Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2008-09-23-Speech-2-288"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2008-09-23"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Community vessel traffic monitoring and information system - Investigation of accidents in the maritime transport sector - The liability of carriers of passengers by sea in the event of an accident - Port State control (recast) - Ship inspection and survey organisations (Directive recast) - Ship inspection and survey organisations (Regulation recast) (continuation of debate)2
dcterms:Language	"nl"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20080923.36.2-288"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2008-09-23-Speech-2-2892
lpv:speaker	lp:Johannes Blokland2
lpv:spokenAs	chair_of_the_bureau; IND/DEM (2008-05-09--2009-07-13)3 vice-chair; ENVI (2007-02-01--2009-07-13)3 member; Temporary Committee on Climate Change (2007-05-10--2009-02-04)3 member; Delegation to the EU-Armenia, EU-Azerbaijan and EU-Georgia Parliamentary Cooperation Committees (2004-09-15--2009-07-13)3 member; Delegation to the EU-Kazakhstan, EU-Kyrgyzstan and EU-Uzbekistan Parliamentary Cooperation Committees, and for relations with Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Mongolia (2004-09-15--2009-07-13)3 substitute; TRAN (2007-01-31--2009-07-13)3 unknown; ChristenUnie - Staatkundig Gereformeerde Parti (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3
lpv:translated text	". Madam President, today is the second time we have discussed the Erika III package in plenary. Although it is a shame that we are lacking two proposals, I am pleased with the contents of the package in its present form, and I am grateful to the rapporteurs for their work. There is one part of the package with which I am not satisfied, however. Two sections have found their way into the Costa report on the liability of carriers of passengers that ensure that the same level of liability is imposed on carriers of passengers by inland waterway as is imposed on carriers of passengers on the high seas. This is wholly undesirable. Firstly, there is no need. There are hardly any known cases of accidents involving the transport of passengers by inland waterway. Besides, these two sections would sound the death knell for a large number of carriers of passengers by inland waterway, as they would be unable to afford the associated exorbitant insurance premiums, assuming anyone would insure them given a level of liability such as this. After all, we are talking about smaller undertakings that transport at the most tens of passengers and whose turnovers are not so huge. It strikes me as abundantly clear and logical that the same level of liability should not be imposed on such carriers as is imposed on large carriers of thousands of passengers by sea. We must not make ourselves a laughing stock by imposing a sky-high, extremely expensive level of liability on carriers of passengers by inland waterway. In addition, I am still extremely unhappy about how these sections have once more found their way into the text. The Chair of the Committee on Transport and Tourism should never have declared the amendments concerned admissible, as there was already agreement on this matter at first reading between the Council and Parliament. For these reasons, I have requested roll-call votes on sections 9 and 20. I hope and anticipate that many of my fellow Members will back me up in rejecting these sections."@en1
lpv:videoURI	<go to Events_and_structure europarl>2

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph