Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-11-21-Speech-4-186"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20021121.7.4-186"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would first of all like to reply to Mr Miller, because I believe he has the wrong information.
Infringement procedures have been opened against some of them for lack of application, not of the new rules, but of those currently in force, which are much less strict and much easier to comply with.
Our proposal meant that single-hull oil tankers, of category 1, that is, the largest ones, would have a maximum life of 23 years. Because there is clearly a problem with structures associated with the stress on metals caused by blows at sea, which arise after twenty or so years. And what I regret is that this proposal of ours should not be accepted and that it be raised from 23 to 27 years. And that is what the current problems stem from.
Aid, ladies and gentlemen. We are working on this. There will be the aid provided by the Spanish authorities. What we clearly have are the FIPOL funds. And I would point out that there is an expert from the Directorate-General for Transport, in Spain, cooperating with the Spanish authorities, just as it cooperated with the French authorities to facilitate the payment of all that aid and of that compensation for the various people affected.
We are also looking at issues relating to fishing to see what possibilities there may be for support in terms of the FIFG funds. We are looking at the possibility of applying the Solidarity Fund, but I believe it will not be possible – I say this clearly. The thresholds for the use of the Solidarity Fund are so high that I hope that the damage does not reach that level, because then it would really be an horrendous tragedy. We would be talking about more than EUR 3 000 million, ladies and gentlemen. Let us hope that it does not go that far.
We are therefore also looking at the support that can be provided if, despite everything, that EUR 3 000 million is not reached but there is a significant effect on the region of Galicia, in which case support could also be provided by means of this Solidarity Fund.
I hope that Portugal can be spared from this tragedy. I hope that the winds will not allow the oil slick to reach their coast. I would like the Spanish coasts not be to be affected any further, but let us hope, at least, that the Portuguese coasts stay clean. In any event, if Portuguese coasts were also affected, the funds would be available to them as well, in the same form and the same way that they are available to the Spanish authorities and the Spanish people affected.
Ladies and gentlemen, what has been adopted must be put into practice. There is a whole range of measures which form a coherent global whole, with a Maritime Safety Agency to guarantee, together with the Commission, the appropriate application of the rules. We are going to set up this Maritime Safety Agency provisionally in Brussels, while they are deciding or not deciding on where the headquarters will be. I am very sorry, but I am not going to wait for them to come to an agreement. I hope it will be set up before the end of the year.
The second issue. Amongst the aspects which correspond to the countries – the strengthening of port control, strengthening the demands on classification societies – we are of course going to hold a full investigation into what has happened – as I said before – of the whole chain, and I will present the results of our investigations to you: the whole chain of events which has led us to the final result, in relation to the classification societies as well. We will also demand that the States of the Union designate ports and refuge areas in order to deal with situations such as that of the
which was also one of the controversial elements, or that of the
in this case.
Strictness in application. In the application and the demand for compliance with the regulations. We are talking about going further. I have made this very clear: International Maritime Organisation, corridors for dangerous products, sea room distances, special control in passes and straits, greater capacities for coastal States. All of this within the context of the International Maritime Organisation, genuinely adapting maritime law to the demands and new circumstances of the 21st Century. Meanwhile, ladies and gentlemen, we also have to deal in more depth with the issue of responsibility, we must present the issue of the COPE Funds once again to the Council of Ministers, as a complement to the FIPOL Fund; we must present the issue of criminal responsibility once again to the Council of Ministers and we must demand of the Ministers that, in all the Member States – and I believe this is possible in all of them by means of an administrative regulation – double hulls be required for the transportation of the most dangerous and polluting products, such as heavy fuel oil.
I have here for your perusal the precise movements of the
during 1999, 2000, 2001 and 2002, provided by the maritime authority of the Bahamas.
Mr Savary spoke of an autonomous European area of maritime safety. The truth is that this is an issue which, of course, could be considered in the discussions within the Convention and the next Intergovernmental Conference. I am sure you can imagine that it will not be I who disagrees with these ideas.
I would like to end by saying to Mrs Grossetête that, in fact, all I feel, with everything that has happened over recent days, is a great sense of anger and rage, knowing that we could have prevented it and did not do so.
In 1999, it reached the port of Rotterdam and that is when for the last time it had an in-depth inspection in accordance with the Paris Memorandum in a European port. Then, before the summer, it reached the port of Kalamata, in Greece, and I have contacted the port and authorities there to ask what the state of the
was in Greece and it was not inspected in accordance with the Paris Memorandum. It then reached the port of Gibraltar and I have also approached the British authorities to ask why they did not carry out the control.
It is true, ladies and gentlemen, that I have not just asked them about the
. I have asked the Greek and British authorities about the application of the current legislation, of the Directive which demands control by port authorities, in accordance with the commitments relating in practice to the Paris Memorandum. I have asked about controls and the application in these ports – Kalamata and Gibraltar – of the Directive currently in force.
I must tell the honourable Member that I have some statistics. I can say that in Gibraltar, in 1999, five ships have been inspected. In 2000, six. In 2001, two. In 2002, twelve. Those are the statistics.
That is why I am saying the legislation must be reviewed in order to guarantee that these controls by port authorities are carried out in all the ports of the European Union. Because controls by port authorities have a deterrent effect, they have the effect of keeping away substandard ships, and this must happen in all ports. Because if we leave gaps in our network, in our system, the whole thing is automatically weakened. That is what I am saying. This is not a criticism of any particular port. In this case, these two are involved: Kalamata and Gibraltar. And I have asked for information.
But the problem is not with any particular port. The problem, ladies and gentlemen, is that there has been an ecological disaster, a catastrophe which we should have prevented, and which we could have prevented if the Commission’s proposals had entered into force. And I would like to extend all the gratitude and acknowledgement expressed here today to all the members of the Directorate-General for Transport who have worked like Trojans, that is, extraordinarily hard, without watching the clock, so that, when the
disaster happened, within just three months, we could present an entire coherent and global package to this House and the Council of Ministers so that these problems would not happen again. That is what I am talking about.
And I am talking about the fact, ladies and gentlemen, that only 23 months have passed. And precisely because only 23 months have passed and because there was a lack of ambition – as we all know – there has been another disaster. How many more? Well, that is my point. Is it not possible that between now and June 2003 or February 2004 there will be a disaster in the Baltic, in the Mediterranean, in the Atlantic or off any other European Union coast, because the measures already adopted have not been implemented?
Ladies and gentlemen, what we have to demand – and this is what I have done in a letter to the Ministers – is that they be applied now. The problem is that the Governments are behaving incoherently. The Heads of State and Government said in Nice that the implementation of these measures had to be brought forward and then they do not apply them..."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples