Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-06-13-Speech-3-168"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010613.5.3-168"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, I have stood in at the last moment for my colleague Mrs Vachetta, whose take on this is the same as that which I am about to present to you.
The subject of our debate is maritime passenger and freight transport, which are obviously tremendously important, as our rapporteurs have stressed. However, merely operating the transport sector is fraught with danger. Danger to the economy and, of course, to human life, dangerous working conditions and, of course, huge environmental dangers. The carte blanche which prevails in this sector and massive competition naturally make this industry exceptionally dynamic but also mean that it seeks the lowest possible price "at any price", when it comes to the cost of engines, materials etc. and human resources. Because this sector is globalised, and has been for a very long time – it always was the most highly globalised sector – shipowners have the right to duck and dive and create conditions of immunity, frequently resulting in the terrible results which we have seen, not just with the tragic incident involving the
but on numerous other occasions in the Mediterranean and elsewhere, in both passenger and freight transport.
The second package which is the subject of today's debate, Mr President, Commissioner, does not answer all the questions or all the problems which, I think, are being exacerbated as globalisation progresses. Let me give you an example which requires no further comment: the ridiculous example of shipping registers and the way in which they operate and grant or withhold recognition. We recently experienced tragic complications in Italy, for example, which prohibited private Greek ships which were not flying the Greek flag from entering Italy, while others were allowed to do so. Absurd incidents based, I believe, on the fact that we do not have clear, proper, efficient, Community legislation on shipping registers. However, I shall confine myself to the three reports which are the subject of today's debate.
First, I should like to thank our rapporteurs, who have done an excellent job. Secondly, we have to admit that the directive and the regulations being examined have a great many positive points, as well as numerous shortcomings. That is why we shall pass a general vote in favour of them, while supporting certain amendments – important amendments in our opinion – which supplement or improve the texts. The monitoring system, for example, confirmation and notification of consignments of dangerous substances, black boxes at long last, monitoring of ships, the facility for Member States to intervene and prevent ships from departing when the conditions are too dangerous – these are all are important matters and we support them. However, we also have some absurd opposition, Commissioner; we accept that we have to supervise and monitor engines, materials and equipment, but we do not agree to supervise the working of the most important factor in shipping, i.e. the people who work in the industry. Not just their health, but their rest times and suitable working conditions. Most accidents that have occurred so far are caused by tired and disheartened people, who were basically not to blame. So we have tabled the relevant proposed amendments.
Secondly, as regards the maritime safety agency, everyone involved in shipping is calling for such an agency and we agree. I personally wish we had a European ports authority with more than a merely coordinating function and I think we can help this agency to progress along these lines. However, we disagree with the composition of its Administrative Board. We want people at national and local level to sit on the board. Why not non-governmental organisations with some form of proof of the usefulness and efficiency of their work? And we also want this agency to be accountable and to publish regular information on what it does. We consider this to be absolutely self-evident.
Finally, a word on the compensation fund for oil pollution. It is a good idea. As I think our rapporteur quite rightly illustrated, the IOPC Fund has shown its limitations. But why should this agency only be funded by persons who buy a certain quantity, 150,000 tonnes of oil or more? Why should it not be funded by everyone involved in the fuel transport sector? We think this is the right way forward. We also think that the one billion limit is too low and bears no relation to the actual size of the sector or its turnover. That is why we propose that it be raised to two billion. And, of course, we think that its activities are restricted – very restricted even – and that it should be set on a broader base.
We shall vote on this basis and we hope that we shall soon have a third package, an Erika III, which incorporates these factors and this criticism and which will be most useful in completing the policy set before us which, we must admit, is generally a good guideline."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples