Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-12-14-Speech-3-317"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20051214.21.3-317"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, I am somewhat intrigued by the background giving rise to the oral question before the House. Since 1999, countries that obey the rules have been honouring Council Regulation (EC) No 1447/1999, which required proportional, effective and dissuasive penalties with regard to serious infringements of the common fisheries policy.
It is no surprise to find that the United Kingdom is at the top of the class in its dedication to meeting the Commission’s demands, whereas some of those countries that speak the loudest about their commitment to the European project – such as Spain and Germany – are among the main defaulters. The latest figures of serious CFP infringements are – as we have heard – those published by the Commission for 2003. They show that the average fine in the United Kingdom was almost EUR 78 000 whereas the EU average was a mere EUR 4 500. On the serious matter of falsifying records, the UK average fine was EUR 132 000 while in Germany it was a derisory EUR 98 – but EUR 98 more than in the Republic of Ireland which, according to those official Commission figures, had no penalties to declare in 2003, although it belatedly admitted that it had 103 serious infringements! Wherever the last speaker conjured up his figures, he certainly did not conjure them up from the published Commission figures. It is not without significance that only when a red-faced Dublin Government published proposals for penalties to deal with this issue that, at the behest of Irish MEPs and others, this oral question was raised.
Let me make it clear: I see merit in equitable and proportionate penalties across the EU, but I am less than impressed by the fact that, so long as the fishermen of the United Kingdom were bearing the brunt of punitive action, nobody cared. But once one of the free-wheeling states is asked to pedal, then there are cries for equity, for fairness and for a level playing field.
The disparity that has been in operation for years has a practical detriment for those states that have been complying. Take the situation in the Irish Sea, where most of the fishermen from my country, Northern Ireland, have to compete to fish. There, we compete with fishermen from the Republic of Ireland, whereas the Northern Ireland fisherman for years has been subject to those draconian UK penalties. Indeed, at present, some Ulster fishermen are awaiting trial in Liverpool Crown Court. Yet, for years it seems that their southern counterparts have had the benefit of flouting the rules without serious penalty. Think what that does to competitiveness. Every time the Northern Ireland fisherman goes to sea, he has to factor in the risk of savage penalty if he seriously infringes the CFP, but, according to the Commission’s figures, the Republic of Ireland fisherman in the same waters has no worries at all. Until now, his government has not seemed to bother about serious infringement.
So, by all means, let us have parity of treatment, but let us understand the detriment suffered to date by those who, for years, have kept to the rules on pain of savage punishment. How, Commissioner, is that historic wrong to be righted? You said tonight that you very much favour administrative sanctions. If that is so, would you now publicly support and encourage the United Kingdom to discontinue its present prosecutions? That would greatly help."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples