Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-06-13-Speech-3-178"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010613.5.3-178"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, while we are discussing the second package of proposals following the disaster involving the Maltese tanker, the
the Council and the European Parliament have still not reached agreement on the first package. Surely it is a disgrace that, eighteen months after the event, we still cannot manage to resolve our differences. I would call on the Council once again to study Parliament’s constructive contribution.
Back to today. The proposals which the Commission has prepared in this second package are also valuable. They help establish an adequate framework for safety at sea and environmental protection. I can therefore support most elements in this package.
The navigation system is an important element. In particular, the dynamic between the powers of the captain and the port authorities and between the exchange and processing of the collected information is a key point in this proposal. The rapporteur has found a prudent solution for the first point. The provisions concerning the exchange of information will need to prove their worth in practice which might be more difficult to achieve than expected. The third major component of this proposal concerns the point where things went wrong with the
: the opportunity to find a safe haven in the event of potential damage to the ship and the environment. In my opinion, the provisions included – provided they are fully implemented by the Member States – appear to guarantee responsible reception of ships in difficulty.
If, despite the precautions taken, an accident should nevertheless occur, it is important to provide swift and adequate compensation for the damage. The existing international compensation system leaves a lot to be desired in terms of speed of action. The introduction of a European layer on top of the existing Fund is only to be welcomed if the desired provisions cannot be introduced in the international system. It is as yet unclear whether that will happen, but a complete adaptation to the proposed EU standards seems unlikely. In order to prevent European shippers and receivers from being placed in too unfavourable a position, the extra layer will need to be as limited as possible. An extension to include substances other than oil seems an unnecessarily complicating factor on which to reach international agreement. Therefore, this extension does not receive my backing.
Finally, Mr President, an Agency, yet to be set up, that supports the Commission forms a constructive contribution towards the EU’s tasks of ensuring safety at sea. Both international and European legislation on shipping traffic are starting to take on such dimensions that high-quality, specialist expertise to support the Commission is vital. It is therefore important for the Agency to be staffed with highly qualified personnel from the Member States. And as long as that requirement is met, I am not concerned where the offices of this Agency are based."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples