WRITTEN QUESTION P-3484/02 by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission. The sinking of the Prestige and the inspection of ships.
Date: 2002-11-29
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: man-made disaster, maritime safety, maritime transport, oil pollution, pollution control measures, tanker, transport policy

10.7.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161 E/95

(2003/C 161 E/099)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3484/02

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 November 2002)

Subject: The sinking of the ‘Prestige’ and the inspection of ships

While the oil tanker Prestige was breaking-up on the high seas the Commission issued a series of separate
statements apparently blaming Gibraltar for failing to inspect the ship. In fact, the twenty-six-year-old
Liberian tanker, registered in the Bahamas, managed in Greece and chartered by a company in Switzerland
on behalf of a Russian oil trader, had docked in Gibraltar only once during the last five years (for
refuelling) and had during the same period docked in many European ports including Cork, Dunkirk,
in September 1999) and
Kalamata, Rotterdam (where it was inspected by government agencies
Wilhelmshaven, as well as Algeciras and Las Palmas in Spain (where the ship was declared seaworthy),
Latvia and Singapore. The ship had been inspected four times in the US without being detained, and was
surveyed in Dubai this year under the auspices of the American Bureau of shipping, the ship’s classification
society.

Can the Commission confirm that the United Kingdom and its colonies fulfil the obligation to inspect at
least 25 % of ships, but that a number of EU Member States, including Denmark, France, Greece and
Ireland do not? That being the case, does the Commission now regret its statements attributing blame to
Gibraltar, which seem to have been made in order to damage the reputation of Gibraltar rather than to
address the serious problems to coastal areas such as Galicia posed by the break-up of oil tankers such as
Prestige, and will the Commission undertake to be more considered in its responses in future?

With regard to inspections, does the Commission accept that structural damage of the kind afflicting
vessels such as Erika and Prestige is not detected by the kind of inspection which Member States are
currently required to undertake, and that better targeting and greater provision of information are in
themselves insufficient to solve the problem unless there is a proper regime for structural inspections
(normally undertaken by naval architects under the aegis of a ship’s classification society)? Does the
Commission have any plans to introduce structural inspection regimes for ships docking at EU ports, and
what are the obligations of flag states in this regard?

Under recent legislation, single-hull ships can continue to be used until 2015. Prestige was carrying
extremely heavy oil, which is extremely polluting and which will cause severe problems for those people
living on the Galician coast. Does the Commission plan to introduce legislation requiring very heavy oils
or other especially polluting materials to be carried in double-hull vessels from now on?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(24 January 2003)

As the Honourable Member indicates, the loss of the Bahamian-flagged oil tanker ‘Prestige’ off the Galician
coast triggered a major ecological disaster.

The Prestige’s last inspection under the port State control rules appears to have been in September 1999 in
Rotterdam. It revealed minor anomalies, which were put right before the ship set sail.

After this, the Prestige barely called in at Union ports, with the exception of Kalamata and Gibraltar. It did
call into port in Latvia and Russia, though no further inspections were performed on those occasions,
either under the Paris Memorandum or pursuant to Directive 95/21/EC on port State control (1).

The Commission has written to the authorities of various States for information on the inspections carried
out during the ship’s recent calls into ports under their jurisdiction.

Eschewing simple one-off measures, the Commission proposed a series of measures in its communication
of 3 December 2002 on action to be taken in response to the Prestige accident (2).

C 161 E/96

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

10.7.2003

In its conclusions, the Transport Council of 6 December 2002 supported most of the initiatives the
Commission put forward in the communication. Thus, as the Honourable Member advocates, a regulation
prohibiting the transport of heavy fuel oil by single hull tankers bound for or leaving Union ports and
speeding up the replacement of single hull ships by double hull ships was adopted by the Commission on
20 December 2002 (3) and is now being examined by the co-legislators.

In accordance with its communication of 3 December 2002, the Commission will invite the Council to
grant it without delay a negotiating mandate to ensure that candidate countries, as well as neighbouring
countries which are relevant for the heavy fuel oil trade in EU waters, will apply the same principles,
through administrative agreements to be concluded within existing cooperation frameworks, such as the
Paris Memorandum of Understanding on port State control and Euro-Med.

On the subject of port State control, the Commission communication reminds the Member States of their
inspection obligations. It asks them to recruit enough inspectors to check at least 25 % of ships, as required
by current European rules. It also requests them to achieve a sufficient level of inspection in all their ports
and anchorage areas to prevent them becoming ‘ports of convenience’.

The Commission intends to remain particularly vigilant regarding this point.
It has already made
submissions to the Court of Justice regarding France and Ireland, which are failing to meet the 25 %
threshold.

(1) Council Directive 95/21/EC of 19 June 1995 concerning the enforcement, in respect of shipping using Community
ports and sailing in the waters under the jurisdiction of the Member States, of international standards for ship
safety, pollution prevention and shipboard living and working conditions (port State control), OJ L 157, 7.7.1995.

(2) COM(2002) 681 final.
(3) COM(2002) 780 final.

(2003/C 161 E/100)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3499/02

by Franz Turchi (UEN) to the Commission

(2 December 2002)

Subject: Centre for disabled children of European officials

The European Union provides early childhood centres for children of its officials based in Brussels, which
are funded entirely from the Community budget.

It also provides European schools for those of its officials’ children who are of school age. These schools,
the first of which was opened in 1957, are partly funded from the Community budget.

Lastly, it provides day-care facilities outside school hours and during school holidays, which are funded
entirely from the Community budget.

Given that for many years now the European institutions have provided day-care facilities for ‘normal’
children of pre-school and school age, both during and outside school hours, why have they not yet set up
a day- and night-care centre for disabled children of European officials, funded from the Community
budget (heading 5)?

If the administration is planning to open such a centre, when does it intend to do so? If it is not, what are
the reasons for this lack of interest in the ‘disabled’ children of European officials, and should this attitude
not be seen as discriminatory?