Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2008-09-23-Speech-2-274"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20080923.34.2-274"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"−
Mr President, Mr Bussereau, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, today we are returning once again to the debate that we brought to a close at first reading a year and a half ago.
That being the case, the entire burden will fall on the Member State concerned, which will end up being the victim of the ecological and social damage that may be caused by accommodating a vessel in a place of refuge, as well as having to cover that damage.
So I say yes to creating this authority, but it should be given powers, and a vessel in distress should be accommodated only if the prior assessment of the situation leads to the conclusion that this is the best decision, and the risks are contained.
I must tell you that I am not alone in this battle, as the European association that represents all of our ports has also protested greatly about this.
Having said this, I thank Mr Sterckx for his persistence in this difficult undertaking, in which he has had to fight a battle.
I particularly welcome the progress made with the ship monitoring tools, which are essential for reducing risk situations.
As far as the differences are concerned, there will be time in conciliation, and we will make every effort to reach compromises; I have no doubt that we will reach them.
Finally I will move on to my report. Having been examined by the Council, what was previously only a proposal for a directive has been split into two legal instruments, a proposal for a regulation and a proposal for a directive, and the members of the Committee on Transport and Tourism felt that this was the right thing to do. Our view of the common position is therefore positive, as it largely accepts the line advocated by Parliament: being able to strengthen the monitoring mechanisms for recognised organisations through the creation of an assessment committee of an independent nature with permanent powers and which acts autonomously; achieving a more flexible, fair penalty system, which is ultimately more effective, as it punishes those who do not act as they should, but does so based on the seriousness of the violation committed and the economic capacity of the organisation; finally, having managed to make progress on the very thorny issue of the recognition of class certificates, setting out the conditions under which the recognised organisations will have to recognise each other, without putting maritime safety at risk, and using the most demanding rules as a reference point.
In any event, ladies and gentlemen, I am convinced that there is a solid basis for a final agreement, and that together we will find a sound solution for all the people of Europe.
We are doing so with more reasons than we had then to be pleased with the results achieved, which were the fruit of the cooperation and consensus that exists in this House on such a sensitive issue for the public as safety on our seas.
However, I regret that our pleasure is not complete or as we had hoped, as despite the fact that we have all learned lessons from the past, with the tragic examples of the Erika and Prestige disasters, which are still very recent in our eyes, and despite the need to act now and not wait for the consensus that always follows disasters, the attitude of the Council has unfortunately prevented us from being able to bring the matter to a close today with the adoption of the eight proposals that make up ‘the third package’ on maritime safety.
This does not prevent me from recognising and expressing thanks for the will of the French Presidency, as it has taken the baton from the Portuguese and Slovenian presidencies, and has set the right pace in the Council, with the sound intention of reaching an agreement on a package of proposals that should be treated as a whole, as we all agree, because there are overlaps between them, and all those in the maritime transport chain are involved.
There is therefore no room for discussing, as unfortunately many, or at least some governments think, whether any of these proposals are unnecessary or inappropriate. Each and every one of them is essential.
Based on this, I call on the Council not to let slip away a precious opportunity for us to conclude this matter in conciliation, which some of us will come to with our homework almost done, as the informal trialogues that have been held so far, and the complete consensus that exists with all the shadow rapporteurs, have produced very satisfactory results and could provide a good basis for the final agreement.
Having said this, ladies and gentlemen, there is still an issue that concerns me greatly, which I would like to mention, as it concerns an essential aspect of the package, in our opinion. I am referring to the independence of the organisations and authorities created specifically for the purpose of adopting the best possible decisions in the shortest possible time.
In this respect, I am specifically talking about the independent authority to be created to make what is always a difficult decision: to accommodate a vessel in distress in a place of refuge.
Ladies and gentlemen, there would be no point in creating an authority that is independent from the influences of political power if it is not provided with the necessary resources and decision-making capacities, but what is even more serious is to invest it with powers if, when the moment of truth comes, it is only left with one option: compulsory accommodation of the vessel, even if it does not have insurance or guarantees."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples