Mr President, my one-minute allocation in the previous debate did not give me enough time to congratulate the rapporteur, Mrs Miguélez Ramos, for the work she did and the manner in which she did that work. I would suggest that the subject of this report also illustrates the need for reform of the common fisheries policy. In other words, if we had a successful fisheries management system in the European Union, then perhaps we would not need emergency measures to safeguard declining stocks in this fashion. But we do. These plans seek to restore stocks of cod and hake to sustainable levels. But they also have socio-economic implications, not only for those who fish cod and hake, but also for fishermen whose livelihood depends on stocks associated with either of these fisheries. This report emphasises, therefore, a number of key concerns: there should be no broad-brush approach; there must be accurate scientific advice, the impact of industrial fisheries must be recognised; there must be adequate funding; and accessible diversification programmes should be available. The Commission itself admits that it has not relied solely on scientific advice and that there is a general lack of scientific advice for assessing long-term recovery plans. The Commission's own words are telling. I remain unconvinced that scientific advice is sound enough to earn the confidence of the fishermen affected by these measures. The Commission believes that the major problem of scientific advice is black landings. I have no doubt that so-called black fish landings do have a negative impact on statistics. But that points to inherent flaws in the current management system. Surely discards are a bigger problem, perhaps the major impact? The report therefore stresses the importance of properly funded and precise scientific advice. It also calls for the idea of observers to be extended to ensure that scientists observe actively on fishing vessels. This should also help to instil confidence in technical measures. The Commission states that with regard to the North Sea closures of last spring it was aware that the effort displaced from the area closed to protect cod would create increased pressure on other stocks. The Commission does not, however, address the extent to which this impact could have proven disastrous, had it not been for the responsible action of Scottish fishermen, for example, who voluntarily tied up at their own cost. I put it to the Commission that the issue of displaced fishing effort was not properly thought through and that potential displacement must be properly assessed in future closures, with the benefits of closure balanced against the detrimental knock-on effects. In welcoming the commitment to tie-up schemes by the Commission, I note that it is not only encouraging compensated tie-up, but also removing the current ceilings on financial contributions. I am deeply concerned, though, that funding is not applied equitably amongst fishermen affected by such measures. If fishermen are willing to take responsible action themselves, when going to sea could risk further stock decimation, there must be some mechanism that allows them to do so without going bankrupt. I strongly urge Members to support both the amendments in the vote today. The first asks the Commission not to neglect the specific needs of mixed fisheries, whilst the second calls for measures to encourage environmentally-friendly and smaller-scale fisheries. Finally, I also call for the deletion of paragraph 7, which not only is an open attack on small-scale fisheries, but also a ringing endorsement of the promotion of large-scale industrial fisheries which, I contend, is unacceptable. In conclusion, we have to strike a balance here between the need to advance the recovery of stocks and the need to avoid disproportionate restrictions on the many different fisheries affected and the resultant negative consequences for those whose livelihood depends on the sea. To this end I call on the Commission to take on board the recommendations of this report and to ensure that the fishing industry and scientists are fully involved. In this respect would it not make sense to bring about the early introduction of zonal management committees and allow them to take forward recovery plans in a proactive rather than a reactive way? I hope that this afternoon Members will support this report and its amendments.

Political group: Verts-ALE