Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-06-02-Speech-1-124"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2003-06-02"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Single hull oil tankers2
dcterms:Language	"sv"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20030602.8.1-124"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2003-06-02-Speech-1-1252
lpv:speaker	lp:Astrid Thors2
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 unknown; Svenska folkpartiet (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 vice-chair; PETI (2002-01-23--2004-07-19)3 member; Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 substitute; Delegation to the European Economic Area Joint Parliamentary Committee (EEA) (2002-02-07--2004-07-19)3 member; Delegation to the EU-Latvia Joint Parliamentary Committee (2002-02-07--2004-04-30)3 member_of_the_bureau; ELDR (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3
lpv:translated text	". Mr President, Commissioner, allow me firstly to make a very personal observation. The week before the Prestige accident, my party and I organised a conference on maritime safety in the Bay of Finland, that is to say on precisely those issues referred to by, for example, Mr Purvis. You can appreciate my feelings when I then suspected, and was finally able to have it confirmed, where the Prestige actually came from, and understood that the situation could have been precisely the same in the Bay of Finland as off the coast of Galicia. At the same time, we know that we can presumably expect the amount of traffic through the Baltic to increase tenfold. The Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy has been closely involved in this issue. We are also trying to improve Parliament’s reputation. We perhaps had something to hide where the Erika package was concerned. The opinion of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy also emphasises the importance of neighbouring countries’ subscribing to the same rules because, as Mr Purvis also pointed out, these tankers sail close to our coasts, even if they do not put into EU harbours. We also support the proposal for having 2010 as the final phasing-out year, a proposal that the Council had come up with and that we are now prepared to agree upon. We also propose that the inspection requirements be looked at. We should have liked to have seen the inspection requirements apply irrespective of age. We are now talking about 15 year-old vessels, but it is important for a vessel, irrespective of age, to be of a good class and standard and to be well maintained. Our experience shows that what the EU has agreed upon is in fact translated into the rules of the IMO. We saw this most recently in connection with the oil fund. What worries me is why we have not at this stage been able to adopt the proposal by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy that there be a paragraph stating that we must demand ice-strengthening. I want to ask the Commissioner why the Commission has set its face against our adding a paragraph introducing ice-strengthening requirements, in addition to the requirements for single hull vessels to be phased out and double hull vessels phased in."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph