Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-05-10-Speech-2-023"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050510.3.2-023"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, as we know and indeed, as Commissioner Barrot stated a moment ago, the terrorist attacks in the US and Spain, as well as the general increase in crime, have led to all kinds of safety measures being taken in Europe. After the airports, it is now, of course, the turn of the seaports; after all, European ports are essential links within the transport chain which connect trade and passenger flows by sea and across the land. In many cases, they are also the nerve centres for the transhipment of dangerous freight for important chemical and petrochemical production centres and are located near cities. It follows that terrorist attacks in ports can lead to serious disruptions of transport systems, have a domino effect and cause damage to people in the ports and to those living in the vicinity. It was, quite simply, vital that action be taken.
I should add that it is better to sort this matter out ourselves than to be on the receiving end of unsolicited help from American inspection teams, to name but one example. As Commissioner Barrot indicated a moment ago, first of all, Regulation 725 transposed the Code on international ship and port facility security – the ISPS Code – into rules that are binding upon the EU. This Regulation is not all-embracing, though. Since it is only concerned with the security of the wet section of the port, an additional directive on the regulation of the security of the entire port area came out in 2004. That is the directive that is before us this morning and on which we will be voting later on today.
I would like to focus on two core issues to which I was committed as the rapporteur. Commissioner Barrot has already discussed a number of other issues at great length. The two issues I should like to discuss are related to guaranteeing a level playing field in the European Union.
First of all, there is the proposal’s financial underpinning. Who is actually paying for what? The differences between some Member States and others are considerable, and I see this as completely undesirable if there is to be a level playing field. In the final agreement, the Commission is therefore urged to present – as soon as possible and by no later than 30 June 2006 – a study about the distribution of the costs between government bodies, port authorities and industry. The additional security measures should on no account lead to distortion of competition.
Secondly, I was determined that the interpretation of the rules in all Member States should be unambiguous and that their implementation should be harmonised. It is, of course, unacceptable that one Member State should settle for one extra lock, so to speak, while five guards and six cameras should be made compulsory in the others. Of course, I am exaggerating, but still. I have therefore argued in favour of the Commission ‘metamonitoring’ to some degree. This proved to be a tricky point during the negotiations, particularly for the Council, which surprises me, because it is the Member States that complain bitterly about the lack of a level playing field, but all is well that ends well. We have found a phrase with which all those involved can identify and by means of which the Commission is given sufficient means in order to carry out the necessary metamonitoring.
As rapporteur, I have also tried my level best to avoid creating an additional bureaucratic institution, and proposals to that end have consequently been repealed. I am, of course, delighted to inform you that I reached agreement with the shadow rapporteurs, the Council and the Commission very recently. This compromise is made up of Amendments 13 to 75, inclusive, which the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats, the Socialist Group in the European Parliament, the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance and my own group can support, as can also the Council and the Commission. If we actually adopt this compromise later on today, the directive can be finalised at first reading. Although you may be inclined to be sympathetic to Amendments 10, 11 and 12, tabled by the Union for Europe of the Nations Group, I would nevertheless advise you to vote against them. They failed to pass muster at an earlier stage in the Committee on Transport and Tourism; and their substance has already been covered elsewhere or would lead to an unnecessary Christmas tree effect.
The agreement that has now been reached is a very workable compromise for all parties involved in the implementation of the measures, and so a speedy conclusion at first reading is very much to be desired. There is nothing left to say but to thank the shadow rapporteurs, the Commission and the Luxembourg Presidency warmly for their commitment and their cooperation, which I have greatly appreciated."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples