Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-04-20-Speech-2-021"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2004-04-20"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Safety at sea2
dcterms:Language	"es"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20040420.2.2-021"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2004-04-20-Speech-2-0222
lpv:speaker	lp:Rosa Miguélez Ramos2
lpv:spokenAs	unknown; Partido Socialista Obrero Español (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 vice-chair; PECH (2002-01-23--2004-07-19)3 member; Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 member; PES (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 substitute; EMPL (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 vice-chair; Temporary committee on improving safety at sea (2003-11-26--2004-04-21)3 member; Delegation for relations with Switzerland, Iceland and Norway (2002-02-07--2004-07-19)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, the European Parliament proved its worth by establishing a temporary committee to assess the causes and consequences of the oil tanker disaster and to make proposals to increase safety at sea. The institution thus carried out its responsibility for political monitoring of what was and continues to be a European disaster that goes beyond the limits of a single Member State and took on board the consequences by promoting the sea traffic policy, which is the responsibility of Community and international bodies, although the decisions to implement it are left in the hands of the leaders of the Member States. Talking of the Member States, Parliament has had to put up with hijacking manoeuvres and a lack of cooperation on the part of those who were then in charge of the Spanish Government. It is usual practice in Parliament’s temporary committees for ministers to give their points of view. This was not the case and the majority of the groups feel that between 13 and 19 November 2001 hasty and badly thought out decisions were taken which resulted in an accident turning into the greatest environmental disaster in Europe of the last few decades. After five months of hearings we are still wondering what made the Spanish authorities in charge order that the vessel be removed to the high seas. As the European Parliament stated in its resolution last year, this decision considerably increased the proportions of the disaster. My group is tabling several amendments, but following on from Mr Varela Suanzes-Carpegna’s speech, I would like to say that, while we think that Amendment No 2 from the PPE-DE Group is entirely superfluous and we are neither in favour or against it, we, and myself in particular, as a Galician and vice-chair of the Committee on Fisheries, think that Amendment No 1 is irrelevant and, what is more, dangerous, because no one has questioned the rigour of the scientific testing or the healthiness of the food chain. We would not have opposed an amendment to remove the word overfishing – if the honourable Member thinks it is so serious – although we still believe that the original wording of paragraph 50 is entirely inoffensive, as it only mentions the risk and the possibility of overfishing and in no way claims that it is already the case. I will say once again, however, that we are not entirely in favour, and we will therefore vote against, because we think it is quite dangerous to bring back the ghost now and question the rigour of the scientific tests and the healthiness of the food chain."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph