Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-10-20-Speech-1-118"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20031020.8.1-118"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". – Mr Bowe, that was exactly the point I made! I put this in the bigger context of the responsibility we have under the Basel Convention – we have to be able to fulfil the requirements of that Convention. This is part of the much bigger picture.
You are right to point out the need for accurate information. That is why I have written to both the UK Government and authorities and also to the US, in order to gather the correct information. What I have been able to find out so far is that these 13 vessels are part of the national defence reserve fleet administered by the Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration (MARAD). I also understand that all these ships were built between 1945 and 1967, so are between 36 and 58 years old. They are estimated to contain in total 698 tonnes of PCBs and more than 3 300 tonnes of fuel oil, as well as substantial amounts of lead, cadmium and asbestos. These ships are owned by the United States military administration and are no longer in operation. MARAD has reported many of the ships to be in a deteriorating condition. Eleven of the 13 ships figure on their priority list of the 40 ships in the worst condition. That is what I have been able to find out so far. Let us wait until we have all the information.
In principle, I am not against the shipment of waste for the purpose of recycling. This is part of the existing legislation. But, at a time when we have fought so hard to clean up after the
and
accidents, along with other pollution accidents at sea, and when we are struggling to protect the marine environment, I do not see that this is the best way forward, when, apparently, there are recycling facilities in the United States.
This is what I have asked for. We should make sure that this is an absolutely safe operation before we embark on it. Is this wise overall? Is it common sense to do this, with the risks involved in towing these old ships – the oldest ships they have – containing so many dangerous substances?
Currently, we do not have a legal case against the United Kingdom. It is important to say that. We are looking at compliance with the existing directives that relate to Natura 2000, the Water Framework Directive and a number of other directives. Of course we will follow up the complaint we have received.
I am responding as the Environment Commissioner. Is this the best thing we can do at a time when we are trying to protect our seas, waters and marine environment? If we know that facilities exist, according to the proximity principle, in the United States, then why not send experts in the other direction. That seems less dangerous.
As yet we do not have a legal case. We have asked for more information. But I cannot hide my own views on this particular issue."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples