Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-06-13-Speech-3-189"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010613.5.3-189"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, Madam Vice-President of the Commission, may I again thank the three rapporteurs on behalf of my group. Even if the debate has shown that one group is perhaps not completely satisfied on one or two points, we must admit that all three reports were adopted either unanimously or by a large majority in committee and we should maintain this majority in tomorrow's vote. I think Parliament has put a very good package together in its position on Erika II and we should stick to it.
I also think, to pick up on some of the comments made, starting with the comments made by the previous speaker and my colleague's comments on the compensation fund, that we are not prevaricating. All we are saying is that it is just not on for Member States to maintain to the outside world that they support compensation regulations and then only ratify quite basic compensation regulations. With the Esclopé report, we have included the fact that we want regulations for both oil pollution and for pollution from dangerous or harmful substances. The Council is perfectly at liberty to prove to us at second reading that it is prepared to push ahead with ratification or find an alternative. But it is just not on to say: you are blocking our compensation regulation, when they have no intention of doing anything about pollution from dangerous or harmful substances. In this respect, we must put on the pressure and say that we want a general regulation because there is a great deal of maritime pollution, not just from oil, but also from chemicals and other substances. If the Council knows of a better way, then we are quite prepared to take it. And you too, Madam Vice-President, if you know of a better way, then we are quite prepared to go to a second reading. We also have an open mind about international regulations. If the IMO wants to find a global solution to the problem within the next six months and actually does so, then we will gladly withdraw this Commission proposal. But all I can say is that, the same thing always happens; we always have to put on the pressure first and adopt our own legislation before any global regulations are passed, which is why we must push ahead here.
One last comment on the Mastorakis report. We cannot say on the one hand that the agency should be independent, and then say that Parliament should have a say on the Administrative Board. That is a contradiction in terms. We want an independent authority but, in a democracy, any executive, even a subordinate authority, must be answerable to parliament. This will only happen if the agency is not completely independent of the Commission. We here in Parliament shall come down on the Commissioner if the agency makes mistakes. And we shall not be satisfied with the agency director's head. If something goes wrong in the agency, it will be your charming head that we are after, Madam Vice-President. That is parliamentarianism, which is why the agency must be independent, but under the responsibility of the Commission, and why we and not some experts appointed to the Administrative Board must exercise the right of control. We are your partners, Commissioner, and we shall get along just fine."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples