Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-03-10-Speech-1-154"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030310.7.1-154"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, following this debate I should first like to make a few corrections and clarifications: Mr Stevenson said that the problem was that after 20% of the UK fleet had been decommissioned, days at sea were being reduced to 12. It is precisely the reverse. We anticipated the 20% decommissioning – before it had actually happened – and did our calculations as if it had already taken place. On that basis we stipulated 15 days at sea, and so no further cuts are now going to be made.
Secondly, it is news to me that the majority of the fishing fleet in the United Kingdom now consists of vessels that are under ten years old. I do not therefore agree that under this decommissioning exercise – which by the way was not something that we prescribed but was something that the United Kingdom decided to do on its own – vessels are having to be scrapped that are not eligible for decommissioning subsidy.
Thirdly, as I see it we have to draw a distinction. On the one hand, there are measures that need to be taken to rescue cod and the recovery plan has to be based on these. There is no way round this. On the other hand, we have to show sympathy for the social consequences that this is going to have over a particular period, for an interim period. There too we have to show understanding and help the fishermen. If we are only half-hearted in both respects then it will be completely counter-productive. If we only take half measures then we will not be able to bring about stock recovery and this will do huge damage to our fishermen in the long term. Considerably more fishermen will be faced with having to scrap their vessels because they will not be able to fish any more.
On the other hand, however, it is of course also fair that we should offer help to alleviate the impact of the measures that we are having to take under the recovery plan.
I should also like to point out that the Commission is monitoring the sand eel or industrial fishing issue with very great care. In the past we have asked ISIS to investigate this matter in detail. So far, in any case, we do not have any indication that industrial fishing – if it is carried out lawfully – has an adverse impact on cod stocks.
I think it is only right to set the record straight with regard to Mrs Stihler's comments too. She is quite right to say that Scotland, or the United Kingdom, has made GBP 50 million available – that is pounds not euros – to ensure adequate funding for social measures. This money is however coming entirely from national sources and has been declared as a national subsidy. This means that no Community money is being claimed for this, which also presents a certain advantage to the other Member States because there will be more Community funds left for them.
Once again: if you demand more money here then this decision has to be made first and foremost, if not in full, by the budgetary authority. The recovery plan is not a Commission decision either; it is the Council that decides, and the Fisheries Council will also be addressing this matter once again at its next meeting."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples