Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-11-30-Speech-4-005"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20001130.1.4-005"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I was especially keen to be with you today for the debate in the European Parliament on the first maritime package because you are about to examine three important texts which are a vital step in an issue which recent events have unfortunately made into headline news.
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, rapporteurs, as you see, here we have the opportunity to enhance the safety of maritime transport. We all know that these measures, which you are going to be debating today, are inadequate. The Heads of State and Government highlighted the urgent need to examine a second package of proposals relating to the supervision and transparency of maritime transport and to the establishment of a European agency, and to making all actors involved in the maritime transport of hazardous or toxic substances aware of their responsibilities. What is more, on this occasion France reaffirmed the need to set in motion a Community project on the training and working conditions of seamen, and I know that some of you also share this concern.
As you can see, it seems to me that the determination of all Community institutions is decisive, and I am convinced this determination is total. It is starting to bear fruit here in Brussels, in the European Parliament: so that only safe, sound ships with trained crews living and working under normal conditions are authorised to sail, so that, at last, responsibility falls to each of the actors involved in maritime transport, so that the rules of maritime transport evolve with due regard to the coastal State’s right and its aspiration to protect its environment.
The European Union has 60 000 km of coastline bordering some of the busiest seas and oceans in the world. The importance of maritime matters to Europe is undeniable but that also gives Europe a tremendous responsibility. Since the
accident last December, considerable work has been done within our European institutions in order to move forwards. In this connection, the first package of measures proposed by the Commission in March has been examined by Parliament and by the Council. A second package of measures is expected in the near future. The European Council in Biarritz examined this issue, and it will again be an important subject at the Nice Summit.
On the occasion of each disaster, the people of Europe express their anger at the lack of maritime safety and at the risks posed by the dozens of ships transporting toxic or hazardous substances which sail the waters off our shorelines on a daily basis. I believe we ought to understand their emotion and their anger. Naturally, we want to ensure that things move forward. How can we accept maritime transport, which is vital for our trade and commerce, being developed to the detriment of environmental and human safety? How can we accept that more and more ships, increasingly larger in scale and increasingly automated, ply the waters off our coasts without always respecting the strict safety, navigational control and social rules, after the fashion of land and air transport?
What we can no longer accept is the logic which makes the quest for the lowest price the operational rule of maritime transport. What we can no longer accept, what we must no longer accept, is the connivance of certain States, which we know to exist, which register some of the oldest and most corroded ships, sometimes for just a few dollars. What we cannot and must not accept are the shipowners and operators who deploy underqualified and underpaid crews, classification societies which, for fear of losing a client, pay scant regard to the quality of the ships and their crews, and charterers who seek, above all, to reduce their costs.
I am told, especially in France, that stringent national measures must be adopted to protect French coasts: it has also been proposed that French coastguards should be deployed. But the
and the
were not French ships. Their owners and their classification societies were not French, and they were both sailing in international waters when they sank. Hence, even though each State has to assume its own responsibilities, decisions must be taken on a broader scale, at least on a European scale. To achieve this, the Members of the European Parliament not only have a role to play – and I am well aware of their determination to do so – but, even more importantly, they are crucial in pushing forward Community regulations as far and as quickly as possible.
The people of Europe have woken up. We see this in the case of animal meal and mad cow disease. They are now challenging us; they are challenging international institutions and are calling on them to be effective. If a new accident, a new shipwreck, occurs tomorrow off the coasts of Europe, we will all be justifiably denounced for our shortcomings, given these inadequate rules. Personally, I want to tell you, ladies and gentlemen, Madam President, that the fact that we are examining these proposals today is living proof that the European Parliament is an effective institution, which can take on board the concerns of our citizens speedily and effectively. That is why I am delighted that, under the impetus of the European Parliament, the Commission and the Council, significant progress is about to be made towards bringing about a truly safer maritime Europe.
The fact is that, on the basis of proposals we made last February, the European Commission put forward its own proposals with the greatest alacrity. Today, you are examining these three texts in first reading. I recognise that the European Parliament and its rapporteurs are motivated by an unshakeable will to see the rapid adoption of texts that are binding and effective in terms of maritime safety. I also recognise that we share the same objective of improving maritime safety and the same analytical approach to the methods of achieving this. I also recognise, as do the rapporteurs, that the technical aspects of the texts relating to classification societies and to port state control may need to be gone into more deeply.
The question arises as to whether the fact that there is a new part-session of Parliament in December will make it possible for any residual problems to be solved. This may also enable the Council Presidency to have discussions with the Member States with a view to obtaining the Council’s approval of your proposals and to adopting the text at first reading, if necessary by qualified majority voting. We could seek the broadest consensus on the system of liability of classification societies, on toughening up the system of banning the worst offending black-listed flag states, on introducing on-board black boxes, and on putting in place immediate inspections for ships posing the highest risks.
As regards this fundamental text on enhancing maritime safety and eliminating single-hull oil tankers, we can already congratulate ourselves on the work that has been carried out by the European Parliament. If this text is adopted, as I believe your rapporteur will propose, it will make it possible to phase out more than a third of single-hull oil tankers by 2005 and the remaining two thirds by 2010. This is a considerable achievement and it should make it possible for the dangerous ships sailing off our coasts to be speedily replaced and to ensure the greatest level of safety."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples