Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-04-09-Speech-2-219"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020409.9.2-219"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, the Erika 2 package, like the Erika 1 package before it, is part of the attempt to establish reliable safety measures and protect the marine environment, the importance of both of which is recognised by one and all. That goes without saying.
The package of measures which we are being called on to adopt today does, I think, strike the right balance and demonstrates yet again that we can only protect and improve European shipping standards by improving safety at sea and protecting both human life and the marine environment and I should like to congratulate Mr Sterckx on his tireless work over a long period of time to achieve the result which we have before us today.
The Commission's initial proposal contained positive arrangements to improve safety at sea and reduce the danger of pollution from accidents. Ships are required to use a transponder and voyage data recorders or so-called black boxes. This has since been dealt with in the Watts report, which requires ships to comply with maritime traffic systems, improvements to be made to ship-locating systems and so on.
In turn, Parliament approved 29 amendments at first reading which, I think, improved the Commission proposal and most of which, I should point out, were subsequently adopted by the Council, which took a constructive stance. However, a number of questions have yet to be settled and I therefore think we are right – and this is the point of the nine amendments approved in the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism – to insist on keeping to a specific approach to point the way both to the Commission and to the Council.
I should like to comment very briefly on three of these amendments. Amendment No 1 basically clarifies that a Member State may, in exceptionally poor conditions, stop a ship from entering port or even from leaving port, because ships in port sometimes represent more of a threat to safety and of pollution of the port itself. I think our Committee, the Committee on Transport, is right to assert that the decision as to whether or not the ship sails should be taken at the discretion of the captain, who must of course explain the reasons for his decision.
We have tried in Amendment No 2 to take a more realistic approach to the cost of pollution or damage which the accommodating port may sustain; obviously ports will be more willing to accommodate ships in distress if they know that they will receive fair and immediate compensation for cleaning-up costs.
Finally, Amendment No 3 basically endeavours to ensure that resources are immediately available so that the Member States can make the necessary arrangements to provide means and facilities in ports of refuge for assistance to ships, salvage and pollution response. And Mr Sterckx's proposed 18-month deadline is essential if these proposals are to become law in all the Member States of the European Union, rather than just a ‘to-do’ list."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples