Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-03-31-Speech-3-240"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2004-03-31"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:EC-Denmark/Greenland fisheries agreement2
dcterms:Language	"en"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20040331.9.3-240"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2004-03-31-Speech-3-2412
lpv:speaker	lp:Patricia McKENNA2
lpv:spoken text	"Madam President, my Group welcomes some of the changes that have been made in this report insofar as a distinction is now being made between money for fishing rights and money for development. This should be applied to all fisheries agreements and not just this one. We feel that we need a clear separation with regard to what the money is there for. In development, the money would go to surveillance and scientific analysis etc., and there should also be the possibility of an audit of how the money is spent. There is a major vacuum here in that European taxpayers' money goes to fund these fisheries agreements without the possibility of looking to see how the money has been spent, particularly when it is in the area of development and surveillance. We – and European citizens – would like to see guarantees that this is where this money is going, rather than taking it at face value. In many cases I do not believe that we have a guarantee that the money has gone where we expect it to go. Most of the access in this agreement is for northern countries, and in the Commission's proposal it says that this may be reallocated. Members in the committee wanted the wording 'shall be reallocated'. This idea that if it is not being used up then it has to be reallocated to other countries is a bad idea, as we need first of all to look and see how we can try to reduce capacity, and if it is not being utilised, there may be very good valid reasons. For example, maybe there is not enough fish. So why should we say that it should be reallocated regardless of the reasons for its not being utilised? We should be trying to reduce fishing effort because we know that the oceans do not have the capacity to deal with the pressures that are being put on them by the fishing industry in the European Union and elsewhere."@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