Mr President, Commissioner, the Commission has recently tabled a proposal for future reform of the fisheries policy and, in the light of this, the Commission’s report on monitoring the implementation of the common fisheries policy, which is the subject of my report, is a very important tool. We must draw upon all the experience garnered from the current fisheries policy so that the future fisheries policy can lead to some clear improvements. Such improvements are necessary, moreover, for there are far too many loopholes in the present fisheries policy. One of the most obvious examples is the MAGPs, which have neither permitted efficient monitoring of the number of fishing vessels, nor have secured either the necessary reduction in the fleet or efficient monitoring of the fleet’s real capacity. Certain Member States have neglected to comply with their obligations to inform the Commission of their vessels’ catches or have only provided such information on an occasional basis during the period covered by the Commission’s report. There are, unfortunately, very big differences between one Member State and another in the way in which the conditions are fulfilled, as well as in the way in which the requirements for reporting catches to the Commission are complied with. That is because many Member States are quite simply too slipshod about fulfilling their obligations under the common fisheries policy. That also applies to the submission of data, the implementation of common decisions and the use of adequate resources to ensure full compliance with the common fisheries policy. In order to ensure the implementation of a common fisheries policy, it is, quite simply, necessary to demand that the monitoring and enforcement system and the system of reporting be employed correctly in every respect in all the Member States. It is also necessary for other reasons, particularly in order to obtain fishermen’s support and respect for the policies decided upon. Fishermen must also be left in no doubt that these policies are being implemented equally in all the Member States. Responsibility for monitoring the application of Community legislation in accordance with Community principles naturally lies with the Member States. There is a lot to indicate that the Member States need rather more help in fulfilling this responsibility, and it is, in the last analysis, the Community which has overall responsibility for satisfactory implementation of the legislation. The Member States have established legal frameworks for control and have designated competent authorities within the traditions of their legal and administrative systems. Member States have also invested fisheries inspectors with legal powers of control and the power to initiate sanction procedures. Everything ought, in this way, really to be in order. The basis, in any case, is there as it should be, and the national authorities are in a position to enforce Community legislation. Unfortunately, we have to observe, on the basis of the Commission’s report, that there are far too many differences, and that naturally makes fishermen feel they are being treated unequally within the Community. My eye has also been caught by the observation in the Commission’s report to the effect that the fisheries inspectors are not well enough trained. Simply reading between the lines, I gather there are some fisheries inspectors who do not even know the difference between a herring and a sprat. If I am right in thinking that this is the case, it is certainly something to be got to grips with, especially in view of the fact that the training of inspectors is partly funded by the EU. It is, therefore, quite simply unacceptable that the Commission has seen fit to observe that there is a blatant lack of training and experience in how to conduct basic checks on compliance with applicable common rules. It is high time that we got the Member States to give a higher priority to their obligations. It is a question of increasing the efficiency of the way in which responsibility is exercised at national level, so that monitoring, inspection and surveillance are not – as is the case, for example, in one particular country – divided between seven authorities, meaning that no one has real responsibility. There must be efficient follow-up of infringements, and adequate resources must be set aside to ensure that the monitoring and inspection functions are in order. I have proposed to the Commission that a system of rewards be devised, for example in the form of extra quotas, for those Member States that comply with Community legislation. I have also, of course, proposed that tougher sanctions be imposed upon those countries that do not comply with what is required. Commissioner, I am completely convinced that the key to success where our fisheries are concerned is in the area of control.

Political group: ELDR