Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2008-09-23-Speech-2-305"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20080923.36.2-305"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"−
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, my thanks to Mr Bussereau for the commitment that he continues to show. I would like to go into the substance of the various reports and the various amendments that have been tabled.
The most important aspect in political terms is that of banning, dealt with in Amendments 31 and 32. While the Commission can accept the point of view of the Council, which introduces a less strict system for ships on the grey list, I am nonetheless pleased that Parliament supports the Commission on the issue of a permanent ban.
On the report by Mr de Grandes Pascual on classification societies, I am happy that Parliament accepts the division of the act into a directive and a regulation, as the Council wished. This approach seems to me to be both fair and rigorous in legal terms. With regard to the amendments, I would say that Amendments 27 and 28 make changes to the civil liability regime of the recognised bodies, and these seem to us to be inconsistent in practice. In any event, under the directive, death caused by a negligent act should continue, to be covered by a minimum liability.
With regard to Amendment 1, which seeks to delete recital 3 added by the Council to the draft regulation, we can accept this. This recital seems to us superfluous and dangerous; I would not want our inspectors to encounter difficulties in carrying out their work on its account. Finally, as I have already said, I can accept the amendments that seek to incorporate into the draft directive some elements from the ‘flag State’ proposal.
I apologise for having spoken at length, Mr President, but there were a large number of amendments and I believed it was right to make the Commission’s view known to Parliament.
With regard to the first vote, Mr Sterckx’s report on the monitoring of maritime traffic, I am very pleased with Parliament’s broad support for the objectives set out in the Commission’s proposal. The most important provisions in the proposal are those relating to places of refuge. I fully back Parliament’s attempts to maintain the principle of independence in the decision-making process for accommodating a vessel in distress in a place of refuge.
The amendments, however, that take over the substance of the proposal for a directive relating to Mr Kohlíček’s report, civil liability and the financial guarantees of shipowners, can be endorsed without reservation, except for the two that refer to the establishment of a Community Office for the management of financial-guarantee certificates. My staff have doubts about the effects of this proposal on the administrative and financial levels, and we will have to examine it more thoroughly. On the other hand, having read the report by Mr Kohlíček, I am satisfied that Parliament’s support for the proposal on investigations following accidents is not failing.
At times, however, the best is the enemy of the good, and the Commission has shown itself sensitive to the argument that emerged during debate in the Council, namely that in order to guarantee the quality of investigations it is better not to unnecessarily multiply them: what matters is that in addition to cases of very serious accidents, an investigation is carried out in order to draw out useful lessons for the future through an understanding of the accident’s causes. This aim, which in any case corresponds to the approach adopted by the IMO, is met by the common position, and I am therefore not able to back amendments such as Amendments 7, 13 or 14. Finally, three amendments – 18, 19 and 20 – are designed to add to the directive a mechanism to resolve any disagreement between Member States regarding a single investigation. While it is true that the Commission’s proposal, and the common position, in fact, require the Member States to avoid conducting parallel investigations, it is also true that they do not deny the Member States involved the right to carry out their own investigations. In any event, it cannot be the Commission’s task to act as a mediator between Member States, which are each convinced that they have a vital interest in carrying out an investigation. What matters, in this case, is to ensure that the investigating bodies are independent.
With regard to the compensation of passengers in the event of accidents in the report by Mr Costa, you know that the Commission is determined to see the rights of travellers strengthened in all transport sectors, throughout Europe. When presenting this proposal three months ago, the Commission started with an observation: if an accident takes place in Europe on board a vessel on the sea or on a river, the victims will not be properly compensated in so far as the applicable rules differ too much from one Member State to another and in fact also appear to be in the main out of date. In fact, they make no provision for compulsory insurance, the compensation ceilings are inadequate and the liability systems stipulate that it is the victim who must provide proof that the carrier is at fault and, moreover, this is difficult to prove in the case of the shipwreck of a vessel.
In the face of this observation, the Commission saw just one solution: to seek harmonisation. This means implementing the Athens Convention; the negotiations are under the aegis of the IMO, and it means applying it in full to guarantee that all victims receive compensation under the terms set out in the Convention and on the basis of the maximum amounts fixed in it. The Council has shown that it takes the same view. All the amendments tabled by the European Parliament aim to improve the future regulation; we therefore endorse them without any reservation.
With regard to the scope, which ought to be as wide as possible, the difficulties of certain operators of national or river transport cannot, however, be denied. It would therefore be legitimate to stagger over time the implementation of the regulation in order to allow the necessary adjustments. I therefore support the relevant amendments. As things stand currently, the maximum compensation amounts depend on the size of the vessel and the number of victims, and this is unacceptable. We need to put this right, and one way of doing this is by helping the insurance sector by setting a single maximum compensation amount that will apply Europe-wide. This is the aim of Amendments 12, 13 and 14, (first part), which the Commission endorses.
I am taking a long time, Mr President, because I believe that it is right to give an opinion on the various amendments tabled, and so, if you will permit me, I will take another two minutes. With regard to the Vlasto report, on port State control, I would like to thank the rapporteur and Parliament for their support for this proposal, which will lead to the implementation of an ambitious new inspection system for Europe.
I would like to make two points on two vital aspects: the first relates to the mechanisms through which to establish in which conditions ship inspections cannot be carried out. On the one hand, there is the issue of flexibility, which has correctly been said to be justified for operational reasons and already provided for in the directive in force, and therefore in our view this ought to be maintained. For this reason, I cannot accept Amendments 19 or 23."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples