Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-12-12-Speech-3-275"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20011212.9.3-275"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, I am optimistic. We are going down the right track as regards the safety of ships. We have already clearly defined the first measures that may lead to substantial improvements in safety at sea. One considerable contribution to this is the introduction of the black box, with which we are familiar from aircraft, as well as of the double hull tanker. Parliament has emphasised certain features – where necessary in the Conciliation Committee, as Mr Ortuondo Larrea mentioned. Does this, though, also apply to the settlement of liabilities? You are all familiar with the regular technical examination of private cars. It is a similar position that the classification societies take with regard to safety at sea.
The extent of liability in the event of accidents at sea is based on inspectors' evaluations of the condition ships are in. This brings us at once to the core of the discussion, for the issue of the classification societies' standard upper limits for liability, particularly in cases of minor negligence, needs to be resolved finally and coherently. The decartelisation of the interests of the classification societies, the shipowners and the other actors means that we are now already achieving a high degree of transparency and independence for the inspectors. Decartelisation of interests must not, though, be allowed to go so far that the actors are played off against each other and end up eventually outdoing each other. The liability issue becomes of fundamental importance at this point.
It is in the final analysis the classification societies that occupy the most vulnerable position in the liability chain. Their assessment is admittedly decisive in determining the extent of liability, but, for example, they have no police powers, so that they could not, for example, confine a ship to port if that were to prove necessary. In the end, responsibility for the condition of the ship and for its handling remains with the owners. The classification societies and the shipping companies must act jointly with the other parties involved in this, and we must create the conditions for this to happen.
There are at present different upper limits for liability in each Member State, but it would be fair to limit liability to one standard across the board. In three years' time we will be re-examining this regulation on a varying upper limit. The knowledge and experience we will have gained by then will influence our further action and leave their mark on it. I see this as our task for the immediate future. We want to end up with a balanced chain of liability and responsibility. We need this binding regulation in order to enhance competition and limit risks, both indispensable to a functioning market and safety at sea. It is true that we are subjecting the classification societies to tighter control, but, at the same time, we should make it possible for them to calculate their risks. I consider this regulation to be a fair one, which takes all sides into account in an appropriate way. Having chosen our road ahead, we must now go down it and pursue it to the end."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples