Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-12-04-Speech-3-085"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20021204.5.3-085"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, could I first of all add my thanks to the rapporteurs, Mr Jové Peres and Mr Varela Suanzes-Carpegna, for excellent reports, and could I also say to both of them, because they come from Galicia, that they have our deepest sympathy from the Committee on Fisheries on the unfolding tragedy in that area from the wreck of the
. If the Committee on Fisheries can give any help at all, we will do whatever is necessary and find whatever help we can muster to aid the people of Galicia. Our heart is with them at this time.
I want to speak about the cod crisis. As the House knows, in order to tackle dwindling cod stocks in the North Sea, the Irish Sea, to the west of Scotland and the Skagerrak, the Commission are calling for massive cuts of up to 80% on the cod and haddock fisheries and significant reductions in other parts of the white fish sector. Cuts of this magnitude would wipe out the white fish sector in the United Kingdom and Ireland and destroy many thousands of jobs in those countries, as well as in France, Scandinavia and the Netherlands.
I have seen the revised cod and hake recovery plan from the Commission. I have to say to the House that this is a radical change from the original cod and hake recovery plan that we considered and I believe that, under Article 37 of the Treaty, we have a right to be consulted in this House on these revised proposals. I hope that this House will support me in saying that we demand that right and that we intend to have our say and our full consultation will be called for on these revised proposals.
In the interests of enhancing this debate, I want to ask the Commission why they are prepared to accept the flawed and out-of-date scientific data on which they have based their call for these draconian cuts, because the ICES scientific data was collected in the year 2001, before stringent conservation measures were put in place, the benefits of which have not yet been measured. For example: the fishermen in my constituency in Scotland extended mesh sizes to 120 millimetres, they suffered the 12 week closure of 40 000 square miles of cod spawning grounds in the North Sea last spring, 170 vessels were scrapped under the latest decommissioning rounds, leaving many thousands of tonnes of fish swimming in the sea that would otherwise have been caught. And of course, parts of the Irish Sea have been closed for cod fisheries for the last three years, enabling cod stocks to recover. The impact of these measures has not yet been analysed by the scientists, nor has the possibility that rising temperatures, pollution or the North Atlantic drift may have contributed to the migration of cod further northwards towards Iceland and the Faroes where many thousands of tonnes of cod are regularly being caught. Indeed the same scientists who are calling for a minimum closure of six years for our white fish industry cannot guarantee that the cod will ever return to the North Sea even if we implement these measures.
As we know in the Committee on Fisheries, 10 years ago the Canadian government closed the Newfoundland Banks and there is no sign yet of the cod returning there. In their place, however, Canadian fishermen are finding huge stocks of snow crab and shrimps, which are netting them around four times the dollar income that the cod used to earn. I think a similar pattern is now emerging in the North Sea, where we are seeing large burgeoning populations of prawns, now one of our richest fisheries.
Scientists have recently revealed that, just as the cod fish will eat prawns, prawns eat cod larvae. It may well be that, whatever draconian measures we take, we will fail to re-establish the cod. By the end of six years of intended closure, at the very minimum, such measures would be academic in any case because according to the most recent socio-economic impact study, up to 44 000 fishermen and ancillary workers would have lost their jobs. That is the kind of catastrophe they face this Christmas after faithfully adhering to the rules and regulations of the Common Fisheries Policy for the past twenty years.
I support the need for a sustainable fishery and the need to get fleet capacity into balance with available fish stocks, but I also recognise that a viable fishing industry needs fishermen to catch the fish."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples