Brussels, 24/09/2008 (Agence Europe) - On Wednesday 24 September, the European Parliament sent a clear signal to the Council of Ministers, stating that they would not give in over the third maritime package (ERIKA III). Meeting in plenary, the members of the European Parliament confirmed, in most cases, the vote of the committee on transports (EUROPE 9733), by approving at second reading, by a vast majority, six reports on five proposals of the package which have already been the subject of a common position of the Council. These not only maintain the position taken by the Parliament at first reading, but include elements of two proposals over which the Council hit a stumbling block last April (EUROPE 9638). The "Transport" Council of 9 October will attempt to reach a political agreement on these two texts: the proposed directive on the flag state and the proposed directive on civil liability and the financial guarantees of ship owners. The conciliation procedure will start on 7 October, in a purely procedural meeting.
"All that we have voted on today (Wednesday) is important", stressed Paolo Costa (ADLE, Italy), the president of the committee on transports of the EP, at the press conference held after the vote. "The compromise will depend on what the Council will say" on 9 October, he added.
Apart from the two proposals, which the Parliament (and the European Commission) feels are essential to reinforce maritime security, the Parliament and the Member States must align their positions on the more technical issues, such as the permanent banishment of vessels, the application of controls in vessels in moorings, the independent nature of the authority tasked with receiving ships in distress, the extension of investigations after accidents due to serious and less serious mistakes and the question of advance payments in the event of the deaths or serious injuries of passengers. Nonetheless, the Parliament rejected, through the votes of the EPP-ED party, two amendments of the report by Paolo Costa on the liability of maritime transporters in the event of accidents. These amendments, which were rejected by 363 (285 against and 10 abstentions) and 353 (296 votes and 17 against) votes respectively, targeted the extension of the scope of application of the Athens Convention of the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) establishing the regime of liability for damages suffered by passengers transported on ocean-going vessels, on inland navigation routes. "This is a gap (in passenger rights) which stems from an economic concern", said Mr Costa, during the press conference. He nonetheless said that he was "pleased with Wednesday's vote", stressing that the main thing is to "reach an agreement" and "conclude (the work on the package) under the French Presidency".
This is something which the Parliament says will be impossible unless the Council decides on two draft directives, which seek to put in place a binding European system of control of flag states and to establish the civil liability of vessel owners in the event of voluntary acts and serious neglect resulting in pollution, though incorporating the International Liability Limitation for Maritime Claims (LLMC) Convention into Community law. “There is concern (on the part of some member states) with regard to the transfer of competence to the EU of areas governed by international conventions and also with regard to the increase in red tape,” said Commission Vice-President and Transport Commissioner Antonio Tajani, during the debate before the vote. On behalf of the Commission Tajani gave his backing to the parliament underlining that the whole package had to be adopted. “Europe cannot not respond to the questions of its citizens,” he said in the debate. Transport Ministers will meet in Luxembourg on 9 October to try to reach political agreement on the two texts in question (see EUROPOE 9731). Most member states (led by Germany, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom) are against the transfer of these competences.
“Ratify the IMO conventions beginning with the one on chemicals,” French MEP Gilles Savary on behalf of the PES told member states. “The second thing is to have a certificate of guarantee and insurance on the European maritime area. We have to have confidence in Europe. When it leads the way, it pulls the world with it,” he said, before stating, “Parliament's resistance is not a matter of self aggrandisement. It is a matter of public health and public interest”. “We still don't have a joint position and I really want us to have a Council position on the two texts pending,” said Dirk Sterckx (ALDE, Belgium). He, the rapporteur on vessel traffic monitoring and information, said that “the convention on dangerous substances (the IMO NHS convention) should be adopted by all member states if we want all vessels to be covered”. “The Council has to do all in its power to get a decision on these two texts because without them we still face the same difficulty: no matter how good the results so far achieved, the Parliament will still believe it not to be enough,” he said. “I would like to understand … why the Council has taken so long to examine this matter, and would like it to tell us what prevented it from reaching an agreement on the two proposals,” said Dominique Vlasto (EPP-ED, France), the rapporteur on the control of port states. “Either there is a package, or there is nothing at all,” stated German MEP Georg Jarzembowski, speaking on behalf of the EPP-ED, stressing that it was “essential that flag states met their obligations”. For the Greens, German MEP Michael Cramer deplored the fact that, in the past, certain regions (the Atlantic coast, the Black Sea) had to pay for the consequences of environmental and human disasters for which they were not responsible - hence the need for binding legislation on liability and ports of refuge, and also allowing authorities to call for independent investigations. Cramer found the Council's reluctance on this to be “incomprehensible”. The principle of “the polluter pays” had absolutely to be observed, said Dutch MEP Erik Meijer for the GUE/NGL, railing against the laxity that tolerates the use of vessels that are unfit to sail and unacceptable working conditions. His fellow-countryman Johannes Blokland, on behalf of the Independence and Democracy group, argued against the proposal by rapporteur Paolo Costa to extend the liability rules to inland waters. The many small and medium-sized enterprises which ply their trade on inland waters should not be required to pay the same insurance premiums as maritime transporters, Blokland said, supported by EPP-ED members, in particular Austrian Reinhard Rack, who called for regulation specific to this type of navigation.
Maritime activity was a fundamental element in the GDP of some countries, pointed out Cypriot Ioannis Kasoulides, calling for the creation of a safe maritime environment and everyone, not only EU vessels, to assume their responsibility. Ian Hudghton (Grens/EFA) highlighted the particular position of Scotland, which has a long seafaring history and which would be well placed to become a maritime transport hub between the EU and the rest of the world. Cooperation with third countries had to be improved, said Bulgarian Socialist Marusya Lybcheva, while Polish Socialist Broguslaw Liberadzki felt that, in this area, there should be no differences made between large and small countries, since the size of the country bore no relation to the importance of maritime transport to it. The rules of the game are not clear, lamented Lithuanian Socialist Justas Paleckis, who protested at the Council's intention to restrict investigations in the event of serious accidents.
French Communist, Jacky Henin was sceptical about finding a satisfactory solution. “We pretend to get annoyed with the Council” but without the will to attack the root of the problem, tax havens and flags of convenience. Henin said that the European institutions were not doing enough but Derek Clark from the UK (GI) said that they were doing too much and risked ruining maritime traffic by “spying” on the movement of boats in the waters of the Union. (ABy./L.G/trans/rh)