Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-01-18-Speech-2-149"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000118.5.2-149"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, firstly I would like to express my very sincere thanks, not only for the initiatives of the different groups, of Mrs Grossetête and the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and the European Democrats, but also for the initiatives of Mr Wurtz and the Confederal Group of the United Left/Nordic Green Left, who proposed this debate, which has led to a positive and important discussion.
As for the inspections, very much a key question, the first thing we have to consider is how the current legislation has worked, as Mr Hatzidakis has said. We already have legislation. According to the information which the Commission services have given me, this legislation is not adequately applied in many Member States due to a lack of personnel, means and inspectors. The problem is not that only 25% are inspected, but rather how we select, how we find, the ships which constitute the highest risk, through the age of the ships and the risk history of the flags. Unfortunately, the 25% often consists of flags which are expected to fulfil the requirements: in this way inspections are quicker and the work is carried out more easily.
Therefore, more than making amendments, we will have to implement measures to control what is already being done, apart from some supplementary requirements with regard to reviews, especially in relation to the age of the different vessels. And that is why we have SOLAS (the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea) and MARPOL (the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships), two conventions of the International Maritime Organisation which will eventually have to be made mandatory in all Member States of the Union and whose application will have to be monitored.
With regard to the question of Union inspectors, I believe that the principle of subsidiarity justifies the idea that these inspections be carried out by the Member States, which does not mean that the Commission does not have to ensure that the States carry out their duty adequately.
Lastly, I would like to stress the issue of liability. Not only in terms of maximum sums insured, which I believe should be similar to those in the United States. We have set a figure of USD 180 million; in the United States they are talking about USD 1 billion as a maximum ceiling for covering claims payments. I believe we have to increase the current amount so as to move closer to levels in the United States, but that we also have to reconsider the sums insured on vessels and, therefore, the liability of shipowners, and also to hold liable those who charter ships, which is to say the owners of the cargo. Unless we require that the owners of the cargo be held liable, we will never, in my opinion, resolve these problems.
I will end now. I will not expand further. We will have the opportunity to do so on other occasions. But, obviously, as some speakers have said – and I thank all of you for your totally positive and relevant interventions – we cannot allow a situation where, within one, two or three years, we have to say once again that we have not done what we should have done.
As for me, I can say, after having debated it in the College of Commissioners, that the Commission is prepared to present the necessary legislative measures, amendments and directives to Parliament and the Council, in order to equip ourselves with the greatest possible level of safety. The political will of this Parliament is required – and I can see that I can count on this – as well as that of the Council of Ministers.
Before the end of March, I propose to present a communication in which I will possibly present legislative texts, that is to say, amendments of specific directives so that discussions may begin in the Council and in Parliament.
I would like to tell you that, in fact, it is not just an environmental problem – it is a very important environmental problem – but it is also a very important social problem. There are men and women who depend on fishing, gathering shellfish and the service or tourist industries in these coastal areas. They are environmentally sensitive areas, but they are also sensitive from the point of view of social development and territorial equilibrium. And therefore we must take the utmost care to prevent the recurrence of a similar situation.
Mrs Roth-Behrendt said that nothing had ever been done. In fact, I believe that things have been done by the Commission, but there is still more to do. This was demonstrated by the Americans who, after the
disaster, within one year, adopted enormously rigorous and tough legislation, which threatens, as I said earlier, to divert ships unacceptable to American ports towards Europe. In Europe, after the
or the
on the Spanish coast, in 1976, or the
in the same year, or the many other cases there have been, we really began to legislate after 1994 and 1995, particularly in the last few years.
During these years, the emphasis has mainly been on the safety of passenger transport. That is the reality. In my opinion, we now have to make a significant and urgent effort to confront new problems, also deriving from American legislation, which emphasise the safety of the transport of dangerous goods in the maritime sector.
I have referred to a series of issues which I will lay out in more detail, if you wish, in an appearance before a special committee on this matter, or when I present the actual initiatives in the coming months.
My intention is – and I insist – for us to begin discussions after the end of March, also coinciding with the Council of Ministers, and, of course, before the end of the six-month period of the Portuguese Presidency, for us to have texts to discuss.
Flags of convenience are one problem, but are not the only one. The Romanian flag is not a flag of convenience but, nevertheless, that country has an extremely high number of incidences at inspections; more than the countries with flags of convenience.
Malta and Cyprus have asked to join the Community. We must be demanding on this issue and we are negotiating to this end. This will oblige us to reconsider the registers in the European Union, and to deal with the notorious problem, which will no doubt arise again, of the aim of a Community register. I believe that this will be difficult but, in any event, we should carry out a review of the registers of the European Union countries."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"Torrey Canyon,"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples