Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-06-02-Speech-1-130"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030602.8.1-130"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Piecyk, once again for his wonderful work and also for his speed. There is no question that we have all pooled our efforts, because we are all aware that it was urgent for us to do so.
In this regard, Mr Savary was absolutely right when he said that the first thing we have to demand is that the
and
packages be applied. As the honourable Members know, the Maritime Safety Agency is operational, with a provisional headquarters, but operational nonetheless, and one of its functions is to guarantee that, in all ports of the European Union, appropriate controls are carried out; that the classification societies carry out their appropriate control obligations. These are elements which must be implemented with all the new requirements and standards we have demanded of both the port authorities and of the classification societies.
The implementation of the
and
packages and the Regulation we are discussing today is simply going to guarantee us a level of safety equivalent to that of the United States. Let us not allow a situation such as the one we have been in for many years, for too many years, which I believe to be inconceivable: that the citizens of the European Union have enjoyed less safety on their coastlines than the citizens of the United States. Following the
the United States took quick decisions, while in the European Union we have been dragging our feet and not because there had not been other disasters before the
or the
. We had the
the
and many others. So what we are doing here is creating equivalent levels of safety.
But that is not enough, and Mr Purvis and Mrs Thors were right about this. We must negotiate with Russia, in particular, but also with our Mediterranean neighbours, and persuade them to introduce systems which are equivalent to ours. I have faith in the crusade referred to by Mrs Miguélez Ramos, and I believe that I am not alone, but that I am accompanied by all the honourable Members and many people outside who have the same concerns as me. We must therefore promote the participation of our neighbours, of Russia firstly, but also of all the Mediterranean countries.
The other day at the Euro-Mediterranean meeting of energy ministers the issues of the double hull, of port controls and of maritime safety were raised and there was support for this issue. And this weekend at the European Union Summit with Russia, Russia has committed itself to supporting the case for double hulls, not only in its own territory, but also, like the Mediterranean countries, in the International Maritime Organisation, because it is of little use if the disaster is caused by a ship in transit.
Finally, the International Maritime Organisation must take steps in relation to the responsibility of the flag state, preventing flags of convenience, which unfortunately often disguise a complete lack of controls and guarantees. We must make progress on the human factor, which is always key and essential – in shipping, in the maritime sector, as in any other sector – and this means, as Mrs Miguélez said a moment ago, and there are proposals on the table, that the issue of the qualifications and abilities of crews is essential, not only within the Community, but also within the International Maritime Organisation and the International Labour Organisation.
Eventually, legislation will have to be modified at international level, at the level of United Nations maritime law, so that the rights of coastal states and coastal populations are better safeguarded and taken into account in a more balanced fashion. We cannot allow freedom of the seas to become simply uncontrolled freedom to sail genuine ecological time bombs.
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I believe we are taking a very important step forward, but it is not enough; we must continue to move forward and a key element is the application of what we have already approved.
We rather have the feeling that the
and
packages have unfortunately come late, and that we must try to prevent being too late for a new
a new
or a new disaster. We must do everything we can to prevent this happening again. In this regard, I would like once again to thank the rapporteur.
I must reply and make it clear that we are prepared to accept all the amendments proposed by the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism, though with some modifications to the wording.
Amendment No 3 requires the Council and the Member States to issue the Commission with a mandate to negotiate with the International Maritime Organisation; the honourable Members are aware that, although we do not formally have full powers within the international Maritime Organisation, we are coordinating the latest actions. I would remind you that we have had considerable success recently, multiplying the FIPOL fund by 5. A moment ago Mr Savary told us how clearly insufficient it was in relation to the damage caused by the
accident, and it was also insufficient in relation to the damage caused by the
but in the latter case Totalfina took a responsible attitude and contributed to some of the costs, something which the people responsible for or owners of the cargo are clearly not going to do in the case of the
. That is now crystal clear. But, in the end, within the International Maritime Organisation, we have managed to increase the FIPOL funds by 5, to some EUR 950 million (more than a billion dollars at the current exchange rate) compared to 170-180 million dollars previously. That is a good result.
We are in agreement with Amendment No 3, although there will have to be some modification of the wording.
Amendment No 6 requires the Commission to present a new proposal, in as short a time as possible, in relation to the fuel all ships carry for their own propulsion. This requires an agreement within the International Maritime Organisation, which we are prepared to promote for newly built ships. This amendment therefore also needs some correction of its wording.
Amendment No 7 refers to the shipbuilding industry. Several of the honourable Members have referred to it and are well aware – and my colleague Mr Lamy is here, and it is he who is handling the negotiations – that we have the problem of the clearly unfair behaviour on the part of Korea. We are implementing a series of measures to try to prevent the disappearance of European shipbuilders at a time when Korean shipbuilding and shipbuilding in certain other countries is growing as a result of the substantial state subsidies they receive, leading to entirely unfair competition.
This support for our shipbuilders must clearly be provided by means of the World Trade Organisation and by means of certain types of specific action, but always guaranteeing compliance with the rules on state aid laid down in the Treaty.
Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to take up some of the issues raised here today. Firstly, Mr Piecyk said that this is not a panacea, a point which has been repeated by Mr Purvis and other speakers. Unfortunately, replacing single hull oil tankers with double hull oil tankers will not guarantee that we do not have another sea disaster, either in Europe or anywhere else in the world. But it is one more measure which will allow us to increase safety. Safety depends on a range of measures, all aspects of which must be applied coherently."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"Aegean Sea,"1
"II"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples