Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-11-30-Speech-4-041"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20001130.1.4-041"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". – Madam President, I first would like to thank you all for this interesting and valuable debate. I am glad to say that the Commission will support many of the amendments put forward in these three reports. There still remain some areas where we have somewhat different approaches. But I hope that these can be cleared today. Allow me to give the Commission’s view on each of the reports on the three proposals.
Last but not least, the proposal for amendments to the classification societies Directive. Here again, there is no great divergence of views and the Commission can accept Amendments Nos 6, 12, 14, 15 and 8 with the exception of the additional Paragraphs 3a and 3b to that amendment.
There is a set of amendments which the Commission feels could create confusion because they introduce new terminology in an area where the language of the international fora, IMO, is well established. I am referring to Amendments Nos 2, 3, 7 and 9 and the Commission feels that these are not really substantial problems, more drafting language matters which could possibly be cleared by the jurist-linguists.
The issue of assessments to be carried out over the classification societies by the Member States on the one hand and by the Commission on the other is of primary importance. The objectives of Parliament and the Commission are the same. We must maintain the clear difference in substance of the tasks at hand for either party. Member States must satisfy themselves that the classification society they have chosen to work on their behalf, fulfils the tasks to their full satisfaction. The Commission’s task is to confirm that the classification society continues to meet the qualitative criteria in the directive and to monitor the performance of the classification societies. In that respect, the control tasks of Member States and the Commission are different and should not be undertaken at the same time. This is why the Commission would favour Amendment No 28 now on the table which reintroduces the obligation for Member States to carry out their assessment and therefore rejects Amendment No 13.
Ethics is an equally important issue that should be tackled. I share Parliament’s concern that there should be no undue influence from a shipowner over a classification society. In this respect, Amendments Nos 26 and 29 are making clarifications of the text in their Spanish versions and would be acceptable to the Commission. Amendment No 4 and part of Amendment No 18 relating to point “K” are not acceptable.
There are some other amendments which the Commission has difficulties in accepting mainly on the grounds that we feel that the concerns expressed have already been sufficiently taken care of in other parts of the existing text. Here I have in mind Amendments Nos 5, 16 and the additions 3a and 3b to Amendment No 8: 3a because we feel this is adequately covered in Article 9 and 10 and 3b because this is covered in the Directive on port state control.
Further, Amendment No 1 and part of Amendment No 18 relating to point “K” are not acceptable on legal grounds. Amendment No 1 because only the Community is a legal person and not the Union and 18 “K” as it may contravene horizontal commitments made in the general agreement on trade in services. Amendment No 11 and a part of Amendment No 18 relating to point “H” which deal with the issue of setting clear performance targets and indicators for classification societies are rather ambiguous. They seem to suggest limitations which are unacceptable and should be rejected. The aim of our proposal is to allow for a tightening of supervision of classification societies and the possibility to suspend or withdraw recognition in situations where the performance of a classification society is not up to standard. In this respect, the Commission cannot accept any limitation or involvement of classification societies in the judgment over themselves.
As regards Amendments Nos 19 to 25, I am afraid none of them is acceptable either because they are already covered in the existing directive or simply fall outside the scope of this directive and are covered by other directives.
That leaves Amendment No 10 dealing with the important issue of liability limits. The Commission appreciates the support for its originally proposed limit. Also, the Commission agrees with the revision clause but would prefer the more flexible formula suggested in Amendment No 12, commitology, over that in Amendment No 10, full legislative procedure.
I have two comments on issues raised by Mr Stenmarck about oil spills in the Baltic Sea. We have two instruments at hand. Firstly there is a Directive on waste reception facilities recently approved by the European Parliament and Council. All ships are obliged to discharge waste in European Union ports. Secondly, in our proposal on ‘Erika II’ concerning surveillance of navigation, Member States will be required to intervene even on the high seas in such cases. I would say to Mrs Peijs about Cambodia and Honduras ships, that we are perfectly aware of the threat to safety and these are precisely the kinds of flags targeted in our proposal on the port state Directive. I can assure you that if a shipowner thinks of registering a ship on these registers, he should think twice after our proposal.
May I conclude by expressing once again my gratitude to Parliament and to the four rapporteurs for their expeditious work and excellent reports.
I would like to start with the proposal on port state control. I thank Parliament for its strong commitment to our proposal and especially Mr Watts for his series of amendments which sends a clear and strong message to sub-standard operators and negligent flag states. Most of the amendments are focused on the proposed refusal of access to Community waters. These are Amendments Nos 1, 3, 6, 7 and 8. The core of Parliament’s amendments is Amendment No 3, amending Article 7a of the Commission proposal. It includes three elements: firstly, the deletion of the age criterion is acceptable to the Commission since there is no absolute correlation between age and the quality of a ship. Secondly, regarding the criterion based on the absence of a black box on board, the Commission supports the principle of a widened accelerated introduction of black boxes on board ships plying EU ports, but this is a matter which should not be dealt with in the port state control Directive. So this is not a matter of principle but a matter of the formal place for this specific proposal. The port state control Directive is designed to check compliance with international requirements and not to introduce new rules. Within a few days the Commission will adopt a proposal for a Directive on safety of navigation including such an obligation to be equipped with a black box.
It is a curious coincidence that Parliament is considering the final stage of the adoption of the European Parliament and Council decision on accidental or deliberate marine pollution, at the same time as the first set of measures proposed by the Commission following the
disaster. Indeed, even with the best preventative legislation, zero risk does not exist. We are sometimes struggling against the forces of nature. In order to be better prepared against maritime disasters, this decision has established a solid framework for cooperation at Community level. It creates the conditions that will allow the sharing of experience gathered by Member States to better protect our marine environment against the risk of accidental or deliberate pollution.
The conciliation process was demanding, but a well-balanced compromise has been found and the amendments of Parliament and Council have produced a better decision. The scope and content of the decision are now clearer, in particular concerning operational discharges and munitions as well as regarding the link with international conventions or in relation to the polluter-pays principle. This has largely been due to the excellent work of the European Parliament and the rapporteur, Mrs McKenna, whom I would particularly like to thank along with the Members of Parliament’s delegation.
Let me conclude by recalling that one month ago the
sank near Cherbourg with 6 000 tonnes of dangerous cargo. Once again, this demonstrates how urgent the adoption of strengthened, preventative and restoratory Community measures for the protection of our seas is. We now count on the Council and, of course, Mr Gayssot personally to crown this remarkable work with our good, solid, ambitious agreement during the next Council.
The third element of Amendment No 3 is a proposal to ban all ships that have flown for three years the flag of a state included in the blacklist published by the Paris Memorandum of Understanding. In Parliament’s proposal, this criterion alone would be decisive to ban whole fleets. Should the directive enter into force today with the proposed amendment of Parliament, 32 fleets including Malta, Cyprus, Russia, Panama, the largest fleet of the world, would be banned. This means thousands of ships including ships of high quality which is contrary to the objectives of port state control. We prefer our proposal where the flag criterion is linked to the detention record of a ship so as to give a clear and strong signal to sub-standard operators. In brief, the Commission can only partially accept Amendment No 3.
Amendments Nos 1, 6, 7 and 8 also relate to the refusal of access. The Commission can accept Amendment Nos 6, 7 and 8, but can only partially accept Amendment No 1. The deletion of the age criterion is acceptable but not the extension of banning the territorial waters of Member States. This is not reflected in the text of the directive where the refusal of access only concerns EU ports.
As regards the other amendments, the Commission can accept Amendments Nos 2, 4, 5, 21, 22, 23 and 24 subject to some redrafting. The Commission cannot accept Amendments Nos 9 to 20, Amendment Nos 25 and 26. Most are new proposed recitals that do not reflect the contents of the directive. Many are either outside the scope of the port state control or are already covered by this or another directive. More specifically, Amendments Nos 9 to 17 and 25 introduce new recitals most of which are not linked in any way to the text of the directive.
Amendment No 18 introduces port state control in relation to the seafarers’ rest period, however the enforcement of the provisions in respect of seafarers’ hours of work is already fully covered by existing Directive 99/95. Amendment No 19 is redundant since the current procedures already provide that non-compliance with the required health and working standards as established by ILO conventions are reported as deficiencies and can also lead to the detention of a vessel. Amendment No 20 is irrelevant to port state control as it concerns competition between ports of the Atlantic and North Sea and not maritime safety. Amendment No 26 reflects the amendments of banding proposed by the rapporteur in Amendment No 3 but extends the scope of the measure to the exclusive economic zone of Member States and in this light it is contrary to the law of the sea.
Let me now turn to the proposal for the accelerated phasing in of double-hull oil tankers. I am happy to say that we almost entirely agree. Following pressure by Member States on the International Maritime Organisation, there is a proposed phase-out schedule which meets the main concerns of Europe and at the same time aligns with the American Oil Pollution Act 90 and which is to be fully supported. In this respect, the Commission insists on 2015 as the final end date. In order to achieve the main objective of this proposal, namely to phase out old single-hull oil tankers quickly, we are prepared to go along with the deletion of the proposed financial incentive system setting up differential charging of port and pilotage dues. It is expected that the IMO will formally adopt the phase out schedule at its April meeting next year. However, should the International Maritime Organisation fail to do so, the Commission agrees with Parliament that we will have to adopt a EU regulation based on the EP text and introduce a system for European Union waters.
Amendment No 12 of the report says exactly the same, but it is more of a political commitment than a legal text. Therefore, we do not need it in the final text and I hope you will not insist on this point. For similar reasons, the Commission cannot accept the new Amendment No 22 which relates to the very important area of safety of navigation but is of no relevance to the proposed regulation. The Commission also rejects Amendments Nos 10 and 18 since this would mean setting up an additional committee just for this regulation and this is inconsistent with our policy line of reducing the number of committees by making use of existing committees.
I am happy to see that the rapporteur has introduced a reference in Amendment No 21 to the condition assessment scheme and we agree with the main thrust of the approach suggested but there is need for some fine tuning of the wording to make it clearer."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples