well as road and rail transport in the Danube Region; the development and efficient use of renewable energy resources with a view to cutting carbon emissions and increasing energy security; the protection of the environment through implementing projects intended to restore and protect the ecosystems in the region; efficient absorption of EU funds and the attraction of investments, the promotion of tourism, all of which feature in the EU 2020 strategy.
This strategy will have a beneficial impact on Romania, particularly on the country's connections with European transport networks, the protection of the Delta's national heritage, as well as the socio-economic development of the localities in the Danube basin and in other areas.
Diogo Feio
I firmly believe that the full development of the European Union can only come about if there are adequate development policies for all EU regions which respect their differences, needs and specific features.
I consider that territorial cohesion means creating different strategies for the different regions, fostering sustainable development within a context of respect for the environment and economic exploitation of its potential.
I am aware that macro-regional strategies are aimed at promoting balanced regional development within the EU, using existing resources.
Last but not least, I recognise the strategic, territorial, environmental and cultural importance of the Danube in Central Europe. For all of these reasons, I am voting in favour of this motion for a resolution for an EU strategy for the Danube Region.
José Manuel Fernandes
This resolution backs a strategy for the Danube Region with a coherent, territory-based approach for this important river, and enables the sustained and integrated development of a region that stretches over 14 European countries.
The proposed strategy will allow a coordinated and integrated policy which can achieve synergetic effects, promote cohesion and foster economic growth and competitiveness, all while protecting the environment.
The objectives to be achieved and harmonised include modernising the ports, improving the navigability of the river (with freight corridors, interconnections and intermodality with the North Sea), improving the quality of the water, protecting the whole Danube Basin and, last but by no means least, protecting the ecosystems that fall within the Natura 2000 Network.
Therefore, the Commission should soon launch a broad consultation process with all countries along the Danube so that the strategy in question is set out by the end of this year and is brought into line with the next multiannual financial framework.
João Ferreira
We agree with the creation of a strategy for the Danube Region, based on an earlier consultation and cooperation between the countries and regions that are located along its course. Such a strategy will promote economic and social cohesion in those regions and promote territorial cohesion without jeopardising any of them. The strategy calls for improvements to the ecological status of the Danube, along with the development of a comprehensive plan for conserving and restoring the natural stocks.
Furthermore, it proves to be a positive strategy in the proposal for improving the Danube's multicultural environment, cultural dialogue and protecting its cultural and historical heritage. As stated in the report, we believe that implementation of this strategy must not impinge on the responsibilities of regional and local government, being based instead on cooperation between the countries and areas within this region.
Jacek Olgierd Kurski
in writing. - (PL) The strategy for the Danube Region which we have prepared, and which we have voted on today, makes it possible to promote regional and cross-border cooperation. The Danube river basin unites as many as 10 European countries at present - Germany, Austria, Slovakia, Hungary, Croatia, Serbia, Bulgaria, Romania, Moldova and Ukraine, of which most are Member States of the European Union or countries aspiring to become Member States. For this reason, the Danube Region is a significant factor, bringing together different programmes which are part of EU cohesion policy, as well as programmes for candidate countries and countries included in the European Neighbourhood Policy. What we have adopted today is a certain outline plan of support for the Danube river basin area, but whether the programme remains on paper or the model is filled out with specific content depends on whether additional means are found which will not affect, or will not reduce, the pool designated for the cohesion policy in individual countries. I hope that a cohesive strategy for the Danube Region will contribute to a rise in prosperity and sustainable and lasting development, and will generate new jobs and security in the region.
Petru Constantin Luhan
I voted in favour of drawing up a development strategy for the Danube, which will allow us to ask the Commission to draft this document as soon as possible, taking into account specific consultations with experts in the field and in the relevant regions, while identifying the financial resources available and including non-EU countries. This strategy must focus on aspects relating to environmental protection and water quality, economic potential and Trans-European transport networks. The Resolution on the European Strategy for the Danube Region emphasises the role and importance of broad consultation with local actors, which the European Commission must organise so that citizens' interests can be represented as faithfully as possible.
Furthermore, the Resolution states that any strategy relating to macro-regions must be incorporated into the cohesion policy, which is the coordinating policy at European Union level. In addition, an analysis will need to be carried out on the added value created by this strategy in terms of European territorial cohesion. I think it is necessary to correlate the TEN-T (Trans-European Network of Transport) strategy, where the Danube comes under point 18, with the new territorial and economic development strategy, so that development takes place in a cohesive manner.
Nuno Melo
Given the strategic importance of the Danube Region due to its location, closer relations between all countries in this region are crucial, particularly for those that do not yet belong to the EU. This will aid integration in case of future EU enlargement. Thus, the implementation of all the recommendations approved in this motion for a resolution is crucial if there is to be a proposed EU strategy for the Danube Region by the end of 2010.
Andreas Mölzer
in writing. - (DE) The strategy for the Danube Region represents a reasonable model for coordinating EU measures for this contiguous region. In addition to issues that relate to the river itself, such as improving the water quality and the ecological situation, the programme that the Commission is to draw up could also result in economic and administration-related synergies. The report that has been tabled put forward some good proposals in this regard and I therefore voted in favour of it.
Wojciech Michał Olejniczak
in writing. - (PL) I endorsed the resolution on a European Strategy for the Danube Region. Territorial cohesion is listed in the Treaty of Lisbon as one of the European Union's priorities. Operation of the Strategy for the Danube Region concerns many areas of support, such as social policy, culture and education, environmental protection, infrastructure and lasting economic development. The very fact of the great impact of the strategy and its solutions in these areas proves that regional strategies should be established and implemented. The Danube Region needs a strategy, and needs support and our action, because this matter concerns many European countries. Six of them are EU Member States, and the rest are potential candidates. The influence of the region is also important for other countries which are not directly associated with it.
The idea of establishing functional regions - macro-regions - began with the Baltic Sea Region Strategy. The Danube Strategy, as with other macro-regional strategies planned by the EU, has the main objective of strengthening integration by cooperation at regional and local level. It is extremely important that governments, local governments, non-governmental organisations and citizens work together with the European Union on the development and realisation of solutions which are adopted, because, together with us, they make up the European Union.
Artur Zasada
in writing. - (PL) Support should be given to every EU initiative which aims to coordinate and strengthen regional initiatives and which contributes to increased economic cooperation, improved transport infrastructure and better environmental protection. The Strategy for the Danube Region confirms the growth in significance of the macro-regional approach to European Union regional policy. Thanks to the document which has been adopted today, relations will be strengthened between old, new and possible future EU Member States, on the one hand, and Central Europe and the Black Sea Region, on the other. I believe that in the not-too-distant future, similar approval will be given to the concept of a corridor based on the Odra line. It would link the Baltic Sea with the Adriatic and would run from Sweden through Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Hungary to Croatia.
President
That is not possible, Mr Zasada. I have already explained that explanations of vote on emergency resolutions are not possible. Explanations of vote may refer only to the European Strategy for the Danube Region. I am sorry, but this was not my decision.


3. Refusal of the extradition from Brazil of Cesare Battisti
President
The next item is the debate on six motions for resolutions on Brazil's refusal to extradite Cesare Battisti.
Mario Mauro
author. - (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Antonio Santoro, prison officer, Lino Sabadin, butcher, Perluigi Torregiani, jeweller, and Andrea Campagna, state police officer: these are the names of four citizens who, together with many others, lost their lives between 6 June 1978 and 19 April 1979, killed by the insane homicide of terrorist organisations that attempted to overthrow the democratic order in Italy. And the name of one of the murderers is Cesare Battisti.
First of all, I would like to echo the regret expressed by President Napolitano of Italy at the decision made by Mr Lula, the Brazilian president, to grant political refugee status to the Italian terrorist Cesare Battisti, who was sentenced by the courts to life imprisonment for committing those four murders, during the 'Years of Lead'.
Let me remind you that Battisti was found guilty not only by the Italian judiciary, but also by the French judiciary and by the European Court of Human Rights. This is an inexplicable and extremely serious act, which cannot and must not go unnoticed by the European institutions. We have a duty to the relatives of Battisti's victims, but most importantly, we are also bound because the European Union has, for many years, determined an anti-terrorism strategy to guarantee citizens' safety and to safeguard democratic institutions. To stand by and watch would thus be to thwart the efforts made over the years to fight side by side against an ever-present threat.
The Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats also hopes that Brazil will reconsider and think hard about what is a very delicate, but utterly rightful and legitimate request. Brazil is a great democratic country and has always enjoyed an excellent relationship with Europe and with Italy, which is precisely why we have been taken by surprise by this door slammed in our face. Indeed, for the sake of the friendship and respect that joins our countries, for the sake of the friendship and cooperation and partnership agreements linking Brazil and the European Union, whether politically or economically, the response of all parties must be decisive and effective.
Europe must unite behind the action of the Italian Government, which is using every legitimate form of political and diplomatic pressure and legal recourse so that justice may be done. The decision taken by Brazil conflicts appallingly with the image of the European Union, since it appears to presume that political persecution and torture is practised within one of its Member States. In short, we are dealing with an unacceptable situation which, above all, has no grounding in reality.
Manuel Medina Ortega
Madam President, I think that Mr Mauro has described the facts very well. This man is a murderer: he has killed four people. He has also been found guilty by the Italian courts of other acts such as belonging to an armed group, possession of firearms - a serious crime in most European countries - and acts of violence.
This man has been found guilty by an Italian court. Yet we find that on 17 December, the Brazilian Government, a democratic government, has granted him political refugee status.
As Mr Mauro said, the European Union must express its solidarity with the Italian government and show Brazil, a friendly, democratic country, that a mistake has been made.
The Brazilian authorities inform us that the matter is still awaiting an appeal before the federal supreme court, but it is lamentable that the case has proceeded in this manner.
It must also be remembered that the European Court of Human Rights rejected Mr Battisti's request for protection and that the European Union now bases its action on the respect of fundamental human rights, which is an essential component of the European Constitution.
Therefore, taking into consideration the bonds of friendship between the European Union and Brazil, the Brazilian authorities should be reminded that the EU is a good ally and friend and that we hope, in return, that they will not act in this manner, as has been the case in the past.
Carl Schlyter
author. - (SV) I wish that we had discussed the Philippines instead, where the EU could have made a real contribution to saving the lives of many people. We are now discussing an individual legal case that is currently being tried in court, in connection with which we have the gall to say that we will stand up for the principle of the rule of law. Where I come from, one of the most fundamental principles of the rule of law is that a parliament does not interfere in individual court cases.
My group and I think that it is quite wrong to discuss an ongoing individual court case in a parliament. Unfortunately, this is not even the first or the last time, because we will soon be voting on the Medina report, which does the exact same thing. In an ongoing copyright case against Pirate Bay in a Swedish court, Parliament commented on the question of guilt while the case was still in progress. I really hope that this does not become a habit because, if it does, it would be us here in Europe who would be opposing and resisting our own principles of the rule of law and that would be extremely unfortunate. Thank you.
Sorry, I forgot to mention something important.
If we are not happy with how Brazil and Europe are handling extraditions and if we are not happy with how our laws are interpreted in national courts, we should change the laws so that they are the same for everyone. We should not barge in and try to influence an individual case. That is the job of the judges, prosecutors and defence lawyers, not of Parliament. We make the laws, and the principles of the rule of law dictate that it is the courts which subsequently interpret them.
Cristiana Muscardini
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, it is truly disgraceful that an MEP should take the floor in this House without having even read the text of a resolution written and signed by all the major groups, and so say things that are not true: the proceedings have been closed for many years.
Allow me to examine our problem. The ravings of a terrorist and multiple murderer, condemned many times, cannot be defended by the government of a friendly country with whom we collaborate. We want to highlight the need, already expressed in a letter to the President-in-Office of the Union, for a debate in the Council that, starting with this incredible situation and taking account of new, internationalised terrorism, will tackle and decide on a shared rule on extradition, whether within the 27 countries of the Union or between the Union and third countries.
Nobody can allow someone who has killed unarmed people and has used every possible means to evade justice and the victims' relatives to assume the attitude of a victim of persecution and to create dangerous precedents to the detriment of the law and society.
Marios Matsakis
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - Madam President, those who are found guilty by our courts of law must face the consequences and not be given refuge by any country in the world.
Cesare Battisti is a convicted murderer in Italy, and the stance taken by the Brazilian authorities to protect him from the reach of EU justice is not only unacceptable but also condemnable and deplorable in the strongest possible terms and we, and any other authority and any other body in the EU, have every right to say so. I hope that the Brazilian Government will come to its senses and, in re-examining this case, will do what is expected of it and extradite Mr Battisti to Italy as soon as possible and before this affair begins to have serious consequences for the otherwise good EU-Brazil relations. Brazil must not become a safe haven for convicted criminals and the EU must never allow murderers to escape punishment.
Roberta Angelilli
on behalf of the UEN Group. - (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, with this joint motion for a resolution, this Parliament will make its authoritative voice heard, at international level, for reconsideration of the extradition of Cesare Battisti and, above all, it will pay tribute to the memory of the victims and show its solidarity with their families who, for more than 20 years, have been waiting for their fundamental right to justice, denied for so long, to at last be fulfilled. There is no need to say more, and so, Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to dedicate the few remaining seconds of my speaking time to observe a moment's silence in remembrance.
Mario Borghezio
(IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, thank you, Mrs Angelilli, for that important gesture, which illustrates how different the attitude of this House is to that of the European Union, which, like Pontius Pilate, is hypocritically washing its hands of the affair, while in fact there are two countries involved in this case: Italy, which has paid an extraordinarily high price for terrorism with its victims and very difficult years, and France, which is involved up to its neck thanks to the woeful interest of the infamous left-wing 'caviar' lobby, which already distinguished itself in the Petrella case and probably also in the role of the secret services.
In this way, Europe is undermining its anti-terrorism directives and losing all authority in the global strategy for combating terrorism. I wonder whether the same thing would have happened if it had been perhaps a German terrorist from the Red Army Faction? Europe is, however, saying to Brazil that to fail to extradite a common criminal and communist like Battisti, who today even in prison dares to mock his victims, would be to downgrade itself to a country of refuge for the worst criminals and terrorists.
Such behaviour would call into question all partnership agreements and, I believe, participation in the G8. We must emphasise quite clearly: it is not acceptable to make agreements with terrorists. Terrorists, sentenced under lawful proceedings - because our country has a great legal system, where no one is tortured and proceedings are legitimate - must then serve their sentence to the very last day. Terrorists, murderers and communists!
Albert Deß
(DE) Madam President, I asked to speak because I was Chairman of the German-Brazilian Parliamentarian Group in the lower house of the German Parliament for 10 years and I know Brazil very well. I am indeed surprised at the refusal of the Lula administration to extradite this convicted murderer to a European Member State. I hope that the proceedings in Brazil will be concluded very quickly.
The Lula administration has made a particular commitment to human rights. One aspect of human rights is that convicted murderers be brought to justice, and so I hope that this motion for a resolution receives strong support. I personally shall make use of my contacts with Brazilian parliamentarians to see to it that pressure is put on the government at domestic level, too, to grant this extradition request.
Janusz Onyszkiewicz
(PL) Madam President, after the end of the Second World War in Europe, many Nazi criminals fled to South America to escape from justice. Attempts to bring them back and to bring them to court have been extremely difficult. This led to such desperate steps as the actions of Israeli operatives who simply kidnapped Eichmann from South America so that he could be brought to court.
It is evident that the tradition of escapes to South America is not dying out, neither is the conviction that refuge can be found there and that it will be possible to live out one's days peacefully and with impunity despite the crimes which have been committed. Actions of this kind, like those of the Brazilian Government, maintain such a conviction and may, unfortunately, cause the feeling of impunity to spread greatly. Therefore, it is extremely important that this motion for extradition be adopted.
Mariann Fischer Boel
Member of the Commission. - Madam President, the Commission is aware of the Brazilian Justice Minister's recent decision to grant political asylum to an Italian citizen, Cesare Battisti, condemned in absentia to a life sentence by the Italian judiciary.
We have carefully considered the Commission's role in this situation, especially after Italy's European Affairs Minister, Andrea Ronchi, called on Vice-President Barrot last week for the EU to support Italy's extradition request to the Brazilian Government.
As was also explained to the Italian Government, there is no scope for an involvement of the Commission in this case. The EU Treaty is very clear on this matter: the European Union's and Commission's legal powers in the field of cooperation in criminal matters are restricted to the legal space of the EU-27. The European Union can facilitate extradition between Member States, but has no competences regarding Member States' relations with third countries on criminal cooperation matters. Italy's bilateral relations with Brazil on this matter are governed by a bilateral agreement signed in 1989.
President
The debate is closed.
We shall now proceed to the vote.


Convention on Future Multilateral Cooperation in the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries - Scheme of control and enforcement applicable in the area covered by the Convention on future multilateral cooperation in the North-East Atlantic fisheries (debate)
President
Τhe next item is the joint debate on the following:
the recommendation by Jarosław Leszek Wałęsa, on behalf of the Committee on Fisheries, on the proposal for a Council decision concerning the approval, on behalf of the European Union, of the Amendment to the Convention on Future Multilateral Cooperation in the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries (11076/2010 - C7-0181/2010 - 2010/0042(NLE)) and
the report by Carmen Fraga Estévez, on behalf of the Committee on Fisheries, on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down a Scheme of control and enforcement applicable in the area covered by the Convention on future multilateral cooperation in the North-East Atlantic Fisheries - C7-0009/2009 -.
(The President emphasised that the speakers were required to adhere strictly to their speaking times)
Jarosław Leszek Wałęsa
The convention which I have the honour of presenting was signed in Ottawa in 1978 and came into force on 1 January 1979. The Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organisation, NAFO for short, was created under the convention in order to support the conservation and optimum utilisation of fish stocks and to support international cooperation. The contracting parties adopted amendments to it at NAFO annual meetings in 2007 and 2008. This document introduces fundamental changes to the convention, the principal aim being to bring its wording into line with other conventions at a regional level and with international instruments, and to incorporate modern concepts of fisheries management. The organisational structure has been updated, a clear division of responsibilities between the contracting parties, flag states and port states has been introduced, a more coherent decision-making process has been created, the system for contributions to the NAFO budget has been reformed and a mechanism for settling disputes which may arise between contracting parties has been provided.
In the light of the fisheries rights granted to the European Union under the convention, ratification of the proposed changes lies in the interests of the European Union. As a result, we should agree to ratify the changes to the convention. Having said this, I would like to emphasise, clearly and precisely, a few problems which have surfaced during ratification at this time. Firstly, the contracting parties adopted changes at a NAFO annual meeting in 2007, and an English version was produced. In 2008, a French version was produced, but the COM document, being the Commission's proposal on transposition into Community law, is dated 8 March 2010. This means that work on the document has taken over two years. Such a delay is unacceptable and should not be repeated in the future. Rapid decision making is a necessary condition for the efficient functioning of the Union. Three institutions, the Commission, the Council and Parliament, must find an appropriate solution to avoid delaying the procedure and to realise one of the main aims of the Treaty of Lisbon, which is to simplify and accelerate the decision-making process. The current case which has been presented for ratification is proof that something is still wrong and action needs to be taken urgently to rectify the situation. Secondly, I would like to remind you that the Treaty of Lisbon came into force in December 2009. In the context of these newly acquired rights, the Committee on Fisheries and the European Parliament should be properly represented during any subsequent negotiations on future international conventions. In 2007 and 2008, the European Parliament was not represented, for obvious reasons. Our institution is, however, ready to ratify the agreement within the framework of its competences, but at the same time, the Council and Commission should be reminded of the new procedural requirements and the necessity of complying with the new powers of the European Parliament.
Carmen Fraga Estévez
Mr President, allow me to express my gratitude to the Council and the Commission for arriving at this excellent agreement at first reading, and I would particularly like to thank the legal services of all three institutions for their cooperation and help in resolving the problems arising from the new committee procedure following the Treaty of Lisbon.
I believe that we have reached a good compromise, especially as it represents significant progress compared with the current situation, although, as in any compromise, we have all had to make concessions and be flexible, in what has been an especially complex task, as the Commission proposal arrived before the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon. This meant that at the same time, it had to be adapted to the new situation, in particular, to Articles 290 and 291 of the treaty, relating to delegated acts and implementing acts.
As this is a transposition into EU legislation of recommendations issued by a regional fisheries organisation, the North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission (NEAFC) in this case, but which will be followed by many others, Parliament's objective was fundamentally to establish a mechanism which would enable the transpositions to take place as quickly as possible, preventing internal bureaucratic delays from preventing us from responding correctly to our international obligations, as has been the case so far.
Therefore, the new wording of Article 48, following the compromise reached with the Council on the subsequent amendments to this regulation, will enable the Commission both to comply with the obligations imposed by the NEAFC and to adapt to new recommendations that may arise in the future, through the delegation of powers.
It is true that the Commission wanted it to be possible to revise all the articles in the proposal through delegated acts, and the compromise agrees that this will be the case for the majority of the articles, except in areas such as the recording of catches, tranships, inspections or monitoring of infringements: in other words, fundamentally matters relating to control and supervision, which will remain outside the framework of the ordinary legislative procedure.
In any case, Commissioner, Parliament commits to amending this procedure if it is shown that the inclusion of these aspects within the scope of the ordinary legislative procedure could endanger compliance with the European Union's obligations and, especially, those of the Commission, as a contracting party to the regional fisheries organisation.
This is why we consider that this compromise represents a significant step forward, not only in relation to this specific proposal, but in order to lay the foundations for future discussions between the Council, the Commission and Parliament on fisheries policy.
Maria Damanaki
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, the Commission urges Parliament to give its consent to the approval of amendments to the Convention on Future Multilateral Cooperation in the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries, known collectively as the Amendment to the NAFO Convention.
I would like to thank Mr Wałęsa for his helpful work on this report.
This amendment revises the convention to bring it more into line with other regional conventions and international instruments. It incorporates modern concepts of fisheries management; it streamlines the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organisation (NAFO) structure; and it introduces a clear definition of the responsibilities of contracting parties, flag states and port states and a more coherent decision-making process.
It modernises the contribution formula for the NAFO budget and provides for a mechanism to settle disputes between contracting parties.
This thorough amendment will help the EU fulfil its international obligations on sustainable fisheries and further the objectives of the treaty. Speedy ratification of the amendment is in the EU's interest and I therefore commend it to the House.
I would turn now to the second report, on the scheme of control and enforcement applicable in the area covered by the Convention on Future Multilateral Cooperation in the North-East Atlantic Fisheries.
I would like to thank Ms Fraga Estévez for her work on this report. I am pleased to see the very strong support from the Committee on Fisheries on the substance of this important proposal.
The implementation of the North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission (NEAFC) scheme of control and enforcement is indeed a key measure to help us manage fishery resources in the Atlantic region and to get rid of illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing.
However, I must point out that the Commission is not entirely happy with the package deal made between Parliament and the Council during their trialogue with the Commission.
I am, indeed, disappointed by certain results, in particular, on Article 48, dealing with the procedure for amendments to the regulation.
The Commission has been seeking more sufficient delegated powers for transposing future amendments to the scheme. Let me explain why - and I would like you to be attentive because we will have the same problems in the future.
As you know, the European Union needs to implement this scheme fully because it is our international obligation under the NEAF Convention to do so. Under this convention, amendments normally become binding for us 80 days after adoption. So we have 80 days to implement them. I am really concerned that the limited powers delegated to the Commission by the colegislators may hinder the timely transposition of the amendments into EU law. This is the reality and this is an answer to Mr Wałęsa's concerns about the timetable.
While it will not be my responsibility to endorse the arrangement, I would like you to be aware of the problem.
Ultimately, we need to avoid turning the transposition of NEAFC measures into a modern version of the myth of Sisyphus. As matters stand, measures adopted by the NEAFC last year will have been transposed by the time the package deal is finally adopted, but next month, NEAFC will most likely adopt new amendments requiring effective transposition into EU law early in 2011.
We will therefore need more time for this.
The Commission therefore considers this regulation to be without prejudice to any future position of the institution as regards the use of Articles 290 and 291 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union for the transposition of Regional Fisheries Management Organisation measures.
The Commission furthermore reserves the right to propose amendments to the regulation, increasing the number of measures which should be adopted by delegated or implementing acts.
We will do this if transposition through the ordinary legislative procedure leads to delays which would compromise our duty to comply with international obligations.
In the meantime, I would like once again to thank Ms Fraga Estévez and Mr Wałęsa for their reports and the Committee on Fisheries for its work on these important issues.
Alain Cadec
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I am going to speak primarily about the report by Mrs Fraga Estévez. It is a report on which we are voicing our opinion today and which is of paramount importance for the strengthening of controls in the North-East Atlantic and for the European Parliament's role as colegislator on matters relating to the common fisheries policy.
Indeed, one of the priorities of Parliament's Committee on Fisheries is to combat illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing, which directly affects our fishermen and our European fishing industries. They are, in fact, victims of the unfair competition of an underground fishing industry. Illegal ship-owners exploit underpaid crews and sell fishery products at very low prices. Their failure to comply with the law of the sea, the International Labour Organisation conventions and the IUU Regulation of 1 January 2010 means that European ship-owners are now uncompetitive due to the labour costs they have to bear. We want upwards harmonisation of the rules and working conditions applicable to fishing carried out in the European Union by third countries.
European fishermen also respect strict management and control rules that allow for the preservation of resources and the sustainable development of European fisheries, but these rules must not penalise our fishermen in relation to those who fail to respect them. I therefore call for the controls to be strengthened and the penalties against this illegal fishing to be properly applied.
In this connection, I congratulate our Chair on her report, which points out that the control scheme adopted by the North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission (NEAFC) must be transposed into European law without delay; more specifically, I welcome the introduction of the programme promoting compliance by non-contracting party vessels. This report also clarifies the scope of Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union with regard to delegated acts.
I welcome the addition in an annex of three statements laying down the conditions for implementing delegated acts, which enable the Commission's implementing powers to be monitored and the institutional balance to be maintained.
I would point out that Parliament as legislator must be entirely free to act on matters pertaining to delegation.
Ulrike Rodust
Mr President, Commissioner Damanaki, ladies and gentlemen, I am pleased that we are able to adopt a regulation that represents one more small step towards our shared goal of sustainable fisheries. The regional fisheries organisations are extraordinarily important institutions for good management worldwide. Unfortunately, the negotiations are often difficult and progress much too slow for impatient people such as me. We must therefore do all we can to strengthen the regional fisheries organisations.
I will now comment on the specific outcome of the NEAFC report. I believe that the new port state control ruling in the NEAFC and the new measures to prevent illegal fisheries are very much to be welcomed. Nonetheless, we had to conduct intensive negotiations with the Council and Commission on matters that seem extremely technical at first glance, but which are important for our future work. I think we have found a compromise that is acceptable to all parties in the matter of delegated acts.
We also succeeded in reaching agreement on how future NEAFC decisions are to be transposed into EU law. It is no secret, however, that the Commission is not very happy with the result achieved here. I can understand that. We cannot allow it to take years for the European Union to implement NEAFC decisions. In this respect, Council and Parliament must together prove that we are able to conclude a codecision procedure quickly where necessary.
Finally, I would like to say something about a matter that is very current: the dispute with Iceland over mackerel fishing. We already have the NEAFC, which governs the international waters of the North-East Atlantic. In the case of migratory species such as mackerel, however, we also need an agreement that applies in territorial waters. As you know, that is still a sticking point. I feel it is extremely regrettable that, despite the cooperation working in the main, there is so much dispute over this. How about giving the regional fisheries organisations authority for coastal waters - at least for migratory species? It would be a radical step, of course, but undoubtedly one worth considering.
Britta Reimers
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Convention on Future Multilateral Cooperation in the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries established a very important organisation: the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organisation, or NAFO. Its aim is the conservation and optimum utilisation of the fishery resources in the Northwest Atlantic. The convention has since been amended and brought more into line with other regional conventions. Modern concepts such as stock management have been incorporated. I feel it is important that the structure of the organisation is streamlined and that the obligations of the contracting parties are clearly defined. It is also good that the possibility of resolving conflicts through a dispute settlement procedure is provided. The fishing possibilities accruing to the European Union under the convention are of great interest to the EU. Parliament should give its approval under the new powers granted to it by the Treaty of Lisbon.
As shadow rapporteur for the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, I commend Mr Wałesa's report to the House.
Isabella Lövin
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. - Mr President, I wish to thank the rapporteurs, Mrs Fraga Estévez and Mr Wałęsa, for the reports we have discussed today.
The North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission (NEAFC) is a very important regional fisheries organisation - or RFMO - for Europe and for ecosystems in the North Atlantic. An independent review of the NEAFC's performance was positive overall, something which is not always the case for RFMOs. Even though the NEAFC is performing better than other RFMOs, the status of the main fish stocks in the convention area is at a critical point. For economic and social aspects, the performance cannot be evaluated, which leads to huge uncertainties as to whether or not the Convention's objective of optimal utilisation is met. However, improvements in monitoring control and surveillance establishments and enforcement of blacklists for IUU vessels and port state measures are important accomplishments.
Another result of the evaluation was the establishment of a dispute resolution mechanism, but it has taken far too long for the EU to transpose this into legislation. These measures were adopted by the NEAFC as early as 2006 and have only now entered into force. The EU must be better prepared to respond to new developments and to live up to international responsibilities.
Combating illegal fisheries is of increasing importance. In some fisheries, 30% of the catch is illegal. On a global scale, 11 to 26 million tonnes of fish, worth an estimated USD 23 billion, are landed illegally each year. This is equivalent to about one-fifth of the global reported catch. Illegal fisheries undermine sustainable fisheries management particularly, but not only, on the high seas and in coastal waters of developing countries. They also have substantial environmental, social and economic consequences.
The entry into force of the control regulation and the IUU regulations are important tools for the EU. In the CCAMLR (Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources) area, IUU operators have been shown to respond to management measures aimed at reducing IUU by changing fishing grounds, ports, landings and flag states. This adaptive capacity has resulted in an arms race between IUU operators and fisheries management bodies at national and international level. Compliance mechanisms in an RFMO can lead to IUU vessels changing fishing grounds. IUU vessel operators now routinely keep changing flag states - or 'flag hopping'. This is something that the EU has to address.
The EU needs to go further. Cooperation between RFMOs is essential, but we should also take the initiative of drawing up a global register of fishing vessels, including all support vessels, which clearly shows the beneficial owner of a vessel. The EU must take greater responsibility in addressing IUU fishing globally.
Marek Józef Gróbarczyk
To begin, I would like to congratulate the rapporteurs on their extremely significant and important reports, and particularly on the reports regulating inspections. In view of the situation where there are areas in waters belonging to the European Union which are not inspected or completely disregarded by checks, action should be taken to inspect all fishing waters throughout the European Union.
In the context of inspections, it should, however, be pointed out that there is no uniform system of distributing quotas or reporting catches by individual Member States. The analyses which have been presented prove that the Commission itself does not have the know-how in this field, and on more than one occasion, the opinions presented by representatives of the Commission have been contradictory. At the same time, regional advisory agencies do not have the know-how either. It is worth reminding everyone of the tragic situation of the herring population in the Western Baltic. There have been investigations into the reasons for the crisis since 2004. No reasonable explanation has been found as yet. It is incomprehensible that the problem of overproduction of fish meal and fish oil has been omitted.
The issue of the Fisheries Control Agency in Vigo which, in certain cases, has presented inspection reports subjectively, as in the case of the Eastern Baltic, should be considered. The inspection of industrial fishing units is also mired in controversy. However, a fundamental issue now is the construction of the northern pipeline, in the case of which fishermen have to stand up for their due rights and reclaim lost benefits on their own. All this forces us to carry out a more thorough analysis which should be incorporated in a future common fisheries policy, and every report should fulfil this policy.
Diane Dodds
Mr President, Commissioner Damanaki, you are indeed having a busy evening since we have already met in the Fisheries Committee. Firstly, I want to offer my thanks to the rapporteurs for these reports and to reiterate the comments of many colleagues here tonight about their concern over the delay in progressing these matters.
However, I really want to use this opportunity in the House to turn to fisheries agreements in a more general way and to stress the need for cooperation from all of those parties to these agreements. This was outlined by the Commissioner when she indicated that agreements require the exercise of responsibility from all those involved.
Now, imagine you have just made a multi-million pound investment in a new state-of-the-art factory which annually produces a high value product from a renewable and sustainable resource to the highest internationally recognised standards. Then your neighbour decides to tear up that international agreement and unilaterally declare that they are massively extending their share of the natural resource that your business depends upon. This is exactly what has happened with mackerel and, in particular, one fishing family from Northern Ireland.
Of course, I refer to the Coastal States Agreement between the EU, Norway, Iceland and the Faroe Islands. Commissioner, we have already heard you and we appreciate the strong stand that you have been taking on this particular issue. We want to recognise your efforts on behalf of these fishermen, but we also want to urge both Parliament and the Commission to stand strong with you as you continue to negotiate a resolution to what is becoming a very difficult and a very fraught situation.
Seán Kelly
Mr President, there are three speakers from Ireland here this evening: Mrs Dodds, who has spoken; Pat the Cope, who is speaking shortly; and myself. Between the three of us, we represent almost the entire fishing community of the island of Ireland. Fishing has been very important to our country for many years. We have wonderful coastal communities that are dependent on fishing, but, as I have said here before, I have never encountered more disillusionment amongst any group of people than I have among those fishermen. This is a result of quotas, illegal fishing, lack of traceability from fish to fork and, in particular, over-zealous regulation, draconian penalties and being undercut by fish imports of dubious quality and dubious origin.
Thankfully, the rapporteurs have addressed some of these issues here this evening. I particularly welcome the North-East Atlantic Fisheries Convention's proposed ban on frozen fish being landed at European ports without ratification by the flag state of the foreign vessel. That is a very important matter and I hope it will be implemented with the same zeal with which we implement our own regulations affecting our own fishing communities.
The rapporteurs pointed out that it is important for Parliament to maintain its prerogative to scrutinise future amendments to the convention, but it is equally important that the Commission and Parliament work closely together to get the best possible benefits for our coastal communities, which are largely our fishing communities.
Finally, we should not miss this opportunity to look at all the possibilities open to us for developing aquaculture. There are far too many fish being imported into the European Union which we could actually be producing ourselves. There is certainly a great opportunity to develop aquaculture in these times of economic crisis.
Josefa Andrés Barea
(ES) Mr President, I would like to thank Mrs Damanaki for being here and to congratulate the rapporteurs, Mr Wałesa and Mrs Fraga.
Mrs Fraga's report is the result of the recommendations on the control scheme adopted by the North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission (NEAFC) in 2006, although the Convention was drawn up in 1982, and it redefines the rules for control and enforcement for vessels in the Convention areas. Mrs Fraga's report is the legal framework included in the proposal for a regulation to apply the measures at European level.
The main changes are: promoting compliance with the rules by vessels in the non-contracting area, a new control system, banning landings of frozen fish whose legality cannot be proven, realigning with other conventions, fisheries management measures and new measures to combat illegal fishing.
I would like to highlight something that other fellow Members have already pointed out. Mrs Fraga's report mentions that the recommendation on the control scheme was adopted in 2006, although the convention was signed in 1982, 28 years ago, while the convention referred to in Mr Wałesa's report was adopted in 1978, and I think he said it was transposed in 1989. In other words, I would like to express my disagreement with the method used by the Commission to transpose the recommendations of regional fisheries organisations.
Not only does illegal fishing need to be monitored through total allowable catches and quotas, but also, we need to tackle the legal vacuum that could be created by failing to transpose the legislation.
It is not sufficient to transpose recommendations from other regulations, because this takes away clarity and credibility. Moreover, it calls into question the ordinary legislative procedure and the institutional balance. The measures adopted in regional organisations need to be incorporated efficiently and swiftly. Parliament has often stressed that regional organisations and their agreements take priority.
Failing to comply with EU law when transposing the decisions made by regional organisations is detrimental to Parliament and, of course, it disparages the nature of the Treaty of Lisbon.
The Commissioner said that there are going to be fresh agreements. Therefore, in short, we are asking the Commission to be swift and dynamic in legally transposing them. Let us not allow a legal vacuum to harbour illegality in fisheries.
Pat the Cope Gallagher
Mr President, first of all, I would like to compliment both rapporteurs on their reports, and to refer, in particular, to Carmen Fraga Estévez's report, which has proved to be non-controversial as all parties have agreed to the compromise. The report aims to ensure the long-term conservation and optimum utilisation of fisheries resources in the North-East Atlantic area, providing sustainable environmental and social benefits.
I would like to take this opportunity to raise the ongoing dispute relating to mackerel, as some of the stock is fished within the North-East Atlantic area. It is important that this dispute is resolved as quickly as possible, because over-fishing of the mackerel stock will have a devastating impact on future catches. It is vital that the stock is fished in a sustainable manner, and all parties should sign up to this. I understand that recent talks in London were inconclusive, but I note that they will resume next week. I wish these talks well and I hope that good sense will prevail. Commissioner, I understand that you will assess the situation after the talks on 26 October, and I appreciate the firm stand you have decided to take. You must ensure that this jointly managed stock remains healthy in the future. Finally, we cannot afford to repeat the mistakes of the past in relation to blue whiting. We cannot decimate this healthy mackerel stock.
Ian Hudghton
Mr President, in supporting the reports which are the subject of debate, I must also take the opportunity to make some more general comments on international and multinational agreements in fisheries.
If agreements between fishing nations are to succeed, there must be clear incentives for all parties to comply with such conservation measures as may be required from time to time.
There must also be faith in the scientific advice which is used as a basis for conservation and management plans. From the point of view of my own fishing nation, Scotland, the common fisheries policy, the EU's very own international agreement, has not been a great success.
The so-called cod recovery plan is actually causing discards of perfectly good fish and is imposing an almost unworkable combination of quota restrictions and days at sea. The current dispute over mackerel - Scotland's most valuable fishery - which we have heard about from other speakers, has implications for all international negotiations.
If there is to be any hope of successful agreements between fishing nations, then we cannot have a situation where stocks are threatened by a race to catch all the available fish on a unilateral basis.
I ask that the Commissioner continue her good work in striving for a solution to this dispute. I know that she is well aware of the strength of feeling in Scotland about this from her recent visit, but I appeal in broad terms for the Commissioner to keep in mind the need to ensure that we have robust scientific advice in all that we try to do, that we have sensible, workable rules in management plans - which would be a novelty under the CFP - and that we have, above all, incentives for those who are the subject of these plans, i.e. fishing communities, to comply.
Daciana Octavia Sârbu
(RO) Illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing destroys communities living in coastal regions, has a devastating impact on marine ecosystems, and poses a threat to food resources. This is why I welcome this agreement with the Council and I believe that we have taken a step forward in implementing the recommendations of the North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission.
Tightening the control measures and basing them on sound legislation are vital actions to enable us to meet the obligations assumed by the treaty and to protect the Atlantic's resources which are currently being heavily overfished. However, in spite of this progress, this regulation's scope of application does not enable us to tackle completely the problems relating to illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing.
We are all aware that thousands of vessels fly the flags of states which are unwilling or do not have the capability to apply international legislation. It is not only fish stocks but also the marine environment which stand to suffer. Working conditions aboard many of these vessels are nothing short of slave labour.
Czesław Adam Siekierski
(PL) The Conventions on Future Multilateral Cooperation in the Northwest and North-East Atlantic Fisheries require adjustment in response to current challenges, which is why there is a need for amendments to the regulations. The proposed changes relate to: firstly, the optimum exploitation of fish stocks; secondly, the correct method for fisheries management and appropriate fishing methods; and, finally and thirdly, preventing illegal fishing.
These changes will promote the long-lasting and sustainable development of fisheries, but constant monitoring of the process of depletion of fish stocks and the processes of restocking is essential in order to assess the actual situation and to make appropriate decisions in this area.
Elie Hoarau
(FR) Mr President, during the negotiations on the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organisation (NAFO) agreements, the EU head of delegation pledged to retrocede the French cod fishing quota to the fishermen of Saint Pierre and Miquelon. This retrocession does not appear in the NAFO agreement.
On behalf of the fishermen of Saint Pierre and Miquelon, I request confirmation of this retrocession and the formalisation of this retrocession. I believe that this can take the form of a simple letter once the NAFO agreements have been definitively ratified. Can the Commissioner give us some details on this matter?
João Ferreira
(PT) Mr President, Commissioner, multilateral cooperation on fisheries in international waters is necessary to ensure their sustainability and the preservation of fish stocks in the medium and long term. Conservation measures and the management of resources at the level of regional fisheries organisations should, of course, be defined alongside measures to ensure effective compliance.
We are therefore in favour of bridging gaps in the monitoring system, especially in relation to illegal, undeclared and unregulated fishing activity. Today, monitoring of fishing activities places increased demands on the Member States, whether under the common fisheries policy (CFP) or under multilateral cooperation, as the proposed transposition now demonstrates.
This fact should not be ignored by the Commission. The necessary acquisition, development or modernisation of controls may require considerable financial input. It will therefore by important for us to consider the financial resources allocated to monitoring activities in the available legislative instruments, particularly in the regulation of the financial measures of the CFP, and especially by reviewing the maximum rate of cofinancing provided in this area, which is currently 50%.
Franz Obermayr
(DE) Mr President, the annual conference of NAFO made amendments to the Ottawa Convention of 1 January 1979. It is important that we do not lose sight of the fundamental considerations here: the optimum utilisation and sensible management of fishery resources. This needs to be based on a sustainable and ecological concept if we are to ensure that fishing continues to provide food for future generations.
The agreements are intended, in particular, to preserve the small local fishing enterprises with their family structures, and to protect them from competition that uses illegal methods, as well as from large-scale fleets which plunder the seas using large amounts of electronic equipment and deep fishing nets. In short, we want a fisheries industry, but not in this form which jeopardises the small-scale structures, the local structures, with its negative actions. We need to provide sustainability for future generations, and we must protect this and secure it by contractual means.
Maria Damanaki
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, I would like to thank the two rapporteurs once again for their excellent work, and I would also like to thank all the Members for their remarks. I understand that these are very important reports. These amendments would drastically improve the situation, especially as regards control and our stance on the problem of illegal fisheries.
I agree with everybody that the problem of illegal fisheries is something that we have to tackle, because it destroys the sustainability of stocks. It is also a grave danger for our coastal communities, because if sustainability of the stocks collapses, our coastal communities will have no future. It is very important to secure these control schemes. The reports and the amendments concerning these schemes can help us a lot.
I would also like to underline that I understand we need more resources - and more funding, perhaps - to ensure that these rules are well implemented. It is not an easy task to deal with this crisis, but we are nevertheless going to do our best.
I would like to focus a little more on the codecision process between Parliament, the Council and the Commission in the context of making amendments to these RFMO decisions and transposing them into our legislation. I share with you the opinion that these regional fisheries organisations are very important for our policy and we need to boost their activity in order to tackle illegal fisheries worldwide. I also agree that if we can secure implementation of our principles worldwide, then the sustainability of fisheries would be much more secure.
I also very much welcome the proposals on how we can boost cooperation, and the proposal to establish an international registry of fishing vessels, but we have to take a lot of steps before reaching that stage.
If we really want to boost international cooperation, we have to press ahead and swiftly implement the decisions taken in these organisations. This is why the Commission is asking for more delegated powers on this issue. We respect the codecision process, we understand that we are in a new environment now, and we understand that the Council and Parliament will decide on the powers you can give us under the delegation mandate. I would nevertheless like to underline that it is not just the Commission's problem: the international reputation of the EU is at stake if we delay the transposition of these regional organisations' decisions into our legislation. That is why we are insisting that we have to have a better balance on this.
I agree with you that we need a balance between the three institutions, but we need a better balance, and I am ready to participate in specific discussions with Parliament as regards how these RFMO measures can be more effectively transposed into EU law.
Jarosław Leszek Wałęsa
I would like to thank everyone for today's debate. I can see that we are in agreement. The changes which have been introduced by way of revisions to the conventions are absolutely essential. I would like to thank Mrs Fraga Estévez for chairing our committee but, above all, I would like to thank the Commissioner. Working with you has been a real pleasure. Thank you for your words and assurances, as I see that you understand the changing dynamic of the functioning of the European institutions. In spite of the fact that, as the European Parliament, we can only agree to ratify amendments to the conventions, I have every hope that from now on, cooperation and negotiations will proceed as they should, and they will be quick, transparent and efficient. Thank you, Commissioner, for your words, and I am counting on further good collaboration in the future.
Carmen Fraga Estévez
Mr President, I would like to say to the Commissioner that I believe that the example set by this most recent regulation on the North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission (NEAFC), which we are going to adopt tomorrow, is not a good one, because what has happened is precisely what we want to avoid.
The Commission put forward the proposal late and the procedure has changed, as we have changed from the consultation procedure to the ordinary legislative procedure, and the proposal as a whole has been changed in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure. That is exactly what we are avoiding through this compromise. Through the new wording of Article 48 of the regulation, which is the article that provides for the amendment of the regulation in future in order to transpose the various NEAFC recommendations into EU law, in the majority of the articles, we have delegated powers to the European Commission. We have only maintained and preserved the ordinary legislative procedure in a few areas, which was the compromise with the Council.
A significant step forward has therefore been taken to ensure that this functions in the future, but even so, Commissioner, I have made a public commitment here that if, in the future, it does not function adequately and we are prevented from fulfilling our obligations, Parliament will be prepared to revise the procedure. I believe that we have made quite a considerable effort, and I think that this is a significant step forward as a starting point. We are sure that the Commission will be capable of using the new powers that the Council and Parliament has granted to it.
Thank you, Mr President, Commissioner. I am sure that this is going to work much better than what we had in the past. Of course, Commissioner, you are the one who is going to have the tools to ensure that this is the case.
President
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place on Tuesday, 19 October 2010, at 12:30.
(The sitting was suspended for a few minutes)
Written statements (Rule 149)
Luis Manuel Capoulas Santos
As a Portuguese MEP, and given that Portugal is a country with a strong tradition of fishing and specific interests in the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organisation (NAFO), I welcome the amendments to the text of the convention, as it aims to provide better operating conditions for this regional fisheries organisation (RFO).
The restructuring promoted by concentrating the power to make decisions in a single new body, along with the new process of dispute resolution, will speed up internal decision making. New definitions have introduced clearer guidelines on the obligations and rights of the different parties, bringing greater transparency to fishing activity in this zone.
Along with the NAFO, the EU should be guided by a proactive stance in conjunction with the other contracting parties, and should seek to preserve good relations with Canada while continuing to pursue dialogue and consensus with the other contracting parties of the organisation, and even among the individual Member States that have an interest in this RFO.
Despite the essential role played by scientific partnerships, which form the basis for decisions that allow the sustainable management of marine resources, and which have proved a success for certain species of fish, these decisions should be carefully considered. Their aim should be to achieve a balance, and this can only be sustainable if it is created with its socio-economic impact in mind.


22. E-Justice (
- After the vote:
Daniel Caspary
(DE) Mr President, I refer to the relevant rule of the Rules of Procedure. A few months ago, we voted on the Bauer report, and afterwards I wrote seeking clarification of how we should be voting on amendments to reports.
There is no doubt that we need a qualified majority in the final vote if we are to call on the Commission to take legislative action, but I fail to see why we also need a qualified majority beforehand for amendments. Unfortunately, I have yet to receive a reply.
We have now had another such report on the agenda. I would be grateful if the services could clarify this.
President
Mr Caspary, I have just been informed that a reply regarding the Bauer report is on its way to you. I hope that it will reach you before Christmas.