Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-03-13-Speech-1-093"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000313.5.1-093"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, rapporteur, congratulations on your report. You have said so yourself just now: we desperately need this directive. It is a sound directive. Ports must be equipped with reception facilities. Inspection is on its way, at long last. Member States must also impose sanctions when these rules are broken. This is very important. This is good for the environment. Investments are already being made, in anticipation of the directive. For example, in Antwerp, very near to where I live, a huge installation is being built which was not there before. As such, this directive is already coming into effect in a sense.
There is one point, as already highlighted by Mr Jarzembowski, where we do not see eye to eye. How do we charge the fees? We are all agreed on the polluter pays principle. But should he pay an automatic full amount or a huge amount in port dues, or do we opt for a flexible arrangement, as is being proposed by the Council. Where is the best financial incentive, to use your words? I have sounded out a number of people on this subject. The opinions are divided. Habits, apparently, are also divided. In fact, ports in one and the same region apply different standards and percentages. There are also ports which change percentages at the last minute, if I may say so. I believe that as such, it is probably better if we in Parliament do not pin ourselves down on a fixed percentage. A flexible system under these conditions, as you said so yourself, should make up a substantial part of the costs. 0.01 is clearly not a substantial part.
It should also have an encouraging effect, as a flexible part is left open for people who operate on an environmentally-friendly basis, provided that the Commission keeps a close eye on this whole process and checks whether the system works. If the objectives of the directive cannot be achieved, we would expect the Commission to intervene, act, suggest changes and ensure that the system does work.
Fellow MEPs, we must rescue this directive and keep it come what may. I hope that we will not jeopardise the entire directive on account of a too principled stance on one point."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples