Erika's master had asked to enter port before break-up

Accusing fingers were unjustly pointed at Malta when the Maltese-registered tanker Erika broke up in December 1999, spilling an enormous amount of oil and causing an environmental and ecological disaster especially on the coast of south-west France.

But in the course of investigations, which took very long, it transpired that the ship master had made numerous requests to enter port and that the requests were refused, and the tanker eventually broke up in heavy seas, Labour MEP John Attard Montalto said.

Speaking to The Sunday Times following a discussion in the European Parliament's Transport and Tourism Committee, Dr Attard Montalto said that following the Erika disaster, investigations showed that Erika had just been certified as seaworthy by an Italian certification company.

"But more seriously, it emerged that despite numerous requests to enter port, this was repeatedly refused. As a result, the first monitoring directive was issued and the Commission decided that a European policy on ports of refuge needed to be developed. Under the Spanish Presidency, in June 2002, a directive relating to a policy on the accommodation of a ship in distress was adopted. This was a step in the right direction and member states were given up to February 2004 to transpose the measures.

"Hardly six months after the Council approved this legal framework for the accommodation of ships in distress, disaster struck again. Prestige, a ship carrying crude oil, was ordered by the Spanish authorities to head out to sea. No less than 77 tonnes of crude oil were spilt, severely polluting Spanish coasts. As a result, member states immediately decided to bring forward submission dates for plans for the accommodation of ships in distress," Dr Attard Montalto said.

In the meantime, the European Parliament adopted two successive resolutions and set up a temporary committee on improving safety at sea. Both the European Parliament and the Commission have made their proposals.

"The present report before the European Parliament deals with establishing a Community vessel traffic monitoring and information system and one of the issues is a compensation scheme for places of refuge and ports.

"In the discussion in the committee, I stressed that no ship in distress should be refused entry to port or safe mooring. First of all because even one human life is too precious and, secondly, this is the only way to limit environmental and ecological disasters.

"Another issue is that the accommodation of the ship in distress may give rise to serious damage and costs for the port in question. A compensation scheme has to be devised for ports and places of refuge. Although a possibility for compensation may exist through the proposal for a directive on civil liability and financial guarantees of ship-owners, port authorities may be reluctant to accept ships in distress in the instance of poorly insured ships and even so cover would not extend to compensation for economic loss suffered by the port.

"That is why a compensation scheme is so important. More so it would assure the decision-makers at the port authority not to procrastinate and immediately admit ships in distress without the hassle and time-wasting of checking on the validity of insurance and financial instruments in such emergency scenarios," Dr Attard Montalto said.