Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-01-12-Speech-1-088"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20040112.7.1-088"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, we are obviously in agreement with the aims of the new legislation before us today and the findings on which it is based. The threat of severe financial and criminal sanctions being credibly applied to all the players in the maritime transport chain is certainly the most effective form of prevention for dissuading those concerned from making use of dangerous ships. The observation on which that is based is a certain laxity in the matter of compliance with the rules on discharges on the part both of a section of the maritime sector and of certain port States and of flag States in particular.
On the other hand, we have strong reservations about the method used. In the first place, it is always dangerous to lay down rules – some of which are not consistent with the Marpol convention and which have severe financial implications – that will apply only to ships flying the flags of Member States of the Union when they are the least likely to cause pollution. Proposing the confiscation of a vessel flying a European flag when it is not possible to confiscate a third-country ship is to shoot ourselves in the foot.
If we did that, we would be discriminating against our own fleets, which come closest to meeting the standards. I can assure you they do not need that. That is why we must always give priority to the international level over the European level in matters of maritime safety. Those States of the Fifteen that wish to do so must therefore argue passionately and tirelessly for high standards, but ones that apply to all within the framework of the IMO.
My second comment is that the texts before us make strangely little reference to the liability of the flag State. We know, however, that the principal threat to maritime safety will remain so long as flags of convenience are able to prosper by covering ships that are not inspected or are inspected by classification societies that are themselves ‘convenience’.
This is the burning question when the director of the Maltese maritime authority, which was responsible for the registration of the
is ordered by his government to refuse to answer the summons of the judge investigating the case and when the authorities in the Bahamas are showing the most obvious lack of good will by constantly delaying publication of their report on the
disaster, a ship that was flying their flag. Our Temporary Committee absolutely must tackle this crucial question.
Finally, I would like to rule out the idea of European coastguards, which seems to me to smack more of ideology than of a realistic and appropriate approach to the problems. No one can say who would be authorised to mobilise and deploy such an instrument, which has a very direct bearing on the security of the Member States, assuming a way could ever be found to pay for it.
Instead, we should be strengthening the operational modes of command and coordination of the means of intervention available in countries like France and Great Britain, perhaps extending them and sharing the costs of the heavy equipment bought by those Member States that contribute more than others, and for the benefit of all, to the management of the shipping lanes that connect Europe to the world. That, Mr President, would be a clear manifestation of real European solidarity."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples