Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-09-02-Speech-2-072"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030902.4.2-072"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, Commissioner, we have to look at this text again in the context of all the rules concerning maritime safety. It is just one element, one piece of the system of rules for the prevention of accidents at sea. The Commission’s proposal, as the Commissioner has just reminded us, is intended to make things easier, in other words to prevent overlapping and to limit administrative burdens. I can give you some figures here: the European Union has 120 000 sailors, including sailors of non-Community origin, whose numbers rose from 29 000 in 1983 to 34 500 in 2001. It is therefore a matter of legitimate concern to ensure that their training is the best possible and that it complies fully with the international convention known as the STCW Code, which is intended to safeguard human life at sea and to improve the protection of the marine environment, as well as to take action against vessels which do not comply with standards and rules on social dumping. In short, it is an example of the kind of rules that can be applied to globalisation.
The text is concerned with two points. The first of these simplifies things with regard to the recognition of the training of sailors from third countries. The report is favourable towards this line, which I can sum up as follows: the initiative used to come from the Member States, whereas from now on it will come from the Commission. The current procedure is very complicated and time-consuming, and for this reason it needs to be simplified.
The second point is concerned with bringing the text into line with the language requirements of the STCW Convention. The Commission also supports your proposal to introduce a common language, whether that language is known or learned, in cases where a vessel puts to sea with sailors originating from different countries, so as to ensure that there is dialogue between the vessel and those people on land who are responsible for it. The competent committee and the committee whose opinion was sought, and which is involved in the drafting of the report, want things to proceed rapidly, rather like what happened in the case of the abolition of single-hulled vessels. Let us not delay, because we can all remember the double accident – I would even say the triple or quadruple accident – which happened off our coasts, involving the ‘
’, the ‘
’ and the ‘
’. Given the fact that we are never entirely protected from accidents, we need to take our decisions rapidly, hence the spirit of compromise which, I believe, prevailed at the informal tripartite meeting on 17 June between the Commission, the Council and Parliament, of which I shall give you a rapid résumé.
In Amendments Nos 3, 12, 15 and 17, Parliament had proposed the recognition of individual training institutes. The Commission told us that it was impossible to inspect them individually, quoting as an example the Philippines, where there are perhaps as many as a hundred. It is therefore necessary to consider the country as a whole, even if it has only one or two institutes. We have taken note of this guideline. Parliament wants to make provision for the introduction of a certificate of compliance so as to reduce fraud to a minimum. At the meeting, the Commission gave an undertaking – and I believe that we should stick to this line – to propose a draft text on this subject during the course of the year. That would be the condition on which we would be willing to support your opinion.
Amendment No 10 poses a problem for Member States regarding continuing training, to the extent that such training has to be funded by the sailors’ own states and not by the European Union. We have taken note of this argument. On the other hand, our committee does not wish to drop Amendments Nos 1 and 2 which are concerned with the upgrading of the occupation of seafarer. The same thing applies to the quality guarantees and the guarantees preventing fraud. As far as Amendment No 23 is concerned, which refers to an evaluation report to be submitted after five years, I think that you agree with this proposal.
Our committee was also asked to amend the time limit for the transposition of the legislative provisions in Member States. We had suggested 12 months, while you are proposing 18 months. We can take note of this suggestion.
Finally, Amendment No 19 has been amended by the Council, and we are able to accept the new version."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"Tricolore"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples