Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-06-13-Speech-2-227"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2000-06-13"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Vote2
dcterms:Language	"fr"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20000613.16.2-227"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2000-06-13-Speech-2-2282
lpv:speaker	lp:Dominique F.C. Souchet2
lpv:spokenAs	member; AGRI (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 unknown; Rassemblement pour la France (1999-07-20--2000-11-22)3 substitute; EMPL (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 member; UEN (1999-07-20--2001-01-30)3 substitute; PECH (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 member; Members from the European Parliament to the Joint Parliamentary Assembly of the Agreement between the African, Caribbean and Pacific States and the European Union (ACP-EU) (1999-09-14--2002-01-14)3
lpv:translated text	"During the debate I highlighted the disturbing gap between the extremely mild nature of the text on which we were required to vote and the particularly harsh reality affecting the victims of the Erika disaster, which caused such extensive damage. By rights this tragedy should have had the effect of seriously reorienting Community procedure. This was, unfortunately, not the case, and the procedure stands. It is limited to proposing the exchange of information, which is no doubt highly useful, for the period 2000-2006. On the key issues, we are still waiting. Indeed, the victims are becoming aware that the principle of ‘polluter pays’ is still not truly recognised and that the compensation system set up in 1992 is extremely unsatisfactory and even, bizarrely, lets the vessel operator off scot-free. In a six-month period, the International Oil Pollution Compensation Fund (IOPCF) has not paid out 2 million in compensation. Indeed, the IOPCF apparatus looks particularly perverse. It is a compensation system with no liability, which sets a ceiling unrelated to the extent of actual damages suffered. It is not fair that the State and local authorities should be required to a great extent to take the place of the polluter in meeting expenses. This system benefits the oil companies and, as we have just seen, makes it possible for unacceptable pressure to be put on the victims, be they workers in the affected sectors or local authorities, forced to go to court in order to have their damages recognised. This system must be renegotiated and must be supplemented by a strict legal framework, similar to the one which the United States provided for itself long ago. This time the necessary debates and the necessary action must not be postponed. The victims of the Erika disaster want their ordeal to serve to prevent the recurrence of this sort of disaster in future. Fortunately, this House adopted the amendment confirming the principle of ‘polluter pays’. This is a small step in the right direction."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph