Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-11-06-Speech-3-167"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20021106.12.3-167"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, I fully agree with the Commissioner’s words, but I shall try not to repeat them. The aim of this directive is to improve safety and, as is unfortunately traditional, is seeking to do so following a series of accidents.
It is very simple: when ships sustain damage, they must remain accessible to search-and-rescue teams for as long as possible so that the greatest possible number of human lives can be saved. Studies and experience have shown that, to this end, the quantity of water on deck must be limited as much as possible. The IMO, the International Maritime Organisation, naturally became involved very early on in these issues and concluded what is known as the ‘SOLAS’ agreement in 1990 for a certain height of water to be allowed – but I shall not go into the technical details – stipulating that all ships should comply with this agreement and its standards by 1 October 2010 at the latest. As you may remember, however, In September 1994, the Estonia disaster occurred in the north of Europe, causing 800 deaths. Following this disaster, eight Northern European countries, seven EU countries and Norway, worked together to adopt stricter standards than those in the 1990 agreement in order to prevent ships from capsizing. The question, for the Commission and for us, was knowing what needed to be done once these new standards were introduced, whether they needed to be extended to the whole of the Union or whether a distinction could be made between the north and south of the Union. Once the technical and financial studies had been carried out, the Commission rightly proposed extending these standards to the whole of the Union under the conditions the Commissioner has just explained. That is therefore what will happen. It is considered possible and reasonable and the cost to companies is deemed acceptable. There will thus be no difference between passengers travelling by ship in the north and those travelling by ship in the south.
Obviously, a number of ships have only recently been subject to these ‘SOLAS’ standards, so requiring them to adopt such a directive means asking them to start again. We must therefore consider the matter of the timing and date of the final deadline. In a spirit of compromise that everybody will understand, the Commission, the Council and Parliament have reached an agreement to conclude all of this in the year 2015. That is the essence of the fundamental amendment tabled. A few other amendments have also been tabled, which allow for adoption at first reading. I would therefore advise the House, and I believe Mr Ripoll will do likewise, to resolve this matter as soon as possible, as it does not pose any major political problems, and all ships and companies operating in waters governed by EU law should comply with the standards as soon as possible. In this way, the risk of accidents and loss of human life will be kept to a minimum, even if there is no such thing as zero risk in our society."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples