Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-01-12-Speech-1-106"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20040112.7.1-106"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, I expect the House has noticed I have a scarf wrapped round my head. I should like to explain straight away that appearing like this in Strasbourg does not mean I am taking sides in the debate on wearing the veil. I most certainly am not. I am simply trying to look after myself. Over the last four years I have come to this building some forty times. On more than twenty of those occasions I have left with a cold and feeling quite unwell, sometimes even running a temperature. I should like to take advantage of this opportunity to urge those in charge of maintaining the building to take appropriate action. It seems to me that the building itself is rather unwell. It is certainly causing some of us who frequent it to become unwell. I assure you I do not suffer in this way anywhere else. Sudden drastic temperature changes should not be allowed. They are not good for one, nor are all the draughts around this building.
With regard to the other issue before us today, namely the transfer of cargo and passenger ships between registers in the Community, I should like to thank Mr Poignant for his work. I must also thank him for the discussions and contacts with the Council. I very much hope they will facilitate the adoption of this regulation at first reading, assuming the House endorses the rapporteur’s report and the amendments he supports. Early adoption is essential, given the imminence of enlargement. This particular enlargement will have major implications for the maritime sector. Mr President, it is important to develop existing legislation and to supplement and update it.
The Commission has accepted most of the amendments, and I should like to thank Mr Poignant once again. The Commission can accept Amendment No 3. Nonetheless, we have to reject Amendments Nos 1 and 2 on displaying the Union’s emblem in a corner of the flags flown by vessels registered in Member States of the Union, as it would hinder agreement with the Council at first reading. Furthermore, this is not the appropriate legal instrument with which to introduce such a measure.
Mr President, honourable Members, I must express my gratitude to Mr Pex for his work. Basically, it supports the Commission’s position. In this connection, I should like to say that most of the amendments are aimed at clarifying the text of the proposal for a directive. They improve the text of the Directive. Consequently we accept them all, notably Amendments 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 12, 15, 18, 20 and 23.
Other amendments are acceptable in principle, but will need some redrafting. This is the case of Amendments 6 and 22 concerning the creation of a common European coastguard. The Commission was able to explain its views on the subject in the course of replies to questions in the House. We are favourably inclined towards the ideas. Nonetheless, the budgetary and operational implications of such an initiative will need to be studied first. In particular, it will be necessary to consider relations between this potential coastguard, the Maritime Safety Agency and the agency to be charged with managing external borders, as well as with the existing competent national structures. The latter may be modified in the future. The Commission will work with a will to deal with these complex issues. It has to be said, however, that this is not an easy task and will take some time.
Nonetheless, some amendments are unacceptable. We therefore reject them, either because they are redundant or because they are not in line with the objectives of our initial proposal.
As I conclude on the report by Mr Pex, allow me to reiterate my conviction that there is considerable convergence. Parliament is once again supporting us with regard to strengthening maritime safety. I await the outcome of tomorrow’s vote with great interest. I trust that at the earliest opportunity the House will adopt this report and this position at first reading. That should promote debate with the Council, where things are much more difficult.
I am grateful to Parliament for debating this report alongside that of Mr Di Lello and the framework decision. I should like to thank Mr Di Lello too for his work and for his support for the Commission’s proposals. I should also like to thank him for his determination to carry on fighting the curse of ship-source pollution. Parliament and the Commission are of one mind on this. We are particularly concerned about intentional discharge. As I stated in our text, intentional discharge accounts for over 50% of the pollution of European Union waters. It is therefore a crucial issue.
We cannot accept the first amendment as it stands. This is because of its non-legal nature. Nonetheless, we would like to emphasise that we are appreciative of the support we have again received for our position regarding the Community’s competence to include the principle of criminal sanctions in the implementation of Community policy. We are conscious of Parliament’s support in connection with the appeal brought by the Commission against the framework decision on protection of the environment under the Criminal Code.
I trust it will prove possible to adopt both these texts. I also hope the Council will find a way of being more accommodating, or that it will at least prevail on certain Member States to moderate their position. After all, other Member States of the Union fully support the stance adopted by Parliament and the Commission. All these issues would complete the global framework of stepping up maritime safety and combating pollution caused by discharges. I have in mind European waters, coastlines and exclusive economic zones. This is the crux of our policy. As such, it calls for special attention.
In response to statements made by some honourable Members, I should like to make it clear that the Commission will continue to work to see the legislative proposals through. We shall not hesitate to act if countries fail to meet the deadlines for transposing into their national legislation the directives adopted here with a view to combating marine pollution and promoting maritime safety. We are quite prepared to go to the courts to insist on implementation by the Member States of the Union. Port facilities designed to deal with discharges are part of this drive. Such facilities are absolutely essential for the implementation of these texts. I very much hope the House will endorse the latter tomorrow."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples