Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-03-13-Speech-1-099"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000313.5.1-099"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, I share your love of the sea, and your love of diving and sailing, and I sincerely believe that all those present are concerned about how we can guarantee clean seas for current and future generations.
Apart from this, I would like to state that we consider the suggestions being made to be very positive and that, therefore, we could incorporate into the text of the directive, with some rewording that would enable coherence with current Community and international texts to be guaranteed, as well as coherence with the rest of the directive, amendments such as 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15. That is, we are talking about practically all of the amendments and, in fact, the one we cannot accept – and I regret it, but I have already explained the reasons – is Amendment No 6.
I could go on, but the two reasons have already been stated. We are all working towards the same goal. The only difference of opinion is over how best to achieve this goal. I would ask for support for a more positive position, supplemented – I insist – with Amendment No 16 by Mr Sterckx, which would provide us with the necessary guarantees.
In this respect, I would suggest that, instead of "by a percentage", the word "significant" could be incorporated if necessary, to make it obvious that we are not talking about 1% or 5% or 10%, but about a substantial figure.
Many thanks, Mr President. I would like to reiterate my appreciation to the rapporteur and the rest of the Committee.
I believe that the work we are discussing today is a great step forward. In this respect, I would like to congratulate the rapporteur, Mr Bouwman, and the whole of the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism for their painstaking work throughout the discussion and throughout the negotiation of this initiative.
As you know, the Commission is extremely concerned about marine pollution. I hope that I will shortly be able to provide you with a preliminary package of measures with the aim of monitoring the safety of oil tankers more effectively, measures that I hope we will be able to go on with, specifically making the most of the dramatic sinking of the
a dramatic event which could mean that on this occasion we are able to overcome certain very specific interests that will undoubtedly be affected by the measures I shall be proposing in the near future.
However, while it is certain that accidents lead to tremendous problems and disasters, the reality is that most spillages result, not from accidents, but simply from the regular cleaning out of the holds of certain ships, which is obviously a totally reprehensible act.
In this respect, I believe that the legislation intended by this directive covers various aspects relating to the delivery of waste to ports. It obliges all Community ports to be equipped with appropriate reception facilities for waste, and to guarantee the planning of their management, which will be supervised by the authorities of the Member States.
Furthermore, it obliges ships to deliver all ship-generated waste to the port, except where the ship has a sufficient storage capacity to enable it to arrive at the next stage, the next port.
It also obliges ships to notify the port that they are going to deliver waste prior to their arrival in the port, and to pay the cost of the reception facilities. And this is where the problem lies. As various speakers have already pointed out, this is where the positions of Parliament and the Commission differ fundamentally.
Ladies and Gentlemen, I would like to ask that in this matter, also taking into account the fact that the Commission is going to support Amendment No 16 by Mr Sterckx – I will refer to the rest of the amendments later – you accept the initial draft. It is true that we are not specifying what percentage will have to be paid by the ships arriving at the port. It is true that we are leaving a margin of flexibility for the Member States, but it is also certain that, theoretically, 0.01, although it is a contribution, is not necessarily a significant contribution. Perhaps we could incorporate the word "significant" into the text instead of setting a fixed percentage.
I would suggest a solution of this type, incorporating Amendment No 16 by Mr Sterckx, which means that there is a revision process which enables us, if necessary, to introduce a fixed percentage if we see that the Member States are not making any progress with regard to this distribution and that this excess of flexibility makes this directive ineffective. But I would try, first of all, to take this step forward, making the position more flexible with the possibility of revising it."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples