Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-01-20-Speech-4-042"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2000-01-20"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Multiannual guidance programmes for the fishing fleets (1997)2
dcterms:Language	"nl"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20000120.3.4-042"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2000-01-20-Speech-4-0432
lpv:speaker	lp:Rijk van Dam2
lpv:spokenAs	member; EDD (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 substitute; AFCO (1999-07-21--2000-06-12)3 vice-chair; Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 member; Delegation to the EU-Estonia Joint Parliamentary Committee (1999-09-28--2002-01-14)3 member; Delegation for relations with Israel (1999-09-28--2002-01-14)3 unknown; Staatkundig Gereformeerde Partij - Gereformeerd Politiek Verbond - Reformatorisch Politieke Federatie (1999-07-20--2002-03-17)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, in this debate on multiannual guidance programmes, we have to be clear about the ultimate goal of the policy. In essence, it aims to protect fish stocks by imposing restraints on fishing quotas. To enable the sector to meet this quota, the European Union has imposed an additional measure on the Member States to reduce their fleets. The multiannual guidance programmes are not therefore a goal in themselves but a means in the service of quota schemes. Unfortunately, I have to note that the rapporteur is confusing the means with the end. This is evident from the fact that he urges that a quota reduction be imposed on Member States which do not meet the multiannual guidance programmes, irrespective of whether or not they observe the quota. In this way, he elevates the multiannual guidance programmes to the highest goal and degrades the quotas by just thinking of them as handy tools. As such, Member States which do not fully meet the objectives of the multiannual guidance programmes but do observe the quota – which is, after all, the ultimate goal – are being disproportionately penalised. For example, take the Netherlands. It has, admittedly, reduced its fleet to a lesser extent, but manages to remain within the quota by introducing a sea day scheme. Would it not be much fairer to impose an extra reduction on the fleet of Member States which exceed the quota constantly and which, as such, constitute an actual threat ? Finally, there is a great deal of uncertainty surrounding the reliability of data on the fleet capacity of the various Member States. Policy based on unreliable information is poor policy and is harmful to the integrity of the public authority. This is why I would call upon the Committee – as a matter of urgency – to have the data of the Member States verified thoroughly by an expert and independent organisation."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph