Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-12-12-Speech-3-271"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20011212.9.3-271"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I would like to join those who have spoken before me in expressing thanks to you, to the Commissioner, to your colleagues and also to our rapporteurs, for I do think it was a good thing that we, as Parliament and Commission, worked together so closely on this issue. That today is, of all days, the anniversary of the sinking of the Erika, is not something that should fill us entirely with pride, for two years have passed before today's debate and tomorrow's vote. Then it will take a bit longer for it all to be implemented. It should be done more quickly next time!
The results are actually quite respectable. We are getting the safe double hull tankers more quickly. The old single hull tankers will be phased out with effect from 2003, and port state control will at last live up to its name.
Stricter controls mean for me that blacklists will be used rigorously and, in consequence, black sheep, or black ships, will no longer be welcome in European ports. Classification societies for ship types will be subject to stricter conditions. Although we know that the majority of these societies do sound work, they must no longer be permitted to be slipshod in what they do.
The Member States now have 18 months in which to transpose all this. The legal framework is in place. Yet laws that only exist on paper are, in the final analysis, ridiculous. What use is port state control without controllers? I therefore believe – and here we are putting our trust in you, Commissioner – that you will have to check very punctiliously how the Member States transpose the things we have just brought into being. It will cost the Member States money, but safety at sea must be worth the expense.
So here are two more points. One is something I have already mentioned. Erika II must not be allowed to last as long as Erika I did. Accidents involving oil are one thing, but damage to people, nature, fisheries and tourism are something else, and result not only from accidents involving oil, but also from those involving chemicals and other hazardous substances. So we should implement more quickly the proposals Parliament has made.
My final point is that enlargement of the EU is almost upon us, involving as it does two candidate states, Malta and Cyprus, which have cropped up in discussions again and again. So I would again implore the Commissioner to apply the so-called
very stringently to these states too in the event of their becoming members of the EU, so that there may be no black sheep, only white ones. I have said already that we have a saying to the effect that one is in the hand of God at sea and in court! As far as the sea is concerned, we can give the Almighty a bit of a helping hand, so that everything will be safer, and that is what we should be doing with the Erika package."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples