Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-03-30-Speech-2-296"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20040330.12.2-296"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I too would like to extend the warmest of thanks to Mr Manders for the circumspect and collegial manner in which this conciliation procedure was conducted. I see that as the reason why we achieved such a very good outcome.
I have to say, though, on behalf of the Group of the Party of European Socialists, that we Social Democrats are less than enraptured by the outcome; we would have liked the ‘polluter pays’ principle to have been enforced with much greater rigour, along with a mandatory and immediate financial security regime, but it was not possible to get that through the conciliation procedure, quite simply because the majorities in this House are not what they need to be if that is to be done – with consequent effects on the lawmaking process. The Group of the Party of European Socialists will nonetheless be voting for the compromise, for some of the things we have managed to achieve can be described as first steps in the right direction.
We have, for a start, managed to require the Commission, within six years, to submit a report on the availability of financial security provision, and what is very much of the essence is that it has undertaken to respond to the House’s concerns by presenting proposals for a system of harmonised mandatory financial security instruments. I do not think we would be able vote in favour had it not done so, and another reason why I see this as important is that it would not merely leave it to the market to develop a single European system of provision for financial liability; instead, from the very outset, one would be given shape and guided in a proper direction.
The second reason why we will be voting in favour is that this House will be able to get the Commission to examine to what extent limited liability, as provided for in international conventions, is at present possible when goods are transported by sea. This report is also to examine the relation between the liability of shipowners and the contributions of those who buy crude oil, for calamities such as the wreck of the
make it necessary that we again rethink the arrangements for liability at sea.
Let me sum up by saying that we are not entirely satisfied with what has been achieved, and we would have liked much more. I can see Mr Manders nodding; he too, I know, would have liked more, but that was not possible. This, then, is a first step, and we will, in future, be persistent in seeing to it that it is followed by more as we move towards the right solution."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples