Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-01-20-Speech-4-035"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000120.3.4-035"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, the implementation of the fourth multiannual guidance programme for the fishing sector is a particularly difficult task. Under previous programmes, this sector has already made considerable efforts to adapt the capacity of its fleet. Despite this, the Commission is demanding that it continue to reduce capacity. Below a certain threshold, however, the level of the fleet is no longer adequate to absorb port and commercial infrastructure and make it profitable, which is likely to lead to completely unjustifiable relocations and reductions in the numbers of fishing vessels, as long as we remain within our catch quotas. The guidance programmes designed as programmes to continually reduce the fleet should not become permanent features of the common fisheries policy.
That is why the Members of the Union for a Europe of Nations Group cannot adopt the Cunha report as it stands. For that reason, our colleague, Dominique Souchet, has tabled five amendments that aim to point out that the catch capacity should be adapted, and not necessarily systematically and continuously reduced. In fact, our aim is to ensure the future of the fishing fleets of the Member States of the European Union. Our amendments also make it clear that it is difficult to make a comparison between the third and fourth programmes owing to the introduction of new elements, such as the composition of the catches and the nature of the fishing gear. They also draw attention to the fact that it is difficult for the Member States to provide the detailed and numerous amounts of information requested of them within very short time limits.
Furthermore, our Group is against paragraph 6 of the motion for a resolution. In fact, it is not up to the European Parliament to request that the penalties applicable in the event of failure to respect the programmes or the notification procedure can consist of additional reductions in quotas. Firstly, in our view, there is no legal basis for that and, in any case, it is not necessary to distort the principle of the guidance programmes whose aim is not, I repeat, to make fishing activity in Europe die out, but, on the contrary, to control it in order to ensure its long-term future.
Finally, owing to the recent oil slick in France, our Group has also tabled two amendments that request a freeze on the implementation of the reduction programmes for the areas affected by the disaster. The whole European Parliament has this week been moved by this disaster. From our Group, Dominique Souchet and Philippe de Villiers have visited the scene of the disaster, in Vendée, and have told us how urgent the need to undertake measures to show our support is. It is clear that fishing activities in these disaster-stricken areas are going to become more precarious for a time. Under such conditions, the desire to apply restrictive measures in a uniform manner across the European Union, without taking account of these exceptional situations, could lead to further disasters."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples