Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-05-29-Speech-3-060"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020529.5.3-060"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, honoured guests, I have listened very attentively to the debate and should like to comment on a number of important points raised, especially where there are obviously still ambiguities. But before I do, I have a request. I understand full well that parliamentary debate is rooted in polemics. But I think that the verbal radicalism of terms such as 'death sentence' and 'execution' do not become this House.
Secondly, there are sanctions for anyone who fails to comply with the requirements already in force and the law now in force. They are expressly provided for in the proposals. For example, their fisheries effort will be reduced. Countries which have voluntarily done more are at a huge advantage under the new system, because the fisheries effort allocated to the individual Member States in the future can then be allocated to the fleet in a way which makes greater economic sense and will not result in any one particular ship being given enough days at sea to be able to fish sensibly. That is the main difference, which is why it really has paid off for Member States who have not just complied with the requirements of the current law but have even gone beyond them.
I have no wish to comment further on the calls in various guises for fisheries policy to be renationalised. If you want to shoot yourself in the foot, then go ahead, but I cannot see that this will get us anywhere worth talking of. We need a common fisheries policy, one policy for all the Member States.
Another subject which appears to keep making everyone hot under the collar is industrial fisheries. It is true that important quantities of fish meal will continue to be produced, but not least so that it can be used as fish food on fish farms. In other words, without fish meal there can be practically no aquaculture and we should not forget that.
Secondly, industrial fisheries concentrate on species which are of no nutritional value to human beings, meaning there is no competition between industrial fisheries and fisheries for human consumption. Naturally, industrial fisheries will be subject to the same restrictions and the same standards as any other type of fisheries. We really cannot be accused of failing to thoroughly investigate the situation and the development problems of regions which are highly dependent on fisheries in the run up to this reform. We carried out 22 studies on these regions. The results are posted on the Internet for you to read any time you want. They have been for the last year.
Then there is the question of people getting the impression that we are introducing a sort of scrapping reform. Let us not get carried away here! Our proposals will probably reduce the fleet by 10%. One tenth! So there is no point in carrying on as if every ship were going to disappear! Nevertheless, we have changed one thing and that is that we are implementing these measures in a socially responsible manner by flanking this well-needed reduction with proper social measures. So if you want to accuse us of anything, it should be for our current, not our future policy!
Another point is the debate on artisanal fisheries and fisheries which use very large, very efficient ships. I really do feel – and I have said as much in the Commission – that we need to take proper account of this difference when we implement the policy. We must also safeguard some sort of future for artisanal fisheries.
If you ask me what Director-General Smidt's departure has changed in the proposals, your question is wrong on two counts. First, Mr Smidt has not departed; he is still the Director-General of the Fisheries DG. Secondly, I can say with a certain degree of pride that the proposals have not substantially changed or been changed.
Finally, Mr Galeote asked where the money will come from for the reform. As I said, some of the money will come from rethinking whether our structural programme for the fisheries sector, as it now stands, is the right programme and from reprogramming. Some of the money will come from the flexibility instrument. Some will be raised during the planned mid-term review. You only have to look at how far the take-up of money under the Structural Funds is behind schedule, namely over EUR 80 billion, to see that EUR 200 million is not going to break the bank.
One thing stands, however. If we ask ourselves, do we need reform? And Parliament has said that we do on several occasions. If we ask ourselves, do we have stock problems? Can we not keep going with the present resources? If we ask ourselves, should we reduce capacity? If we ask ourselves, do we have a social responsibility? Then we only have to look to the Commission proposal for an unequivocal answer to all these questions.
I therefore call on you to bring the debate back to basics, because the problems are big enough, without inflating them artificially. I think we should keep sight of what Mrs Langenhagen said: we are not moving towards war! All we want to do is bring about a situation which holds greater promise for the future of our fish stocks and for the future of our fisheries sector than they have experienced over recent years. And we need to work together on that.
I do not think we should play the old North-South card, Mr Galeote, and say that the score is currently 1 – 0 to the North. I fail to see that. If anything, the starting whistle has only just been blown and we should play as a team and be aware of the fact that we have to prevent these traditional standoffs which have often caused difficulties in the past.
Mr Stevenson quoted a number of figures. You should, in fact, just let the figures speak for themselves and quote figures which are properly backed up. You can read the real numbers of ships per Member State on page 49 of the resource management regulation, Sir.
I should also like us to clarify exactly what we mean by scientific. The purpose of science is not to conduct a mammoth project upstream of the reform and then operate reform management; the purpose of science is to accompany fisheries policy. And that is exactly what our proposals set out to do. Mr Baron Crespo asked why the fisheries policy is not subject to the same rules as the common agricultural policy. Unfortunately, he is no longer here, but could someone please tell him that exactly the same rules apply. The basic principle for the future of both policies is sustainability in all three dimensions and we want to keep it that way.
It is also wrong to say that we no longer care about the safety of fishermen and the safety of boats. We have made express provision to continue supporting investments in safety equipment on board ships in the future. There is no change here; on the contrary, we want to put heavier assistance in place.
Then there is the important matter of access to fishing grounds. There appear to be a number of misunderstandings or perhaps misinterpretations here. First, the provision which is still contained in the accession agreements of Spain and Portugal is due to run out at the end of this year. When it does, it will guarantee that these two countries no longer have to accept specific restrictions, can no longer be discriminated against and will have access to fishing grounds. But do not forget that access to fishing grounds is not the same as access to fish! When a transitional provision runs out, it means that Community law must be applied without discrimination. And that is what we shall do, no more no less, because we are obliged to do so. It needed no special mention in the reform, because it goes without saying. But we mentioned it nonetheless, just to be clear.
A further difficulty is that the impression appears to have been created that we want to use our new fleet policy to punish countries which voluntarily did more in the past than they were required to. First, we must not forget that our fleet in Europe is too big and anyone who disputes that is burying their head in the sand."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples