Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-01-18-Speech-2-144"

PredicateValue (sorted: default)
rdf:type
dcterms:Date
dcterms:Is Part Of
dcterms:Language
lpv:document identification number
"en.20000118.5.2-144"2
lpv:hasSubsequent
lpv:speaker
lpv:spokenAs
lpv:translated text
"Mr President, the oil tanker Erika, the ownership of which is veiled by accommodation addresses on Malta and probably in Italy and Greece and which was hired by Total-Fina for the transport of oil, foundered off the Breton coastline, with disastrous consequences. The implications for the environment and for the flora and fauna of the European maritime environment are enormous. The cause of the disaster must be sought in the weakened structure of the oil tanker. So people are doubtful about the safety of ships which carry dangerous or polluting goods. The International Maritime Organisation has issued international rules in this connection. States can carry out port inspections. In Europe, legislation is stricter and it is compulsory to inspect 25% of the incoming vessels according to the port-state control directive. However, it seems that none of the Member States meets this figure due to a lack of inspectors. It is clear that there is no lack of legislation. In my opinion, the Commissioner is quite right. Where the scheme falters is in the enforcement of existing legislation. But how are we now going to enforce this if there is indeed a lack of inspectors, esteemed European Commission? Can the Commission provide an assurance that Directive 93/75 concerning minimum requirements for vessels bound for or leaving Community ports and carrying dangerous or polluting goods will be implemented correctly in all Member States? Should its implementation not be more strictly monitored? Would it not be beneficial, in the short term, following the Rotterdam model, to inspect according to a points system in which, for example, account is taken of the ship’s age, whether it is single or double-hulled or whether it sails under a flag of convenience. In short, to give priority to older sub-standard ships over ships which meet all quality requirements. The Erika was built at a Japanese shipyard and is single-hulled. There are four more sister ships in service at present. Construction of this type of ship was halted at the time because the risk of rusting was especially high. Some of them also sail under the Maltese flag. Are we waiting for the next accident to happen? Would sanctions not be appropriate, as the Commissioner stated, for the classification society? RINA is currently the talk of the town. Malta is entering the accession negotiations. In my opinion, the European Union can only accept Malta if it is guaranteed that the Maltese flag will sail without an accident in future."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

1http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/English.ttl.gz
2http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/Events_and_structure.ttl.gz
3http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/spokenAs.ttl.gz

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph