Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-09-22-Speech-1-051"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030922.5.1-051"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr Sterckx
I have looked to see if you have missed anything, and, with the exception of the location of the European Maritime Safety Agency, on which a decision will have to be taken one day, I cannot see any gaps.
I would like, if I may, to go back over a number of points made in the opinion of the Committee on Fisheries. First of all, the oil must be retrieved, even if there is less of it. The security of fishing depends on it. Secondly, where the blame lies: seafarers, like everyone else, want to understand how it could have happened. Tomorrow, when we vote on the question of the temporary committee, we must hope that it will help us to understand what happened and to see where France and Spain respectively were to blame. Thirdly, Commissioner, fireboats will have to become pollution-fighting ships. In the event of future accidents, we will need a fleet which can retrieve the oil or petroleum swiftly. Fourthly, with regard to the shipping corridors advocated by the report in order to organise shipping navigation along the same lines as air navigation, I think everyone in the fishing world will support this.
Lastly, the question of technical harbour inspections, which are a source of concern to all: I believe that we need to look at social controls and at some kind of work inspection. Indeed, we must not forget that maritime safety and legislation are there, first and foremost, to protect the lives of the seafarers on board, whether they are fishermen, traders or employed in another form of transport."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples