Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-02-22-Speech-2-331"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050222.17.2-331"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I would first of all like to thank Mrs Wortmann-Kool for her outstanding review of the context, explanation of the issues and description of the content of this compromise solution, which I very much hope will be endorsed by Parliament tomorrow. I would simply like to add a few words.
Finally, a word on Amendment 2, which relates to recital 7. This amendment concerns the revision of the international compensation regime for damage caused by oil pollution, the International Oil Pollution Compensation Fund (IOPCF). This amendment was not accepted by the Council; it is true that its aim goes rather further than the scope of the directive. At the trialogue meeting, Parliament’s delegation agreed to withdraw this amendment. May I remind you that at the invitation of the Council and Parliament, the Commission agreed to make a three-point statement. First of all, the Commission reaffirms its determination to help the Member States to find middle ground on revision of the international IOPCF system. Secondly, the Commission stresses that the international conventions on liability and compensation in the event of pollution must be implemented. Thirdly, the Commission wishes to present a legislative proposal, as part of the third ‘maritime safety’ package, on mandatory insurance for all vessels entering a Community port.
In conclusion, Mr President, if you will forgive me for taking so long, the Commission supports the package of 13 compromise amendments and looks forward with confidence to the position Parliament will take on this package.
Please be vigilant: it is essential that the Council abides by its commitments and adopts the directive and the framework decision quickly and concomitantly. For my part, I will do my best to ensure the framework decision is put into effect. All this is necessary if the compromise is to be meaningful and if European public opinion is in future to feel much better protected against all the marine pollution, to the extremely disastrous effects of which on our natural heritage and all the wealth of the sea Mrs Wortmann-Kool has drawn our attention.
May I, Mr President, impress on Parliament that it should not be tempted to pay any attention to what I believe to be mistaken comments suggesting that we are criminalising seafarers. On the contrary, we are trying within reasonable and proportionate limits to make them more responsible. I have to say that the text is balanced and, since the trialogue resulted in an interinstitutional agreement, I think we are well on the way to getting it implemented; I can assure you it will be very well received by all who dread another oil slick happening sooner or later. I therefore thank Parliament, Mr President, for the attention it has given to this text, which is very important for our fellow European citizens.
Negotiations on this proposal for a directive began nearly two years ago. We had obstacles to overcome, we did not always agree with some of you, and I would like to pay tribute and offer my warmest thanks to the three rapporteurs, who in turn took part in those negotiations, and more particularly to Mrs Wortmann-Kool, who is the real author of today’s success.
With this future directive, the European institutions will at last be responding in a concrete fashion to the expectations of our citizens, who want to see an end to the degassings and other disasters of the past. I have heard it said, and you have just said so yourself, Mrs Wortmann-Kool, that we wanted to turn masters and crews into criminals. Well, I really must make it clear that such is certainly not our intention. On the contrary, we want to serve the industry with this directive. Our target is the rarest of cases, those which are intolerable and unacceptable; we want to make all operators upstream in the long maritime transport chain aware of their responsibilities. I must say I was rather taken aback by the reaction of the Secretary-General of the International Maritime Organisation, whom I met last week. As I pointed out to him at the IMO headquarters in London, the text that Parliament has before it is perfectly consistent with international law, that is the Marpol Convention on the prevention of pollution and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Our text is in keeping with them and we are quite simply making use of the option available under the Marpol Convention of bringing in stricter provisions.
Obviously, we are acting at European Union level and not at the level of each Member State, but I do not honestly believe that the IMO can read into this measure the least desire to criminalise masters and crews. I say that emphatically and with conviction, and I would like to reassure all honourable Members who, to judge by a letter I have received, may have felt they did not entirely understand our intentions.
I would say, Mr President, that the adoption of this text will be a success. It is true that in its proposal for a directive the Commission did have in mind to establish a proper system of criminal sanctions. From that point of view, the text before Parliament is less ambitious, since the elements of a criminal nature have been transferred to the third pillar, that is a framework decision. I regret that, it is true, the Commission regrets it, but we accept it because none of the other aspects of the proposal have been watered down, and we have managed to get pollution offences defined in the same way and made subject to similar dissuasive sanctions throughout Europe. That is very important and I would like to say that all the Members of the European Parliament who have witnessed oil slick disasters at one time or another understand that we have to take action; otherwise, sooner or later, we will be faced with another disaster and the finger will point at us.
This directive means that, in future, the Commission, assisted by the European Maritime Safety Agency, and all the competent authorities of the Member States will have to join forces to increase surveillance, detect offences and punish those at fault. In this connection, I have to say for my part that we fully share Parliament’s desire for European coastguards.
Mr President, without taking up too much time, I would like to say something about Amendments 19 to 23. The Commission recommends that Parliament reject them for two reasons. Firstly because they call the compromise package into question, while conciliation could complicate things, and also for reasons of substance. Amendments 19 and 22 seek to draw up an exhaustive list of all operators who, in the long chain of maritime transport, might be held responsible in the event of an accident and of pollution. In fact, that list already exists in shorter form in the seventh recital to the common position, which is not threatened by any compromise. Amendment 20 concerns the system of responsibility for compensation for places of refuge. This is a very important question and the Commission is looking at it very closely; I must refer here to a study on the subject that I shall be sending to the European Parliament in the next few days.
Amendments 21 and 23 seek to call into question something the Commission considers a real step forward. The European Union is going to set up a really operational system of deterrence and sanctions in its territorial waters: all polluters will have to be sanctioned if they are guilty of serious negligence. That is an improvement on international standards, the Marpol Convention in particular, and they need to be amplified. Penalties can only be imposed on those who have acted deliberately or have made an inexcusable error.
Our text is therefore a step forward, made possible by the Law of the Sea Convention. That Convention allows coastal states to strengthen their pollution prevention and control regimes in their territorial waters. The opportunity is open, we have taken it, and that is why I do not believe there can be any question of going back. That is why the Commission does not agree on the substance and why it is glad that the Committee on Transport and Tourism has been wise enough not to accept Amendments 21 and 23."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples