Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-11-13-Speech-2-193"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20011113.9.2-193"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, while the European economy is having a coughing fit we must decide whether to say a final good-bye to ‘Eurosclerosis’ and protectionism, whether to allow port monopolies to remain as they are or whether we should give free rein to the dynamics of economy. Sabena is a warning example of the kind of inefficiency that centrally managed industrial policies can produce in the worst possible case.
Should we exclude cargo handling from the directive on ports, all that would be left of it would be an empty shell. This is why Amendment 52 is dangerous. Although I am in favour of the inclusion of all major ports, I can, nevertheless, give my support to Amendment 79 proposed by Mr Atkins. This amendment would restrict the directive to covering public ports only. My British colleagues could then accept the inclusion of cargo handling without any concern. We must not forget that British exporters benefit from reasonably priced port services in continental Europe. The numbers of port operators should not be restricted except for compelling reasons. Should economic efficiency be accepted as a criterion for restricting the numbers, this would leave a great deal of room for speculation as to when operations are efficient and when they are not. This is a reason why Amendments 6, 25 and 44 should not be seconded. On the other hand, Amendment 50 on the definition of the port system is not acceptable because, according to the amendment, a port in Greece and a port in Germany, for example, could be construed as forming a single port. I am sorry but this is an absurd idea. As regards pilotage, we, the members of the committee, concluded that strict national rules should apply. Therefore, safety aspects cannot be used as an excuse for a monopoly.
Is it our intention then to prevent the development of EU ports by diluting the directive that has been awaited for so long? Cargo handling and pilotage, based on national rules, should be included, absolutely. Also, the port system should be defined in a concise manner. My highly honourable colleague Jarzembowski’s ideas on this matter are, unfortunately, a long way away from the actual needs of port users. We cannot change Europe into a giant Hamburg. The committee has reached a good compromise and we should clearly stick to that. ‘Eurosclerosis’ hits the poor hardest. Now we have a good opportunity to do a favour to European employment and sustainable development. Let us pilot Europe towards competitive ports."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples