Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-01-20-Speech-4-043"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000120.3.4-043"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, first of all I would like to thank Mr Cunha for his great expertise. I noticed that he managed to bring a number of aspects with regard to the multiannual guidance programme into the limelight. He observes, rightly so, that a great deal of data is unreliable, that it is difficult to obtain the correct data and this is one of the problems which the European fisheries policy is facing. So far, I have a great deal of sympathy for this.
My criticism focuses on a number of other points; namely, once you establish that data is unreliable and that a programme is, in fact, a supplementary programme, but then support sanctions which are extremely far-reaching, then this can lead to discrimination against Member States and certainly against fishermen, because the moment you realise that data is unreliable, you also have to look at the sanctions you are using. Otherwise, it could well be that countries which fail to carry out part of the guidance programmes adequately and are being penalised for it – because this is a fact in current policy – are being more heavily penalised, whilst countries which have not properly collected their data are being safeguarded against this. This is, to my mind, unacceptable.
What I would like to argue in favour of, also in the framework of this report, is that we arrive at improved data comparison within the European Union. Harmonisation of data, better inspection and, based on this, the development of a specific policy.
The second point which I would like to advocate in this context is that when sanctions are imposed, these should be restricted to the policy adopted, in this case the multiannual guidance programme. This means that Member States which cannot meet this programme in one way or another can be faced with possible sanctions, which means that it may well be possible that they will receive less funding. This is a sanction which quite simply goes hand in hand with the policy. I would like to underline this, otherwise – as I do fundamentally disagree with the multiannual guidance programme from this point of view, because it focuses too little on the enforcement of quota, if this is a means to an end – I fear that especially Member States which use a slightly different system or which monitor the observance of the quota very well, will be affected more so than others. In this context, I would very much like to back the position of the fishing countries around the North Sea and the North Atlantic region.
I remain of the opinion, Mr President, that I value the purpose of Mr Cunha’s programme and his report, but I have very strong, fundamental objections when he proposes possible sanctions in the area of cutting quotas, even on a temporary basis. This tool cannot be applied in this case. It is a totally different policy and, in my opinion, this Parliament should reject this particular aspect as a matter of principle and needs to fight for a better fisheries policy with better control. On this basis, we can also pursue a better policy. This is the first step we need to take. A second step is to observe the quota. We have other means of doing this. The third is to ensure that a multiannual guidance programme is geared to restructuring and nothing else."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples