Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-11-30-Speech-4-008"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20001130.1.4-008"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Madam President, Minister, Commissioner, the importance of safety at sea is, I think, obvious, as we have seen twice in France recently with the
and the
and as we have seen in my own country with the shipwreck of the
a real human tragedy. Eighty lives were lost and the final act of the tragedy was played out just yesterday, when the chief executive officer of the company which owned the ship committed suicide.
What is Parliament's stand on this particular subject? Allow me to remind you that Parliament demanded action right from the start, on the very day the
was shipwrecked, calling on the Commission to put forward proposals for adoption. We have examined these proposals and, because certain misunderstandings have arisen, I should like to say that we agree with the French Presidency on the timetable, which is why we are holding the debate now, today, before the second Council of Transport Ministers, so that decisions can be taken at first reading. We have reached agreement as far as my report is concerned and, once it has passed its first reading, that will be that and we shall be able to start withdrawing single-hull tankers.
As you know, there are still some problems with the other two reports. There are numerous points, as Mr Watts has already explained, where the European Parliament takes a firmer stand than the Council appears to be taking. I understand and I welcome the minister's efforts to expedite these two reports as quickly as possible and I therefore consider that, in principle, his proposal to discuss the matter, if possible in December, is a positive one. However, Minister, from my discussions today it would appear that your proposal is a little late – most people doubt that it will be technically possible for Parliament to find time in this last week to discuss the matter in detail from the beginning and vote on it in December. In all events, please be assured that Parliament is at the Council's disposal, it will vote on its reports, they will be passed to the Council, the Council can approve a common position and we shall examine the reports as quickly as possible – they will be our top priority. We shall be finished by spring, provided that the Council moves quickly and provided that the bilateral negotiations are a success and I think that they will be because the will is there on both sides.
Now to the withdrawal of tankers, to come back to my report. Obviously, withdrawing single-hull tankers is a step in the right direction – in fact the IMO has also been making moves in this direction under the Marpol convention for some years now – and I think that the fact that the withdrawal of these tankers is being accelerated is even more encouraging. Not that this is a panacea, of course, as we saw with the
which was a new, double-hull vessel, from which we must conclude that this measure alone is not enough. We also need to take fundamental action on shipping registers and port inspections. We need to advance on all fronts. In this sense, the initiative by the French Presidency to contact the IMO, the International Maritime Organisation, in a bid to find a solution was an important initiative, because this is an international problem and international problems need international solutions. I may add that the Commission's initiative in presenting this position was an important initiative because it acted like a sword of Damocles, effectively pressuring the ΙΜΟ into getting a move on. The IMO working party did get a move on by reaching an agreement in principle – a few issues still need to be clarified, but most issues have already been clarified.
So what is the basic approach in my report? For large tankers I have kept to the timetable of the IMO, the International Maritime Organisation. For the second category, the post-Marpol tankers, I have kept, where there are different approaches, to the common European approach. And I think, in the end, we have struck a balance. We are protecting the environment, we are providing safety at sea but, at the same time, we have not touched competition in the shipping sector or the normal supply to the market. For small tankers, we have adopted a compromise position between the 5000-tonne limit set by the ΙΜΟ and the 600-tonne limit set by the Commission. We have reconciled the need for safety with the need to supply certain regions of Europe, such as island regions especially.
Madam President, I think that we have taken a step forward today, a fundamental step forward. Parliament has taken a clear and unequivocal stand on the Commission's proposals, we are at the Council's disposal, in the hope, I repeat, that this issue will be brought to a close as quickly as possible, because all of us here, the Council, the Commission and the House, are acutely aware of the importance of this issue."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples