Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-05-15-Speech-2-344"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010515.13.2-344"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, first of all I want to thank the rapporteurs for the excellent work they have done all this time on these two very important proposals.
The Commission also feels that the proposed amendment should not be included in Article 7, since it refers to penalties for prolonged lack of compliance by vessels that do not meet minimum standards or that fly flags of convenience, and here we are talking about penalties against a vessel for a specific omission. Most of all, however, our view is that these issues refer more to the future amendment that would have to be introduced in the other proposal that forms part of the
package.
I agree, then, Mr Watts – I have told you so several times – with the need: you are quite right to include black boxes. The problem is where. The voyage data recorder would also have to be considered. We have to analyse the possibility of combining them or just think about one system or the other depending on the type of vessel and the type of cargo it transports.
As for Amendment No 2 concerning the review clause, the Commission can accept it, but the review process should take into account a period of three years from the date of implementation of the Directive and not from the entry into force of the Directive, since it is necessary to assess the implementation of the Directive after a significant period of time. With this partial modification we have no problem in accepting it.
In relation to the second item in the package, the Directive on classification societies, I should like to point out that I fully agree with the rapporteur, Mr Ortuondo Larrea, and all the other Members of Parliament who think that it is all too easy for the Member States to simply place the whole burden of liability on the classification societies and thus exclude their own liability as regards genuine control by the port authorities.
In relation to the subject of liability, which is the most controversial amendment, I should like to point out that unlimited liability is already a principle in the case of major offences. I regret that in the end, because of the problem of minor offences, we have not been able to reach an agreement on this initiative. Compared with the major improvements in maritime safety that are achieved here in the general text, the truth is that in the end we have got tangled up – I repeat, I feel quite sad at this – in an aspect that is of minor importance in comparison with the whole.
In the end, however, focusing on the proposed amendments to the Directive on classification societies, the Commission can accept Nos 2, 5, 6 and part of 7 – provided that the reference to its duplicating IMO Resolution 847/20 is suppressed. We cannot, however, accept Amendment No 1. In this respect we agree with Parliament that there should be no family or business links between the shipowner and the classification society, and this is already included in the text. The problem is that the proposal you make goes one step further and therefore implementation becomes practically impossible. I hope you can reconsider this amendment, because I really think it would be better for everyone.
Amendments Nos 3 and 4 deal with the critical subject of liability. Parliament wishes to set maximum levels of liability, and I agree that the principle of liability should be kept. In fact the Commission sought the upper level for harmonisation in the proposal for a ceiling. I must remind you, however, that on all the other subjects we have reached an agreement.
Having said that, we must try to move the proposal forward as soon as possible. We will have to seek agreements if we cannot get to a second reading. The Commission will always be there to propose formulas and help mediate, but in any case I must again reiterate the excellent job done by the two rapporteurs, both Mr Watts and Mr Ortuondo, and this House as a whole, because I believe it has been extremely useful not only for the Commission’s positions but also in general for improving the quality of the proposals.
I should like to remind you that the
package, as has been said, was presented just after a truly regrettable disaster, which caused environmental problems for four hundred kilometres of European coastline; we acted swiftly and appropriately in the proposals, but in the informal trialogue we have regrettably been unable to reach an agreement between the three institutions. What the Commission regrets most of all is that we have been so close to reaching one: only a tiny bit more was needed. In the end it was non-essential aspects that separated us, but I fear that these aspects will make us go to conciliation and we will take another three or four months to achieve an agreement on the proposals.
All this when we can all – Parliament, Commission and Council – be very proud because thanks to our firmness, particularly in Parliament and the Commission, thanks to our work by common accord we have succeeded in getting the International Maritime Organisation to adopt our demands in practically every detail on the use of double hulls as a better or equivalent system to ensure greater oil tanker safety, laying down maximum time periods in which single-hull tankers can be retained and allowed to berth in our ports.
We have to face the facts, but of course the Commission will carry on working so that in conciliation we can reach this agreement between the three institutions as soon as possible. Basically between Parliament and the Council, although we shall perform our mediation duties, which is our job.
Points concerning crews have been brought up during the debate. I agree with you – several of you have mentioned it – that the crew problem is crucial. We have presented a communication on seamen, on crews, on their preparation and training. We understand that positive proposals must also be submitted, and we are examining how to extend the benefits of proposals such as the one currently in force in Great Britain, the tonnage tax, how to encourage other Member States of the Union to adopt these kinds of measures, because of course disasters often occur simply through human error. It is true that others are due to substandard vessels, as has been mentioned here, but all too often it is a matter of human error, lack of preparation, sometimes even details like the fact of speaking different languages and not understanding each other, and things of that kind. That is why this point has to be emphasised here, because there are safety aspects connected with it.
Let us move on to the proposals. With regard to Amendment No 1 to the Port State control Directive, I must say – as I have reiterated on other occasions – that the Commission fully agrees with what the rapporteur, Mr Watts, says on the need to gradually incorporate in fleets the mandatory installation of black boxes in those fleets sailing to European Union ports. But we insist that this is not the place: we are raising it in the
package; Parliament is discussing it, and in my understanding it is not in this Directive that we should be raising it.
We also believe that the proposal to automatically ban a vessel for not having a black box is not practical. Clearly a vessel cannot be banned from sailing without an initial inspection, and as a matter of principle a ban cannot be used as the solution to just any problem concerning safety on board vessels. In the port state control system, a suitable response to that omission is inspection and subsequent detention of the vessel.
The proposed amendment, moreover, includes vessels over three hundred tonnes gross, which far exceeds both the international system and the Commission’s proposal, which only covers those over three thousand tonnes gross.
In addition, it is highly likely that at an international level vessels will be fitted with a simplified voyage data recorder, which will be much cheaper to install and will nonetheless provide the essential data, which are also so important for facilitating inspections by port authorities."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples