Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-12-18-Speech-3-103"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20021218.6.3-103"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, the speed at which the European Union has taken certain decisions is a perfect illustration of what up till now has been Community inaction in the field of maritime safety. Clearly if these decisions had been taken earlier, if the
had had an accident, it would not have occurred in Community waters.
Two points should be made in this regard: firstly, to determine the reason for this inaction and the delays in taking decisions, and secondly, to determine whether the measures adopted are sufficient. In this respect, my political group considers the decisions adopted in Copenhagen to be insufficient, even though they are a step forward, and by way of example, the matter of flags of convenience has not even been addressed.
The Council, and I am now going to refer to its previous management, who could have prevented the current situation from arising, considerably shortened the Commission’s proposal, thus allowing floating timebombs to continue sailing until 2005, instead of having taken them out of use in September 2002, which is what would have happened if attention had been paid to the Commission.
The delays in transposing the legislation, or in applying the Erika I and Erika II packages, speak volumes, as do the failures to comply with this legislation, concerning inspections and controls of vessels, for example. The permissive attitude that allows flags of convenience to be entered in registers by the Member States is no more constructive, and there are other causes for concern. I think that the issues I have raised constitute grounds for investigating levels of infringement of Community law and poor administration and, consequently, for establishing a committee of inquiry.
Mr Galeote, although you chose to address the Socialist Group, which is very large, and my group is tiny, I am going to speak sincerely, on behalf of a very small group, but one that on vital issues has been involved, modestly, side by side with all our Spanish colleagues. From this modest experience I am going to say, first of all, that you have forgotten that you prevented a committee of inquiry from being set up in the Spanish national Parliament. Secondly, it is one thing to take decisions that could be questionable and that, at best, have proved to be wrong, and it is another, more serious, matter to adopt a communication policy to deny the problem, failing to take preventative and corrective action.
The most serious aspect of your government’s management in Galicia is that the State had no plans or instruments to address the crisis immediately. This comes as no surprise, Mr Galeote, when Mr Aznar supports the idea that we need to reduce State public services to a minimum.
The issue we must now address – as elected Members of Parliament – is the people’s feeling that they have to tackle a disaster with small-scale means and great sacrifice, while the State, to which they pay their taxes, remains either impotent or implacable, I am not sure which.
What is done is done. There is nothing more to do except think about compensating those affected until economic activity can be rebuilt. In order to do this, the Solidarity Fund and the Structural Funds need to be mobilised rapidly. In conclusion, allow me to make one point: at a time of enlargement, we need a large Europe, but not a Europe that is an empty shell, and what cannot go on is the current failure to implement serious processes to prevent those operating on the edge of the law, in search of speculative profits, reducing safety conditions and social protection, from continuing as if nothing had happened."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples