Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-01-13-Speech-2-105"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20040113.5.2-105"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
This report forms part of the package of proposals on maritime safety, put together following the disaster of the oil tanker
. It should be noted that maritime pollution by oil tankers does not occur only as the result of accidents; it is also caused by illegal discharges. For this reason, the proposal seeks to incorporate into Community law the existing international rules governing discharges – such as the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL) – and to provide guidance concerning the nature of the penalties to be imposed. We must recall, however, that this battle will not be won through further legislation alone; this legislation must be effectively implemented and monitored, which requires the appropriate means.
I reject the proposal to create a European coast guard (Amendment No 6), not only because of the issues of sovereignty that it raises, but also because it is not the best solution for ensuring compliance with laws and monitoring and nor does it respond to the fundamental issue of resources. This proposal consequently contains broader ideas than simply combating pollution. What is needed is effective cooperation and exchanges of information between the various national coast guards and to ensure that each Member State provides the appropriate funding of resources for monitoring and combating maritime pollution – and here the Community budget could make a significant contribution."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples