Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-07-05-Speech-4-207"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010705.11.4-207"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. May I start by thanking Mr Busk for his excellent report. As we all know, the multi-annual guidance programmes are important instruments for fleet policy. I agree with you wholeheartedly there. According to the information in the annual report, not only were the MAGP IV targets not ambitious enough, even these modest targets were not all met.
Now I should like to comment on the two main demands contained in the report: measurements of vessels and sanctions for Member States which fail to meet their MAGP targets.
First, Mr Busk, you call for precise and clear criteria for measuring capacity. In theory, we introduced a uniform definition of tonnage which applies throughout the Community in 1994 in Regulation No 3259. According to this regulation, the Member States had to file tonnage estimates by 1995 and have until 2003 to measure all vessels in accordance with uniform regulations and notify the actual values.
So far, we have only received estimates and now they must gradually be replaced by actual values. This means that we shall have to work with a mixture of accurate measurements and estimates until the end of 2003. In theory, there are also harmonised definitions for engine power. There is a problem here with controls, however, because the actual engine power is often higher than the value declared or is subsequently increased.
We must put a stop to this practice and the Commission will be organising a workshop of experts from the Member States in the autumn of this year in order to find solutions to these problems. In all honesty, however, there is good cause to question, over and above this, if these two criteria, that is, engine power and tonnage, really are the only possible and the most suitable criteria for assessing the fishing effort of a vessel accurately.
In all events, I intend to raise this question again when we consider the reform of the common fisheries policy and investigate it more closely.
Secondly, Mr Busk, you call for effective sanctions against Member States which fail to honour their obligations under MAGP IV. You refer in this context to earlier resolutions by Parliament on the Cunha report on the same subject. I agree with you wholeheartedly here. We need more effective sanctions which will have the right impact. The most effective method in the past, with the exception of legal recourse, has been to freeze state aid for fleets. This is, of course, completely pointless in Member States which do not grant state aid, such as the Netherlands or the United Kingdom.
The only legal recourse available if the MAGP IV targets are exceeded is to go to the European Court and institute infringement proceedings. We have prepared infringement proceedings against several Member States and we now intend to set them in motion because there is no other way of making sure they toe the line."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples