Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-11-30-Speech-4-040"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20001130.1.4-040"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Madam President, firstly, as regards urgency in taking decisions and in implementing these decisions, bearing in mind that less than a year after the
incident we had the
accident, how is it possible not to understand our electors, our fellow citizens, when they ask how this could have happened? I have heard Members of Parliament ask why action was not taken sooner. While I can understand this question, I believe that we must realise that, in this area, perhaps as never before, Parliament, the Commission and the Council did indeed display a willingness to act and to react speedily.
One can even assume that this initiative creates conditions not only for the European Union to adopt perfectly effective measures regarding the waters that concern it directly, but also measures to enable the IMO itself, as it were, to bring all these measures up to a fully global level within the coming months.
I remember – and please forgive me for using this personal tone – that last February we sent the three memoranda to the European Union, to FIPOL and to the IMO. This was done on France’s initiative because the
had just sunk and, since March, the Commission has put forward a number of proposals. From the very first meeting, under the French Presidency of the Council of Transport Ministers, there has been a common will to so something. Today, as well as moving forward the date of the debate in part-session, the European Parliament is proposing to debate and to give its verdict in three key areas. This specifically demonstrates that, this time, we will not fall once again into the ruts of the past. It has to be said that in the twenty years after the Amoco Cadiz accident some things were perhaps achieved, but not enough to prevent this lack of maritime safety from being eradicated.
I want to highlight the work that has been done at this level and I share the opinion of your rapporteurs, the quality of whose work I also commend. I am convinced, as are the Members of the European Parliament, that we must strengthen the texts proposed by the Commission, especially regarding black boxes and banning ships. I am also in favour of the liability of all operators, in particular that of classification societies, which play a key role in maritime safety, being established and clearly reinforced so that no lenience can exist, most notably as regards inspections.
I want to say to Mr Jarzembowski that the Council is not seeking a compromise. We must move forward towards consensus upon maximum maritime regulation and safety. It is not a question of a compromise between those who would like more and those who would like less. There is common ground and we must seek the consensus to achieve it. As regards maritime safety and ‘cheating’ there is no compromise to be sought regarding the elements of inspection and maritime safety.
If you agree, Parliament, the Commission and the Council must work, by consensus, between now and the Council of Ministers on 20 and 21 December. I have indeed heard this suggestion made by several rapporteurs. This is the proposal I am putting to you officially right now. I hope that this work can result in common positions being established as early as 20 and 21 December. I am not yet at a stage where I need to talk about conciliation. We can expedite matters. If we work from now until the Council of Ministers on 20 and 21 December, we will succeed in establishing common positions, obtained by qualified majority voting. This is an element I wish to stress as Parliament will then be able to accept these positions in second reading early next year.
It is true that the subjects we are dealing with are sometimes complex and technical. I realise that even the translations take time. But the most important thing is the unshakeable will which must motivate us collectively to change the current rules of the game of maritime transport in order to establish maritime safety. These proposals which, I hope, we are going to push forward together very quickly, both as regards the phasing out of single-hull ships and the issue of classification societies and port state control, are important, but, as you have said, and as the Commissioner has also said, we know that they are not enough.
We need this second package in order to go further in terms of making all the operators aware of their responsibilities. We also need to step up surveillance and transparency. One Member of Parliament used the term ‘traceability’. I would support that idea. We cannot allow operators to do just what they like with ships, especially when they have been repaired or banned in such and such a place. We must not find them back on our seas and on our oceans. The Equasis system, which is part of the second package, will enable us to push things forward.
Finally, Madam President, a number of you have spoken about this, but we do not as yet have all the elements of the inquiry that I set up in the wake of the loss of the
. The fact is that this ship was not old, it had a double hull and its crew was from Europe. We will get the results of this inquiry shortly. It is important that everybody knows what happened, as the human question, which was brought up by a number of you, is also very important. Things are happening in terms of the overexploitation of seamen and shipboard living and working conditions, as well as in terms of maintenance, which may be determining factors in the cause of accidents, and I believe we must move forward in this area too."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples