Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-05-15-Speech-2-331"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010515.13.2-331"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Madam Vice-President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to thank both rapporteurs. After months of work, Mr Watts and Mr Larrea have succeeded in reaching consensus on both reports in the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism. We had a united stance at the first reading and we will be united again for the second reading tomorrow.
For this reason, I do not want to say very much at all about the information they have presented on this matter, but will move straight on to procedure. I regret, however, that the Council again rejected our offer to carry out an informal conciliation procedure so that the Erika I package could be concluded with regard to these two directives in the next few days. Our offer was to seek a compromise prior to the official second reading in Parliament and then jointly conclude the dossier in the next few days with the confirmation of the Council. I think it is a pity that this cannot be achieved. There are two remarks I would like to make here: first I would like to mention that I had to negotiate hard with Mr Gayssot, the French Transport Minister, like my colleagues on the railway package, but at least he was available and we were able to speak. The Swedish Presidency was not there at all.
As the European Parliament, we should pass a resolution that unofficial three-way discussions should only be agreed to if the minister participates. After all, we do not send our
to an informal conciliation procedure; we try to bring our own personal weight to bear.
The second practical point concerns what the Council offered us twice as a compromise, which in fact was an insult to our intelligence, since it was not a compromise at all. I only hope that the Council, and the Swedish Presidency, may yet think better of it. We are prepared to continue negotiating until the end of June, after this resolution and after the Council has passed a resolution on this matter, in order to reach an outcome quickly in a Conciliation Procedure.
I have an important request to make of you, Madam Vice-President: we as the European Parliament represent the concerns of the Commission in this matter, as the Commission too wants to introduce a voyage data recorder. However, as Parliament we are very much afraid, no, we are sure, that the Council is always putting the brakes on us and delaying this matter so that we cannot move on to Erika II. If the Commission is in favour of voyage data recorders, it should support us in the Watts report.
The same goes for the Ortuondo Larrea report. We are on the side of the Commission, which has proposed maximum limits. When we suggest as a compromise setting minimum and maximum amounts for the financial liability of classification societies, then this is a fair compromise. Mr President, I hope that the Commission not only has its eye on the Council, but that it will honour its promise, bearing in mind that the Commission and Parliament are natural allies."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"conseillers"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples