Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-09-02-Speech-2-311"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2003-09-02"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:EC-Guinea fishing agreement2
dcterms:Language	"en"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20030902.12.2-311"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2003-09-02-Speech-2-3122
lpv:speaker	lp:Patricia McKENNA2
lpv:spoken text	"Mr President, the Commission has claimed that it is entering a new phase with respect to fisheries agreements and that from now on they are to be called 'partnership agreements'. It is all very well changing what you call them, but if you do not change the approach there is very little to get excited about. The one year extension makes it very clear that not much has changed. I will give you three examples. By the Commission's own admission a new protocol was not negotiated because a scientific survey had not been conducted. Basing access rights upon scientific information is fundamental to good management, so I do not believe this is very responsible. Secondly, vessels are supposed to land fish for the local market, which could be an important factor in food security and yet ship owners can escape this requirement by paying a small fee. In the Senegal Agreement this requirement is far more constraining so that vessels can lose their licences for failure to comply. Thirdly, the by-catch allowed to be kept by the EU fleet is far higher than what the Guinean fleet is allowed to keep. For instance, EU cephalopod vessels are allowed to keep over four times as much fish by-catch as Guinean vessels. This is clearly discrimination. What has the Commission done in its approach to agreements, other than to change the name? This is not an acceptable situation. Can the Commission tell us if things have improved in the newly-signed protocol, particularly in relation to the fact that ship owners can opt out simply by paying a small fee, which they would be well capable of doing? In relation to discards, this is also completely unacceptable. I would like the Commission to give us a few answers on this."@en1
lpv:spokenAs	member; G/EFA (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 unknown; Green Party (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 member; PECH (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 member; Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 vice-chair; Delegation for relations with the Member States of ASEAN, south-east Asia and the Republic of Korea (2002-02-07--2004-07-19)3 substitute; Committee on Citizens' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"McKenna (Verts/ALE )."1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph