Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I'm not a lawyer, so I'll address the issue from a policy point of view.
Indeed, what we just heard is a perfect lead-in, because in fact this would create a special right for a special group of claimants. In this case, they are ship suppliers. Mr. Chairman, from the policy point of view, while I understand the objective of protecting ship suppliers, the premise beyond section 129 is in section 128. It's a very simple premise: the enforcement can only apply to something that the shipowner has not complied with.
Nonpayment of invoices is not a non-compliance under this act. I think that on that basis, it would be very difficult to create that right. Indeed, there are many claimants, and perhaps many more deserving claimants, if I can put it that way. For example, there are personal injury claimants, and the wages and salaries of crews and masters might also not be paid by shipowners. They are not infringements under this act. It is not a non-compliance under this act not to pay wages.
From a policy point of view, Mr. Chairman, I think this could only work if nonpayment of an invoice would be an offence, and it is not an offence under this act.