Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-11-30-Speech-4-019"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20001130.1.4-019"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, a year ago, three regions of France were hit by one of the most serious oil spills in European maritime history when the oil tanker, the
sank. A few weeks ago, the west of France was struck by another ecological disaster, the wreck of the chemical tanker, the
and it is only today that the European Parliament will take the decision to strengthen maritime safety.
I was elected to office in a coastal region which is paying every day for the grave consequences of the wreck of the
: the serious lasting damage caused by this oil slick to the flora and fauna of the Loire, Brittany and Charentes. It is paying for the dramatic repercussions on its economy – the 2000 tourist season was a disaster. Workers in the fishing industry, in fish farming and aquaculture, and salt makers have been very badly hit. The inhabitants of this region would have appreciated greater speed on the part of the Community institutions.
Nonetheless, I am delighted that the Commission proposals have taken on board the main demands formulated by the elected representatives of the coastal regions: the banning of single-hull oil tankers, strengthening port controls, and the assessment of classification societies.
On the other hand, it is unacceptable that the European Parliament should be moderating the initial Commission proposal concerning the ban on single-hull oil tankers. Mrs de Palacio recalled a few days ago in Rennes that, in less than a year, the United States was able to unilaterally put in place a draconian law regarding maritime safety. Why does the European Union need a timetable as long as that envisaged by our Parliament for the rapporteur’s amendments to phase out single-hull oil tankers? Double-hull vessels may not be a cure-all, but phasing them in is an important measure that is likely to be subject to substantial technical improvements. It seems to me that to create a discrepancy between the American timetable and the European timetable would be a very dangerous thing indeed. If this were to happen, it is easy to see which waters and which ports the dangerous ships would head for. It would be better if, faced with a proactive United States, our Parliament did not give the impression that, by systematically going for the lowest possible bid, it was soft on the issue.
If another accident were to happen, how would we be able to justify the European Parliament adopting such a slow timetable in order to wait for the IMO to reach a compromise at global level, where there are so many countries accommodating flags of convenience, which are not the most zealous militants on behalf of safety? How, with the European Union under a French Presidency, will we be able to explain to the people of France that the European Parliament has abolished the necessary incentive and financial deterrence measures proposed in order to expedite the phasing in of double-hull oil tankers?
Parliament’s role should be to speedily and fully support the most stringent and most effective provisions proposed by the Commission, not to dilute them. Quite the contrary, we should be proposing going much further. This first package is simply a first step. It is vital that we put in place a system which makes the entire transport chain aware of its responsibilities so that we can finally emerge from the current lack of transparency. We hope that the second package of measures to be proposed to us will be commensurate with this need.
Irrespective of the technical measures that will be adopted, one of the major reasons for this lack of safety will remain as long as the exponential growth in traffic linked to the overdevelopment of the North Sea ports is not balanced in the Channel and North Atlantic areas. Is it reasonable that the zone of frequentation of the port of Rotterdam should extend as far as the South of France? Would not one of the most effective safety measures be to reduce traffic in this zone by regenerating the port infrastructures of the Atlantic and the Mediterranean?
This is the thrust of the two amendments to the reports by Mr Watts and Mr Hatzidakis which I tabled on behalf of my group. It is an area of consideration that the Member States and the Commission should explore. If the issue of overcrowding in the Channel and the North Sea is not dealt with, this zone will inevitably become a highway for marine pollution and a permanent threat to the safety of our seamen, the beauty of our coasts and the quality of our marine resources. The coasts of France are not there to become a dumping ground for European maritime traffic nor receive munitions, crude oil and styrene on their shores."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples