Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-05-15-Speech-2-337"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010515.13.2-337"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, the most important and fundamental comment that I must make in this debate, as MEP for the Atlantic regions, is that, 18 months after the
disaster, the many people affected by this terrible oil slick are caught up in a very slow, complex and extremely unfair compensation process. Out of 1 200 applications for compensation, only 200 have been paid under the IOPCF Convention. The sums which are being claimed
and which are justified, are systematically reduced on an arbitrary basis. The procedures take so long that many coastal businesses are at risk of bankruptcy, particularly shellfish and fish farmers, and the fishing and tourist industries. The IOPCF Convention functions as a mechanism to limit the responsibility of the oil companies, which are thus exonerated of a considerable proportion of cover for the damage that they themselves have caused. It is now more obvious why the United States steered clear of this mechanism; as the settlement by Exxon of the total damages caused in the Exxon Valdez disaster, in other words, FRF 50 billion, would never have been paid
had it become involved. The total damages caused in the sinking of the
are admittedly more modest and are currently estimated to be FRF 5 billion, but a maximum compensation of FRF 1.2 billion can be paid under the IOPCF Convention and not a penny more, because compensation paid under the Convention relates to sums held by the Fund, and not to the losses sustained by the victims. The State and local authorities are therefore forced to make up the shortfall, which means that the taxpayer has to bear the costs of a proportion of the responsibility that falls to the polluter. We absolutely must correct this extremely serious discrepancy. We have made a good start with the first Erika package, which is being considered tonight at second reading and we, in my group, approve of the improvements proposed by the rapporteurs, for giving responsibility to ship classification societies. However, when this House considers the second Erika package, we must ensure that a genuine system of responsibilities is established that is clear, fair and which also acts as a deterrent to the two main players, the shipowners and charterers."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples