Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-11-30-Speech-4-031"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2000-11-30"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Safety at sea2
dcterms:Language	"sv"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20001130.1.4-031"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2000-11-30-Speech-4-0322
lpv:speaker	lp:Per Stenmarck2
lpv:spokenAs	member; Conference of Delegation Chairs (1999-10-07--2002-01-14)3 member_of_the_bureau; EPP-ED (1999-10-12--2002-03-07)3 unknown; Moderata samlingspartiet (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 substitute; Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 member; BUDG (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 chair; Delegation to the EU-Estonia Joint Parliamentary Committee (1999-10-07--2002-01-14)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, allow me first to express my thanks both to the Commission and to the three rapporteurs for their important work on this matter. The catastrophe in autumn 1999 caused many to react, which is a good thing. At the same time, it would have been even better if we had in advance instead of afterwards. Then we could have avoided a catastrophe. There is much that is good in what we must decide on today. That applies both to the stricter requirements on the design of oil tankers, better rules on port state control and the tightening up of the rules on classification societies that will also result from this. At the same time, I feel that many question marks remain. For example, what is the point of preventing vessels from putting into EU ports if we do not prevent them from navigating our waters? Realistic assessments suggest that we will only be able to stop a further 10-12 vessels per year. Will this be sufficient? The latest major accident resulting in oil discharges just a few weeks ago involved a double-hull tanker. This means that not even the mandatory introduction of this type of hull will provide any kind of certain solution. Allow me to take up one further matter, namely all the cases of oil discharges that are not an accident but rather are entirely deliberate discharges. Oil traffic in the Baltic has doubled since 1995 and in a few years’ time will have trebled. Every day we suffer two new discharges on average. A short time ago a vessel with a Maltese flag of convenience discharged oil in Swedish waters just off Gotska Sandön. The vessel then sailed into the port of Tallinn in Estonia. The question is who act. Under the MARPOL convention Sweden is not entitled to act because the vessel is no longer in Swedish waters. Neither can Estonia act, because the vessel did not cause any damage there. Malta, for its part, probably does not to act, because the country enjoys great economic gain from this type of vessel being registered under the Maltese flag. And so yet another environmental marauder goes free. The proposals that we have submitted to date will not solve this problem in the future either. I therefore consider that there is an incredible amount still to do in this area."@en1
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"Erika"1 "acted"1 "can"1 "perhaps"1 "reacting"1 "wish"1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph