Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-07-03-Speech-3-328"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020703.12.3-328"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". – Mr President, there is something slightly surreal about rising this late at night to deal with infringements that took place more than two years ago and in circumstances where the Commission has already come forward with proposals for reform. The exercise is nonetheless worthwhile for there are three main causes for concern; two are about the communication, one is about the proposal.
On these grounds and taking into account the whole doctrine of the separation of powers, it would seem unacceptable not to allow a measure of judicial administrative discretion in these respects.
With this caveat, I believe we can move a long way towards establishing a principle of equal treatment that, along with measures such as the establishment of regional advisory councils, will do much to create confidence in the common fisheries policy on the part of our fishing communities. We look forward to the Commissioner's detailed proposals in this regard. The Commissioner may be assured that we will scrutinise them well.
The first is to do with delay. The Commission communication that should have arrived in June arrived in November. The equivalent communication for 2001 is already more than one month overdue. I hope that the Commission will be able to reassure the Committee on Fisheries that its appearance is imminent.
The second relates to content. Not all the Member States reported, as required, in electronic form and the appropriate codes were not always used. Some reports were incomplete or illegible. One Member State did not report at all last year, although I understand it has subsequently done so.
My own perusal suggests that Member States were not entirely consistent in the way they classified infringements. Some of the penalties appear to have been presented in aggregate form, making it difficult to identify the range imposed.
All of this is regrettable, since, as the Commission itself admits, it is impossible to draw clear, coherent conclusions. Informal contacts with the Commission suggest that there has been better reporting for 2001. The Committee on Fisheries hopes that they will afford a fuller and more developed analysis. For example, the number of offences reported by Member States can only be properly understood in the context of the size of fleets involved. I hope the Commissioner will not take it amiss if I suggest that one might expect considerably fewer offences to be reported from Austria than from some other Member States.
More generally, and even with much better data, a cautious approach must be adopted to interpretation. Does a higher percentage of offences reported mean that a higher percentage of offences has actually been committed or that there is simply a better detection rate? Similarly, should the fines imposed be comparable in absolute terms or only in the context of the cost of living within the Member States concerned? Properly interpreted though, the information could be invaluable as a basis for dealing with infringements during the reform of the CFP. There is sufficient evidence in the communication to show that a wide difference of penalties exists. For example, in the case of falsification or failure to record data in logbooks the average in Member States appears to range from EUR 88 to EUR 16 020.
The Committee on Fisheries welcomes the fact that the Commission has addressed the issue of harmonised penalties in chapter 5 of its proposals on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources.
This brings me, however, to the third point of concern: the wording does not fully address the points in our report. First, there is our call for the use of objective criteria in classifying and rating the types of behaviour and penalties concerned. In this regard, we would stress the potential usefulness, properly interpreted, of the kind of data to which this report refers.
Secondly, the report calls for a uniform system of minimum penalties whereas the proposal makes no mention of a minimum. Even in the case of a serious infringement, some types of activity may be more serious than others. It is not unreasonable to expect that a distinction be made between a first and a repeat offence or between cases where the behaviour was clearly deliberate and where a genuine mistake was made. What is important for justice is not that all cases are treated the same but rather that like cases are treated alike."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples