Verbatim report of proceedings

Tuesday, 22 February 2005 - Strasbourg

17. Pollution from ships

  President. – The next item is the recommendation for second reading (A6-0015/2005) on the Council common position for adopting a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on ship-source pollution and on the introduction of sanctions for infringements (Rapporteur: Mrs Corien Wortmann-Kool).

  Wortmann-Kool (PPE-DE), rapporteur. – (NL) Mr President, we are discussing the directive on criminal penalties to combat illegal oil discharges at sea, and as your rapporteur, I am delighted with the agreement reached with the Council at second reading. It required a great deal of intensive consultation, and the agreement we have reached with the Council guarantees a firm but fair European approach to illegal oil discharges and oil disasters. I should like to underline to the House the social importance of this directive. The immediate motivation for the present legislative proposal was the oil disaster involving the Prestige. Hundreds of kilometres of coastline were seriously polluted and the present package of measures really does not only pertain to those accidents but also aims to combat illegal discharges in European coastal waters. Those illegal discharges may not make newspaper headlines, but they do constitute a seriously underestimated and underexposed problem, for every year, some 90 000 cases of illegal discharge take place in European waters. Beaches are polluted year in and year out, and oil pollution accounts for no less than 40% of the dead seabirds along the North Sea coast.

The Council has taken a long time to reach a common position, and it proved inadequate for Parliament. We do not want a paper tiger but sound European tracing and penal agreements. The Council has accommodated Parliament to a large extent, which benefits the European citizens and the environment. I should like to enlarge on the key points.

Firstly, there are tough sanctions to combat illegal discharges. The Council accepted a framework decision in December in which the penalties are incorporated in the third pillar. The Council has thus paved the way to reach this agreement. This third-pillar proposal is also firmly anchored in the directive by including a criminal offences clause. Moreover, the Council has guaranteed the parallel adoption of both legislative proposals. In this way, and in advance of the new Constitution, Parliament has strengthened its institutional position.

Secondly, illegal discharges are to be traced. Most countries can only just act against illegal discharges, if at all, but by lowering the threshold for combating these to serious negligence, we can guarantee that infringements can be tackled fairly and squarely. However, we should not veer to the other extreme, namely to the disproportionate criminalisation of captain and crew, a subject which has been hotly debated. Parliament values the protection offered by international conventions in the event of illegal discharges, but this is more complicated in the case of accidents.

The Commission and Council do not want any additional Marpol protection within the territorial waters, believing that this would then make it virtually impossible to act, a view endorsed by a majority in the Committee on Transport and Tourism. Nevertheless, I have noticed that this topic is continuing to be discussed, for it was only yesterday that I received a letter from the International Maritime Organisation on this very subject, a letter with which the Commissioner is also familiar. Can you, Commissioner, remove the fear that is still being felt by some that, in the case of accidents, the crew is being criminalised from the word go, because that is not the intention?

Thirdly, this House has cherished the dream of a European coastguard for a long time. It is necessary for oil pollution to be prevented and traced effectively. This wish has so far not been recognised by the Council, but that is now the case with this agreement. I am therefore delighted that the Council recognises the principle of a European coastguard. It has been agreed that the Commission will present a feasibility study before the end of 2006, and we are looking forward, Commissioner, to the outcome of your study and also to your proposal for a European coastguard.

Finally, we should, naturally, do everything in our power to prevent pollution, and that is where the Directive on port reception facilities comes in, although it is still woefully inadequate. What will the Commission do to improve it?

My thanks go to my fellow Members for the trust they have placed in me and for the good cooperation, as well as to the secretariat of the Committee on Transport and Tourism. I should also like to thank the Commission warmly for all the support and cooperation. Last but not least, I should like to thank the Luxembourg Presidency for the dynamic way in which it steered the negotiations, which was not an easy task. I am pleased with the result, for which I would thank you, particularly from the perspective of the public interest and that of the environment along our coasts and in our coastal waters.

  Barrot, Vice-President of the Commission. (FR) Mr President, I would first of all like to thank Mrs Wortmann-Kool for her outstanding review of the context, explanation of the issues and description of the content of this compromise solution, which I very much hope will be endorsed by Parliament tomorrow. I would simply like to add a few words.

Negotiations on this proposal for a directive began nearly two years ago. We had obstacles to overcome, we did not always agree with some of you, and I would like to pay tribute and offer my warmest thanks to the three rapporteurs, who in turn took part in those negotiations, and more particularly to Mrs Wortmann-Kool, who is the real author of today’s success.

With this future directive, the European institutions will at last be responding in a concrete fashion to the expectations of our citizens, who want to see an end to the degassings and other disasters of the past. I have heard it said, and you have just said so yourself, Mrs Wortmann-Kool, that we wanted to turn masters and crews into criminals. Well, I really must make it clear that such is certainly not our intention. On the contrary, we want to serve the industry with this directive. Our target is the rarest of cases, those which are intolerable and unacceptable; we want to make all operators upstream in the long maritime transport chain aware of their responsibilities. I must say I was rather taken aback by the reaction of the Secretary-General of the International Maritime Organisation, whom I met last week. As I pointed out to him at the IMO headquarters in London, the text that Parliament has before it is perfectly consistent with international law, that is the Marpol Convention on the prevention of pollution and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Our text is in keeping with them and we are quite simply making use of the option available under the Marpol Convention of bringing in stricter provisions.

Obviously, we are acting at European Union level and not at the level of each Member State, but I do not honestly believe that the IMO can read into this measure the least desire to criminalise masters and crews. I say that emphatically and with conviction, and I would like to reassure all honourable Members who, to judge by a letter I have received, may have felt they did not entirely understand our intentions.

I would say, Mr President, that the adoption of this text will be a success. It is true that in its proposal for a directive the Commission did have in mind to establish a proper system of criminal sanctions. From that point of view, the text before Parliament is less ambitious, since the elements of a criminal nature have been transferred to the third pillar, that is a framework decision. I regret that, it is true, the Commission regrets it, but we accept it because none of the other aspects of the proposal have been watered down, and we have managed to get pollution offences defined in the same way and made subject to similar dissuasive sanctions throughout Europe. That is very important and I would like to say that all the Members of the European Parliament who have witnessed oil slick disasters at one time or another understand that we have to take action; otherwise, sooner or later, we will be faced with another disaster and the finger will point at us.

This directive means that, in future, the Commission, assisted by the European Maritime Safety Agency, and all the competent authorities of the Member States will have to join forces to increase surveillance, detect offences and punish those at fault. In this connection, I have to say for my part that we fully share Parliament’s desire for European coastguards.

Mr President, without taking up too much time, I would like to say something about Amendments 19 to 23. The Commission recommends that Parliament reject them for two reasons. Firstly because they call the compromise package into question, while conciliation could complicate things, and also for reasons of substance. Amendments 19 and 22 seek to draw up an exhaustive list of all operators who, in the long chain of maritime transport, might be held responsible in the event of an accident and of pollution. In fact, that list already exists in shorter form in the seventh recital to the common position, which is not threatened by any compromise. Amendment 20 concerns the system of responsibility for compensation for places of refuge. This is a very important question and the Commission is looking at it very closely; I must refer here to a study on the subject that I shall be sending to the European Parliament in the next few days.

Amendments 21 and 23 seek to call into question something the Commission considers a real step forward. The European Union is going to set up a really operational system of deterrence and sanctions in its territorial waters: all polluters will have to be sanctioned if they are guilty of serious negligence. That is an improvement on international standards, the Marpol Convention in particular, and they need to be amplified. Penalties can only be imposed on those who have acted deliberately or have made an inexcusable error.

Our text is therefore a step forward, made possible by the Law of the Sea Convention. That Convention allows coastal states to strengthen their pollution prevention and control regimes in their territorial waters. The opportunity is open, we have taken it, and that is why I do not believe there can be any question of going back. That is why the Commission does not agree on the substance and why it is glad that the Committee on Transport and Tourism has been wise enough not to accept Amendments 21 and 23.

Finally, a word on Amendment 2, which relates to recital 7. This amendment concerns the revision of the international compensation regime for damage caused by oil pollution, the International Oil Pollution Compensation Fund (IOPCF). This amendment was not accepted by the Council; it is true that its aim goes rather further than the scope of the directive. At the trialogue meeting, Parliament’s delegation agreed to withdraw this amendment. May I remind you that at the invitation of the Council and Parliament, the Commission agreed to make a three-point statement. First of all, the Commission reaffirms its determination to help the Member States to find middle ground on revision of the international IOPCF system. Secondly, the Commission stresses that the international conventions on liability and compensation in the event of pollution must be implemented. Thirdly, the Commission wishes to present a legislative proposal, as part of the third ‘maritime safety’ package, on mandatory insurance for all vessels entering a Community port.

In conclusion, Mr President, if you will forgive me for taking so long, the Commission supports the package of 13 compromise amendments and looks forward with confidence to the position Parliament will take on this package.

Please be vigilant: it is essential that the Council abides by its commitments and adopts the directive and the framework decision quickly and concomitantly. For my part, I will do my best to ensure the framework decision is put into effect. All this is necessary if the compromise is to be meaningful and if European public opinion is in future to feel much better protected against all the marine pollution, to the extremely disastrous effects of which on our natural heritage and all the wealth of the sea Mrs Wortmann-Kool has drawn our attention.

May I, Mr President, impress on Parliament that it should not be tempted to pay any attention to what I believe to be mistaken comments suggesting that we are criminalising seafarers. On the contrary, we are trying within reasonable and proportionate limits to make them more responsible. I have to say that the text is balanced and, since the trialogue resulted in an interinstitutional agreement, I think we are well on the way to getting it implemented; I can assure you it will be very well received by all who dread another oil slick happening sooner or later. I therefore thank Parliament, Mr President, for the attention it has given to this text, which is very important for our fellow European citizens.

  Kratsa-Τsagaropoulou (PPE-DE), on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – (EL) Mr President, Commissioner, I have listened to you very carefully and to our rapporteur, Mrs Wortmann-Kool, because the issue we are debating this evening is particularly important and encompasses numerous aspects relating to the sustainable development of our economy and the creation of jobs.

The policy of the European Union aims to develop maritime transport and, at the same time, to protect the marine environment and this is an objective we all share. Unfortunately, however, the common position and its amendment by the Committee on Transport and Tourism do not respond to these challenges, despite the efforts of the rapporteur – and we thank her for that – during the processing of the proposal in committee.

The basic reason for this finding is that, with the provisions being introduced, the MARPOL international convention is being surpassed as regards the basis for responsibility for accidental pollution and the maritime zones in which it is applied. This issue may have important repercussions from a legal and economic point of view. In such a case, Community law will violate international law and, at the same time, will undermine the authority of the International Maritime Organisation, which is the only agency which can apply measures to protect the seas at international level because, we must not forget, shipping is a global activity which cannot have numerous standards. Experience has shown that regional measures cause confusion, legal inequality and administrative difficulties. Moreover, our international statistics tell us that, while international trade by sea is increasing, cases of pollution are decreasing.

Another important element of this proposal is the criminalisation of work at sea because, in essence, the proposal also concerns this aspect. Seamen already have a hard and dangerous life. This sort of penal approach discourages young people from going to sea, especially those with technical know-how and a good education, and they are precisely the people that European shipping needs.

That is why, ladies and gentlemen, I ask you to approach this matter with a sense of responsibility and perspective and for us to vote for the amendment tabled by the New Democracy MEPs and their colleagues from other political groups and countries which aims to bring our proposal into line with the MARPOL international convention. I thank you and I believe that, irrespective of the outcome of the vote, we need to look at a long-term strategy which goes beyond restrictive measures and criminal sanctions.

  Piecyk (PSE), on behalf of the PSE Group. – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, with all due respect, environmental pollution does happen, one way or the other. The rapporteur has pointed out that we behave in a rather schizoid manner, because whenever there are environmental disasters we are all appalled; this turns to outrage, and the media come running. But the daily – and I repeat daily – pollution scandal in European and international waters seems not to attract widespread public attention. The figures speak for themselves. The Commission proposal referred at the time to 390 illegal oil discharges in the Baltic in the year 2001 alone and 596 illegal discharges in the North Sea. The environmental organisation Oceania estimates that there are three thousand illegal discharges a year in European waters. This is three thousand too many! Discharging pollutants must no longer be treated as a minor infringement; it is high time that it was made a criminal offence, with those who commit it being prosecuted and receiving stiff penalties.

Investigation and prosecution depend on the availability of appropriate instruments. As has been said, the Member States do, of course, have their responsibilities, but in the longer term we shall need an efficient European coastguard. We shall not have it today or in the immediate future, but I believe it must come in the medium term. The prosecution and sentencing of marine polluters must not be thwarted by nations jealously guarding their rights of jurisdiction.

Tomorrow, Parliament, the Council and the Commission will decide on a reasonably fair compromise, and the rapporteur can claim a great deal of the credit for its coming to pass. I should like to congratulate her and thank her for a very, very good piece of work, which has ensured that we are able to discuss this today and complete the process tomorrow, in other words that we do not need to activate the conciliation procedure but can proceed straight to adoption.

It its framework agreement, the Council undertakes to impose severe penalties for criminal marine pollution: fines, imprisonment and prohibition of economic activity. The Commission and the Council intend to pursue the matter in the IMO. It defies comprehension, for example, that shipowners can still insure themselves against fines for marine pollution. Such rules need to be amended in the IMO framework. By agreeing to a feasibility study, we shall be taking an important first step towards a European coastguard.

I will also, therefore, compliment the presidency on its fruitful cooperation with us on this issue. Luxembourg does not readily spring to mind when you think of countries with long coastlines, but at least it does have a very large fleet, which also imposes responsibility on this presidency, to which my thanks are also due. I believe all of us bear a great deal of responsibility for the natural world, including the seas and oceans. This is why tomorrow’s decisions must be very quickly implemented. Our coasts, our seas and our marine life will thank us for it.

  Ortuondo Larrea (ALDE), on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (ES) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, oil is dumped at sea every six minutes and more than 20 000 tonnes of oil is dumped into European seas each year as a result of maritime traffic, enough to fill 10 000 Olympic-sized swimming pools. That is what is stated in the OCEANA report on sea pollution, which has also been mentioned by Mr Piecyk.

However, this report says more. For example that each year 3 000 illegal dumpings of oil are detected each year, but there may be many more deliberate discharges because, for example, in the busiest port in the whole of the European Union and one of the most important in the world, Rotterdam, just 7% of the ships which dock there deposit the waste from their bilges and tanks in the port collection installations. Where do they dump the other 93%? Most of it in the sea, probably.

We must approve more effective control legislation as soon as possible in order to prevent the more than 77 000 deaths per year of birds as a result of oil impregnation and the unknown number of deaths of cetaceans, turtles, fish species and marine fauna and flora in general, as well as rules which also put an end to pollution of coasts and beaches everywhere. Patented on-board monitoring instruments are in the process of being approved, a kind of inviolable black box which can reliably verify whether a ship has carried out illegal dumpings.

In the implementation of the accompanying measures laid down in Article 10 of the Directive we are debating today, all ships must be required to install these black boxes, all ports, without exception, must have installations for collecting waste and State and Community systems for registering controlled illegal discharges must be established, and there must be public information on illegal dumping and the penalties applied as a result of it.

The States must be obliged to comply with the legislation requiring them to provide refuge ports for ships in trouble and a European coastguard service must be created to control dumping, illegal immigration and drug trafficking. Furthermore, it is essential that sanctions be applied to all those involved in the sea transport chain without exception, including the owners of the cargo and contracting agents, charterers, consignees, shipowners, classification societies and insurers, captains, crew members and others, regardless of whether they carry out their duties on land or at sea, if they are responsible for those accidents or dumping.

The International Fund for Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage must also be periodically increased and updated and brought into line with the real damage caused and more appropriate account must be taken of the contributions of shipowners, owners, charterers and receivers of oil cargo.

All of this must be applied immediately in Europe and we must demand that it be extended to the rest of the world by means of the International Maritime Organisation, because if we wait for it to be agreed there, we may find that the North Sea, the Baltic or, in particular, the Mediterranean have been damaged beyond repair.

I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mrs Wortmann-Kool, very warmly for her wonderful report and for all the work she has done, both with a view to agreeing on common positions amongst the parliamentary groups, and within the trialogue with the Council and the Commission, and with a view to completing this legislative procedure at this second reading.

I can inform you that our group has just accepted the thirteen compromise amendments and has also agreed to withdraw the three amendments we had presented. We have done all of this so that we can approve this report tomorrow and so that this crucial Directive can enter into force as quickly as possible.

  Papadimoulis (GUE/NGL), on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (EL) Mr President, the large majority of my political group supports the proposal and rejects the amendments which seek to weaken it.

The large majority of citizens call for stricter measures to prevent pollution from ships, which affects not only the environment and public health but also fishing and tourism.

The package of measures which we are debating today endeavours to complete a task which started years ago and which has been delayed on account of reactions from three Member States which were against the Commission's original proposal for a directive.

How can you be against such a directive, when you calculate the ecological cost? The cost to the fishing industry and the cost from the blow to tourism and from the unemployment which plagues areas hit by oil pollution. In 1999 alone, in the area of the Mediterranean – and the Mediterranean is a closed sea – 1 638 cases of illegal dumping were reported. Think how many there were which were not reported because they were not identified. A similar number of oil slicks was identified in 2001 in the North Sea and the Baltic Sea.

For reasons of the protection of the marine environment and the need for a positive step to be taken at long last, we accept the points of the compromise amendments, even though they do not fully satisfy us.

Finally, I should like to call on the Greek Government, the government of my country, to abandon its policy of stonewalling. Greece, as a world shipping power, should not be acting as rear guard; it should be at the vanguard in combating pollution from ships and, with its constructive stand, should not leave room for criticism to be levelled at the Greek fleet.

  Blokland (IND/DEM), on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. – (NL) Mr President, we are currently discussing not only the report by Mrs Wortmann-Kool, but also the agreement she has reached with the Council. There are two aspects of importance for me in this debate. First of all, we should realise that seafaring is a global industry which only functions properly when legislation is laid down globally. I thus welcome the fact that both the Council and the rapporteur endorse the Marpol Convention.

Also, legislation without adequate monitoring and penalties is meaningless. I am therefore pleased that the rapporteur has managed to prompt the Council to make a specific pledge with regard to this dossier’s criminal dimension. Finally, I should like to note that I am looking forward to the Commission’s study on the setting up of a European coastguard. I hope that this report will help me appreciate the usefulness of such a body. Thank you.

  Busuttil (PPE-DE). – Mr President, I am disappointed that Amendment 7 of this report was rejected by the Committee on Transport and Tourism. I must stress that I am fully in favour of the principle that ship-source pollution must be combated. However, we must be more sensible in applying this principle. We seem to have forgotten that the hazards of the sea can at times cause accidents in spite of all the precautions that one can take. It is, therefore, unjust that shipowners, masters and crew members who have taken all reasonable measures to prevent pollution resulting from an accident should be treated in the same way as people who have committed intentional pollution, or pollution resulting from reckless or negligent behaviour.

There are two reasons why I believe this approach is illogical. Firstly, because it goes beyond, if it is not contrary to, MARPOL. We should be making an effort to improve the effectiveness of international conventions and not seek to compete with them or work at a tangent to them. Because of the very nature of the maritime sector, international conventions have proved to be good and effective tools. Let us continue to use them.

Secondly, it is illogical, because it places shipping in the European Union at a disadvantage when compared to shipping from outside European Union waters. At a time when we are striving to improve competitiveness and create jobs, we have to be careful not to legislate in a way that creates a disincentive for the important maritime sector to stay here in Europe.

I am aware that a lot has been done to reach a compromise on this issue and I thank the rapporteur for this. However, I suspect that there remains an insufficient appreciation of the real impact of these provisions. We all agree on the need to regulate ship-source pollution, but in doing so we must, and should, adopt a practical approach that can help us reach our goals in an effective yet pragmatic manner.

  Evans, Robert (PSE). – Mr President, I also wish to thank the rapporteur and the Commissioner for his interesting remarks. This is, as others have said, an important piece of legislation for maritime safety and for forcing ships to act responsibly. As Mr Piecyk, Mr Ortuondo Larrea, Mr Papadimoulis and others have said, most oil pollution does not come from the disasters which get the headlines, but from deliberate discharges. It is vital that we combat these illegal acts together in a vigorous way, and this compromise is a positive step forward.

Cooperation on European issues to counter criminality or carelessness is important and I yield to no one in my determination to do all that we can to prevent pollution and protect the environment. We will also achieve far more if we work together as a European Union rather than as individual countries.

Therefore, as Mr Blokland has said, we will await the feasibility study on the issue of a European coastguard with great interest. At present, as I understand it, the functions of national coastguards vary considerably from country to country. Some are concerned with border protection and countering illegal immigration; others to counter pollution along the lines we have described. In some countries their responsibilities include search-and-rescue operations, which might be the responsibility of the military in others.

From the UK's point of view, its coastguard functions include search-and-rescue and its borderline of responsibility, the zone, abuts those of the United States and Canada. Therefore the area of responsibility for UK coastguards is somewhat larger than that of some of the other countries. I therefore look forward to this feasibility study with interest. We can reflect on this after the report has been adopted tomorrow and then move forward.

  Toussas (GUE/NGL). – (EL) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, experience has shown that preventive and repressive measures for imposing sanctions for pollution-related infringements on shipowners, ship's operators, managers and persons and authorised agencies in general responsible for the state, operation and seaworthiness of vessels are woefully inadequate.

With court rulings, shipowners, ship's operators, managers, agents, insurers, charterers, cargo owners and others who constitute the chain of the material and technical shipping infrastructure, responsible for crimes at sea and environmental disasters, exploit national and international law to escape punishment while, with great strictness and contrary to international legislation, seafarers are used as scapegoats and hostages in order to allay the concerns of the workers and oppose the fights of the mass grass-roots movement for environmental protection.

It has been proven that the policy defined on the basis of the incentive of reinforcing competitiveness and increasing the profits of industrial operations at sea and on shore, in other words of the monopolies, is highly dangerous to the protection of human life at sea and environmental protection.

The relevant directive on pollution at sea, which introduces sanctions for infringements, comes within the framework of this anti-grass roots policy of reinforcing the competitiveness of companies and increasing the profitability of big business. It shifts the blame for accidents to ships' crew members, perpetuates the unaccountability of industrial companies at sea and on shore and leaves shipowners, ship's operators, managers, charterers, shipping registers, insurance companies and others untouched. It maintains and reinforces the joint responsibility of ship's operators and seafarers. If time were not in fact so short, I could cite thousands of examples which show that there is no connection whatsoever between the responsibilities of the master and crew and those of the ship's operators and shipowners. Pollution at sea and the destruction of the environment are questions of huge political importance.

To close, allow me in response to the reference to Amendment 19, which we tabled, to note the following: we really do not understand as regards Amendment 19, given that the Commissioner, the rapporteur and the Council accept that the content does not change, why they do not accept terms under which the persons responsible for pollution-related infringements really are determined with greater clarity ...

(The President cut off the speaker)

  Attard-Montalto (PSE). – Mr President, there is a very well known English saying that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. I hope that this directive is not one of them. Obviously, pollution is a maritime catastrophe and we all agree on that.

My country, Malta, is highly susceptible because it is dependent on tourism, and our maritime philosophy has always been appreciated, especially as we were one of the forerunners with relation to certain theories regarding the common heritage of mankind, especially with regard to the sea bed. So, no one can accuse us of putting our national interest before that of the European Union – and I will explain why.

I do not think in all sincerity that this directive will reduce pollution. Why? Up to now, I have not been given a direct and concrete answer as to whether this directive will affect ships that are not registered in countries within the European Union. If it will not, what will the effect be? The effect will be that ships currently registered in Greece, Cyprus and Malta will migrate to other flag countries. I would appreciate it if this could be clarified because, as far as I have been informed by my Government, the law as it stands discriminates between flags of European and non-European states. If this is the case, this would go against the International Convention. How will you, Commissioner, enforce it? I would appreciate it if this could be answered in the conclusions.

  Hedkvist Petersen (PSE). (SV) Mr President, Commissioner, the marine environment is vitally important to us all and to future generations. That has been said many times in this House today, and I can only agree. It is also the case that pollution in the seas and in the marine environment is a genuine cross-border problem and a genuine cross-border challenge. As I see it, the decision we shall take tomorrow will lead to an improvement in the situation in the seas and in the marine environment.

I also think that a European coastguard – an issue that must of course be looked into – could be a good contribution to this work. It could be helpful in combating oil pollution in its various forms. It would be important to define the coastguard’s tasks and roles so that it could also operate in relation to national responsibilities. I shall therefore be brief and simply conclude by supporting the proposed agreement.

  Sifunakis (PSE). – (EL) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, today we are debating a proposal for a directive which is the direct consequence of a tragic incident. I refer to the sinking of the Prestige in November 2002, which resulted in massive loss of marine wealth and seafarers from a European country.

The investigations which ensued in the wake of this tragic incident proved that responsibility in such cases is apportioned between numerous agencies and agents involved. Unfortunately, we had to suffer a major ecological disaster in order to understand that, although the overwhelming majority of those engaged in shipping act responsibly, there are a few whose irresponsibility can have a tremendous adverse impact on the marine environment.

Greece, a country with a long shipping tradition, has not so far suffered any major accidental pollution, thanks to the conscientiousness of workers in the shipping sector and, of course, of shipowners and Greek seafarers and everyone else involved.

As Greek socialists with a real awareness about both environmental protection and protection of the people who work in the shipping sector, we support the proposal and believe that the present proposal for a directive is a positive step in combating both operational and accidental pollution and intentional pollution, as the rapporteur, Mrs Wortmann-Kool, rightly stated. We need to stand firm against unaccountability and irresponsibility.

In a big pond like the Mediterranean, with heavy shipping traffic which increases day by day, as a Greek from a country which is the biggest shipping power in the Union and a country in which tourism is a basic sector of the economy, a country with a huge coastline and hundreds of islands, I consider it our duty to lead the fight against pollution at sea and protection of the marine world.

  Barrot, Vice-President of the Commission. (FR) Mr President, I will try to be brief, but I should nevertheless like to answer a couple of questions. Firstly, I cannot allow it to be said that a conflict exists between this proposal for a directive and the Marpol Convention, as this is entirely untrue. The Marpol Convention provides only for sanctions against those who have acted deliberately or those who have committed inexcusable errors, but it must be read in conjunction with the Convention on the Law of the Sea. The latter allows coastal states to step up measures to prevent and combat pollution within their territorial waters, and it is this clause of the Convention on the Law of the Sea that we have invoked.

Given that this clause can be invoked by any Member State, it can also be invoked by the EU, and this is an issue I have discussed with the Secretary-General of the IMO. I therefore find this criticism puzzling, as the directive complies with both the Marpol Convention and the Convention on the Law of the Sea. I would also note, as the rapporteur rightly mentioned, that the sanctions are proportionate; the aim is to impose penalties for gross negligence, and to ensure that these penalties fit the crime. What we want is not to turn people into criminals, but to make them aware of their responsibilities. I may be speaking with a little too much passion on this matter, but that is only because I believe in this cause, which is the protection of our common heritage.

I should therefore like to answer Mr Attard-Montalto’s question as politely as possible – is Mr Attard-Montalto present, by any chance? Sanctions can be imposed on ships flying flags of third countries when these ships enter a Community port. Flags of European States will therefore not be discriminated against in that respect. That was the point I wished to make.

I would add that not only do we believe this approach to comply fully with that of the International Maritime Organisation, it is also our aim to cooperate with this organisation, as I have told the IMO Secretary-General. We are using the work carried out by the IMO as a basis, as it also wishes to promote the use of black boxes, and has even drawn up a detailed timetable on this issue.

Mr President, the point I having been trying to make is that we have reached a unanimous political agreement within the Council. I should therefore like to warn this House that this agreement is backed by a majority that is emerging throughout Europe, and which took shape during the trialogue held with the Council.

Finally, we must not wait for the next disaster to happen before suddenly realising what is happening and becoming aware of our responsibilities. Until now, progress has only been made with marine protection legislation when disasters have hit, yet we now have a great opportunity to prevent this from happening. This is why I personally believe that this text is balanced and that its aim is not to turn anyone into a criminal, but to make everyone aware of their responsibilities. This is why, Mrs Wortmann-Kool, I should like to thank this House in advance for voting in favour of this text with as large a majority as possible⁽¹⁾.

  President. – Many thanks for your answer, Commissioner, and for the passion with which you delivered it.

  Attard-Montalto (PSE). – Mr President, on a point of order, the Commissioner has misquoted me. He has no right to misquote me. My intention was clear: I did not refer in any way to discharges, whether negligent or intentional, within home ports or home waters, and he knows that. He quoted me as saying that the discrimination that would be created between ships of a third country and ships flying Member States' flags was applicable to discharges in home waters, when he knows very well that I did not say that.

I asked, and I still await his answer, whether, with regard to discharges made outside home waters, there is discrimination between ships flying flags of European nations and those flying flags of third countries. I should like the Commissioner to answer that question, and not a question that I did not ask.

  President. – Mr Attard-Montalto, strictly speaking that was not a point of order; I believe instead that your comments related to a personal accusation.

Commissioner, would you like to provide a further answer?

  Barrot, Vice-President of the Commission. (FR) I apologise. My aim was to give an entirely honest answer, and I have every respect for the opinions of all those present, even though I may have been a little too passionate in defending this text. I should like to make it very clear that I have absolutely no intention of accusing Members of this House in any way, and indeed accusing anyone was the last thing I wanted to do. My point is that ships flying flags of third countries are subject to regulations when they enter a Community port; I believe that you agree on this matter, even though I may not be answering your question in full.

If you wish, Mr President, I should like to suggest to Mr Attard-Montalto that we hold a face-to-face meeting to clear up the matter. All I have done is to explain which legislation I believe applies to the current situation. He may have other situations in mind, and so I would suggest that the two of us meet to discuss the issue in more detail.

  President. – The presidency of the sitting would like to thank you for being so accommodating, Commissioner. I believe that that would in fact be the most sensible solution.

The debate is closed.

The vote will take place tomorrow, Wednesday, at 11.30 a.m.

(1) Commission’s position on amendments: see Annex .