Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2008-09-23-Speech-2-284"

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	"lv"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20080923.36.2-284"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2008-09-23-Speech-2-2852
lpv:speaker	lp:Roberts Zīle2
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; ITRE (2007-01-31--2009-07-13)3 member; TRAN (2007-01-31--2009-07-13)3 substitute; Delegation for relations with Australia and New Zealand (2007-03-14--2009-07-13)3 member; Delegation to the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly (2004-09-15--2009-07-13)3 vice-chair; UEN (2007-07-20--2009-07-13)3 unknown; Tēvzemei un Brīvībai/LNNK (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, Commissioner, firstly I would like to express my appreciation to all the rapporteurs on this package for the fact that they are maintaining a consistent approach on this extremely important maritime legislation. At the same time, I would like to express my group’s fears regarding two points in Mrs Vlasto’s report on port State control. Firstly, it seems to us that, in relation to small States with small fleets, recital 13 was much better expressed in the common position than in the current version drafted by Parliament’s committee. The original version said that Member States should endeavour to review the method of drawing up the white, grey and black lists of flag States in the framework of the Paris Memorandum of Understanding, in order to ensure its fairness, in particular with respect to States with small fleets. To be precise, if a merely mathematical approach is taken, then it is very difficult for a State with a small fleet of just a few ships that is included in the grey area of all these lists to be removed from that area; what reason do the ships have to become part of the grey list fleet if, in that event, they cannot improve the mathematical proportion? I think that the Council common position had a very much more balanced approach towards EU Member States with small fleets. The same also applies in relation to the indefinite refusal of access, where there should have been a distinction between States on the grey list and States on the black list. The second point is that I believe that the Council common position also took a more balanced view of the possibility of having exceptions, when inspections need not be carried out, particularly if these take place at night, in a short period of time, and also very far from the shore; in such a case it is not possible to carry out high-quality inspections in States in which there are severe winters and northern seas. I therefore call upon you in this instance to support the position adopted in the Council common position on this issue."@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