Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2008-04-21-Speech-1-245"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20080421.21.1-245"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I will attempt to reply to a few of the questions. I should like to say to Mr Galeote that the Commission has not been notified of any specific toxicity of the scrap metal that the
was carrying on board. We have no grounds for believing that the metal is particularly toxic.
Ladies and gentlemen, if you would allow me, I should like to take this opportunity to tell you that, with regard to the Third Maritime Package to prevent pollution, Parliament has really faced up to its responsibilities. Your Committee on Transport has adopted all seven proposals, and I must pay tribute to Parliament, which has provided me with much assistance in this matter. Nevertheless, it is true that, at the last meeting of the Council of Transport Ministers, I did notice that there was some resistance on the part of a number of Member States, several Member States, towards two proposals: on the one hand, the proposal on civil liability, the liability of shipowners, in connection with which, in particular, we have had to introduce a compulsory insurance scheme that is obviously critically important for the future. On the other hand, a further proposal, which supplements this scheme, on the liability of the flag State. The liability of the flag State is essential if we want all European flags to appear on the white list of the Paris Memorandum, demonstrating that they are all quality flags. However, we are not quite there yet. I should like to say that, in order to prevent shipwrecks such as that of the
it is imperative that we have legislation that is, as we have proposed in the Third Maritime Package, comprehensive and capable of effectively eliminating, at any stage, the risk of accidents at sea and pollution.
In this instance, we have made progress, there is no doubt about it. The Maritime Safety Agency, as I have already demonstrated, has provided assistance. It has recently strengthened its pollution response vessel network; however, nothing can take the place of this Third Maritime Package with regard to which I can only hope that, with, I realise, the full backing of Parliament, the Member States are prepared to face up to their responsibilities. What a dramatic situation we would have on our hands if, tomorrow, an oil spill were to occur in the highly fragile and sensitive waters of the Mediterranean Sea. For this reason, I should like to thank you again for your full support so that this Third Maritime Package may be effectively implemented and so that we may have effective flag State control and clear accountability on the part of shipowners. It is absolutely vital if we want to prevent disasters of this kind.
In any event, thank you for raising this issue, which provides us with an opportunity to highlight once again the absolute necessity of maritime safety.
As for the assistance provided through the Community Mechanism for Civil Protection, this was requested by the Spanish authorities immediately after the incident involving the
had occurred, but it has not been requested since. Finally, with regard to the removal of the wreck, I should like to inform Parliament that salvage operations are under way, sea conditions currently allowing them to be carried out safely. These removal operations are expected to take approximately three months.
Moreover, the Commission is considering the complaint received from the Andalusian Government. Any infringements that are found to have taken place will be prosecuted. Mr Watson also asked me a few questions. I should like to say to him that the wreck of the
is, indeed, located in the territorial waters of Gibraltar. The
incident had nothing to do with the bunkering of oil; the British authorities informed the Commission that oil bunkering activities were regulated under existing law and that they did not pose any particular problems. Supply vessels are always double-hulled oil tankers and have all the necessary certificates.
Mr Meyer, the vessel traffic monitoring directive – I shall conclude on this point – promotes cooperation in the area of vessel traffic monitoring, while the SafeSeaNet information system allows for the exchange of information.
Mr Queiró, the Commission believes that the provisions of the directive on criminal penalties for maritime pollution may be applicable in the case of the
as well as, more generally, to bunkering operations that cause pollution at sea. However, the 2005 directive does not lay down the legislative framework for imposing criminal penalties on persons responsible for maritime pollution.
The practical imposition of penalties in each individual case is not provided for in the directive but under the applicable national law, for instance, following the submission of a complaint or after initiating criminal action. Penalties must be imposed by the national courts as soon as an offence is found to have been committed.
Mr Hammerstein, the open-sea transfer of oil is a very common practice in maritime transport. In principle, this does not pose a problem as long as all precautionary measures are taken. Shipowners have developed a body of best practices for bunkering operations, that is, during the supply of fuel to vessels. For its part, the International Maritime Organisation is preparing to adopt various measures to prevent pollution during the transfer of oil between tankers. The Member States and the Commission have actively supported this approach; we will, however, remain extremely vigilant in this area.
Mr de Grandes Pascual, in 2005, as part of the third package of legislative measures on maritime safety, the Commission tabled a proposal for a directive laying down a minimum set of common rules on civil liability and insurance. This proposal was welcomed by the European Parliament, but, unfortunately, no appropriate action has so far been taken in the Council. This proposal was designed to provide an interim response to the victims of maritime pollution prior to the constantly delayed implementation of the international conventions that are pending. Such conventions either enter into force only after much delay or are not applicable in all the Member States. That leads to situations of unequal treatment for maritime transport operators and for accident victims.
I have not replied to all questions, but I should also like to tell you that the Commission is aware that there is ongoing disagreement over the territorial waters of Gibraltar. It is not our place to get involved in this discussion. We can only call on the parties concerned to strengthen their cooperation and improve the exchange of information. The Tripartite Forum should focus on the issue of cooperation in the field of maritime safety."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples