Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-09-22-Speech-1-059"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030922.5.1-059"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, the first report of this part-session deals with an issue which is of major importance, not just for countries whose geographical location makes them liable to suffer the traumatic effects of oil slicks regularly, but also for all states whose supply of hydrocarbons follows the route which crosses the north-east Atlantic, the English Channel and the North Sea, one of the routes most travelled by oil tankers in the world.
Exchanges of information and ties of solidarity need to be properly developed by the parties concerned. That is why a Parliamentary temporary committee could be useful after the two-fold disaster of the
and the
my region was a victim of both – provided, of course, that we ensure that it does not become a forum for settling petty political scores, as could have been inferred from the circumstances in which certain Members proposed a committee of inquiry.
This is a completely different operation. It would, of course, be inappropriate to set ourselves up as judges of a Member State government: what we need to do is record in a single list, compare and take stock of the different initiatives taken at all levels – at European level, by the Member States, the local authorities and the Commission – to address the consequences of these two terrible shipwrecks.
Parliament would not be overstepping the mark if, with all due regard for subsidiarity, it were to endeavour, for the benefit of all, to identify the lessons to be learned from what went well and what went badly, to identify the limits of the Union’s sphere of activity, the shortcomings of international law, model initiatives to be promoted and joint measures to be developed and cofinanced by the countries concerned.
The report before us this afternoon starts to venture along this tack, but, inevitably, only to a certain extent and proposing solutions which are, in some cases unrealistic and ineffective. I refer, in particular, to the idea of a federal European Coastguards Service or the proposals for making the European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA) and the Member States jointly responsible for emergency planning arrangements, which can only lead to a dangerous confusion of roles.
The major flaw in the current mechanism remains the question of liability and compensation. Although a welcome measure, Commissioner, increasing the International Oil Pollution Compensation Fund (IOPCF) ceiling is not enough, as we know. We cannot tolerate a system in which – as is currently the case – a large part of the compensation granted to victims is funded by the taxpayers of the countries or regions affected by the pollution. It must be possible to make all those responsible for the chain of events causing pollution criminally and financially liable. It is on this objective, Mr President, that the Member States should concentrate primarily, henceforth, in the International Maritime Organisation (IMO)."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples