Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-04-09-Speech-2-218"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020409.9.2-218"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
The interest may not be overwhelming, but this does not detract from the significance of the legislation before us.
Ladies and gentlemen, I should like to thank everyone involved for their contribution and the efforts made. In my view, we have delivered a sound piece of work. I should also like to thank the offices of the Commission, and the people of the Council, as I am of the opinion that this has been an excellent and constructive team effort and we have ended up with a sound piece of legislation.
Commissioner, what is important is that we also monitor what happens, both now and as and when we complete the six measures of the two
packages. The European Parliament, or, as far as I am concerned, the rapporteurs of these various reports, must, together with the Commission, check at regular intervals what has happened, how far we have got and what the problems are we are facing.
We have legislation – and I believe we have laid down sound legislation – but safety, including at sea, is man-made. In my opinion, we should invest in these people, also in the Union, the people who work on improving the monitoring of safety both at sea and on land.
We have now reached the fourth report in the
package and in my view, these two Erika packages together can represent a considerable step forward in increasing maritime safety.
The first
package addressed the issues of port state control, the classification society and double-hulled tankers. We are now discussing the first report of the second
package, which covers measures to improve traffic monitoring and information systems onboard ships, as well as to enhance risk management, especially in adverse weather. This is the objective of the directive on which we are currently working. The measures are therefore mainly preventive – and extremely important in my view.
Firstly, traffic monitoring and information systems involve the onboard installation of transponders which automatically send data to shore. What is important here is not so much the list of what has to be sent – as we are all agreed on this – but that this data is understood among the various Member States. In other words, it is important for the computer systems, as well as the people, to be able to communicate with each other. In my view, we must pay particular attention to this aspect to ensure that this is achieved.
Secondly, I should like to comment on the scope of transponders, which should be looked at when we review the directive. At the moment, the scope is relatively restricted. I believe that when we review the directive, we – and I am looking in the direction of the Commission – would all benefit from endeavouring to achieve a more extensive scope, possibly combined with satellite communication, by working in tandem with the IMO, and we should ensure that this system has global coverage.
A third point is the black box, which was already mentioned in the report by Mr Watts. We had to fight a tough battle to achieve this, of course, but now it is here. The black box is not a panacea but a very useful tool, and we must ensure that this tool is used in the area of prevention, and we must learn from near misses and accidents in order to prevent future accidents.
We are focusing our traffic monitoring efforts mainly on ships which carry a higher risk on account of their cargo and their past history. And we must also ensure that each incident – and this is a very valid point in the Commission proposal, in my view – is reported from now on, so that we are better informed of what actually happens at sea, which currently only takes place to a limited extent.
Another point I want to bring up is related to the fact that the most serious accidents at sea, with major and serious implications, happen under adverse weather conditions, and concerns improved risk management in adverse weather and during storms at sea. We have managed to put forward a number of points which I believe may be helpful, and Parliament’s contribution has been considerable in this respect. The authorities must take measures when the weather conditions are adverse: keeping the captain better informed, announcing a prohibition on entering or leaving ports which is specifically tailored to each situation in each port, banning refuelling at sea, etc. However, I would still like to emphasise that, whichever way you look at it, it is the captain who is ultimately responsible for the ship. In my opinion, we have stated this clearly in Parliament and this is very important point.
Moving on to another point, Member States have a duty of assistance to ships in distress. This is also essential in my view, and this is an example of where Parliament, together with the Commission and the Council, have tightened up the original provisions. These concern ports of refuge, safe havens for ships in distress – the
proved that these are necessary – sound equipment – and for me, this not only includes station tugs but also installations that can limit pollution – timing (determining a strict period of time within which Member States must have made their measures known, namely 18 months) – Parliament added this provision – and compensation for a port or coastal point which accommodates vessels. The Commission intends to look into this and to issue a report to Parliament within three years to assess the state of affairs."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples