Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-03-30-Speech-2-299"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20040330.12.2-299"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, my point of view is naturally closer to that of Mrs Gebhardt, who has spoken on behalf of the Socialist Group.
This directive represents a step forward in principle, but not in practice, because its application by the Member States has a time limit of three years, the possibility of examining an obligatory insurance system is left for a period of six years and there are provisions which will not enter into force for nine or ten years.
This at a time when these types of accident are happening constantly. Specifically, in the field of responsibility for damage caused by ships and other things, there are international conventions which limit the responsibility of shipowners.
From a practical point of view, therefore, Community citizens are not going to see any difference now nor for many years to come. This is a beginning – Parliament has been very cautious in accepting it in order to maintain the commitment of the States – but we must be completely realistic: there is no real progress here. Accidents will continue to happen, causing immeasurable damage which is not insured, there is no way of obliging the shipowners or other sectors creating risks to take responsibility and there could be cases of regions, such as mine for example, which lives exclusively from its coasts, being faced with an oil slick which entirely wrecks the activity of the region without the possibility of receiving compensation nor of damage being covered by an insurance system. That is the reality.
As always, however, this Parliament, in fulfilling its responsibility – which seems excessive because, since Parliament has codecision powers, it appears to be characterised by a high degree of responsibility – has preferred to suffer slings and arrows in order to accept the compromise – I would not call it a compromise, but rather a diktat – imposed by the Council and the Commission and, to ensure that the proposed Directive can go ahead, has accepted these conditions.
In this task, Mr Manders has done everything he could. We are left with just a few verbal commitments. Let it not be said, however, that we or the electors have been deceived: this is just the beginning. Let us hope that the Commission does not wait for these long periods of three, six, nine and ten years, but that within a short space of time – probably as a result of another great accident, which will cause enormous damage in any part of the European Union, whether it be in the Baltic, the Mediterranean, the North Sea or any other place – it is obliged to present us, and to do so quickly, with a proposal which changes this and allows us to move ahead with much more precise rules. Another issue which must be clarified is whether a Directive is the appropriate instrument or whether we need a Regulation which makes this type of rule obligatory, without waiting for the States to slowly fulfil their responsibilities towards their citizens."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples