Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-07-04-Speech-4-124"
Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
---|---|
rdf:type | |
dcterms:Date | |
dcterms:Is Part Of | |
dcterms:Language | |
lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020704.4.4-124"2
|
lpv:hasSubsequent | |
lpv:speaker | |
lpv:spokenAs | |
lpv:translated text |
".
The extent to which traffic offences in Europe are monitored in different ways is striking. Where one country has a surplus of speed controls, the other only monitors serious offences. Enforcement is not carried out across the Community, but fishery policy is. Unfortunately, the supervision of fishermen is as diverse as the traffic controls I have referred to.
What is worse, in the case of identical offences, national inspectorates appear to be imposing tougher sanctions on fishermen from neighbouring countries than on those from their own.
The difference in control and sanction, in terms of nature and frequency, within each Member State undermines the common fisheries policy. The Dutch fishermen are right to call for a European inspection and control structure. The control and sanction policy must be harmonised as a matter of urgency, as the credibility of the fisheries policy is in the balance.
Dutch producer organisations inspect each other to see if quotas have been exceeded. This should serve as an example in the other Member States. Surely it is too crazy for words that we do not know whether all European fishermen keep to the quota or not."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples