Date: 2009-04-21
− Mr President, first of all I would like to thank you for this interesting debate. Clearly we are equally strongly aware of the need for a meaningful reform of our control systems. Let me try to touch on a number of points that have been raised, first of all with regard to the question concerning recreational fisheries. As I said, this is a very contentious topic, probably the most contentious of all the control provisions contained in the proposal. However, it has given rise to a number of misconceptions as to what the real objective and purpose of the provisions is. I said that we are prepared to accept the definition that is proposed in one of the amendments. I will be setting out clearly our position on the definition and on the proposed regulation of recreational fisheries in the coming days, including by writing directly to the anglers' representatives in order to spell out the objectives, the parameters and the details concerning recreational fisheries. Then, I hope, I will be receiving feedback from them and, if necessary, we will look into the provisions in order to make them more finely-tuned to the only objective that we need to target. We have a significant problem with recovery stock. There are certain recreational activities which impose big pressures on such recovery stock and we need to address this point. This is only fair for the professional fishermen that we address this. Otherwise we can never hope to turn the situation around if there is pressure from a significant fishing effort, even though it is carried out in a recreational manner and no earnings are derived from it. The stock cannot hope to recover if there is significant effort, as scientific reports have indicated to us. Concerning the total lack of consultation of the sector, I think that we have consulted the industry. I myself took part in such a conference in Scotland some time ago. All RACs have submitted their opinions and, furthermore, as in any other legislation, we organised a public Internet consultation. The sector was specifically consulted in the framework of the Advisory Committee for Fisheries and Aquaculture in the course of 2008. Concerning the point made on small-scale vessels, the Commission believes that the small-scale fleet can have a significant impact on resources. This is the reason why there is no general exemption for this fleet in the proposal. However, the proposal provides specific exemptions for certain categories of vessels, in general those under 10 metres, and in particular on the VMS, on log book, on prior notification and landing declarations. In this regard, the proposal respects the principle of proportionality. Financial aspects are also taken into account at the level of EU cofinancing of up to 95% of the costs for those electronic devices, to help the stakeholders to use the new technologies. Exemptions will be examined further within the final Presidency compromise. I would also like to say, with regard to the points made by Mr Guerreiro, that many of the points that he mentioned already exist in the existing control provisions. Therefore, were we to take up the amendments that he suggests, we would actually be moving backwards with regard to control and enforcement, rather than strengthening the provisions that need to be strengthened. We are seeking a level playing field in the sanctions provisions as contained in the proposed regulation. Obviously we are prepared to look into them further in order to see whether there needs to be further fine-tuning, but the main objective of the provisions on sanctions in the proposed regulation is to ensure that there are no significant discrepancies, such as exist today, between sanctions given by certain Member States, or by the judicial authorities of certain Member States, and sanctions that are given by the judicial authorities of other Member States. Finally, I would like to thank Mr Farage for his confidence shown in my staying here for a second term!