Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-11-13-Speech-2-195"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20011113.9.2-195"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would firstly like to thank Mr Jarzembowski for all the work he has done as rapporteur throughout this debate. It has clearly been difficult work, and we must all be aware of what is at stake here.
All competent service providers must have equal opportunities to operate in the ports of their choice. This brings me to the second pillar of our proposal: procedures. The procedural rules must be transparent, non-discriminatory, objective and proportionate. This is not always the case at the moment.
I am convinced that what was possible for ground services at airports must also be possible for ports. And I believe that, although it is going to create certain problems, as is always the case when there is a change to a situation that has remained the same for a long time, perhaps even for centuries, it is certain that this change will be of benefit to the whole system, to the economy and to the quality of life of the citizens of the European Union in general.
Of course, specific local characteristics must be taken into account, above all on issues relating to safety, the environment and social aspects. Our proposal will therefore allow for a high level of flexibility on a national, regional and, above all, local level, so that ports can manage their own affairs in an open and balanced fashion.
Focussing now on the amendments, I would like to say that, having examined them in detail, the Commission can accept most of them. Many amendments improve our proposal substantially with regard to the clarification of the definitions of port services and self-handling and they include compensation rules which are not only implicit, but also explicit, as is the case with Amendments Nos 18, 20, 32 and, in part, Amendment No 46, which we fully accept. I would also like to mention Amendment No 15, which allows Member States to extend the scope of the directive to inland waterways close to ports.
Furthermore, we accept part of Amendments Nos 25 and 44 which limit, for reasons of maritime safety, the number of service providers rather than that of just providers of technical-nautical services. It is a reasonable measure and it is in accordance with the Commission’s general interests in the field of maritime safety.
We also agree with the idea that the time period finally approved in relation to the maximum periods of authorisation should facilitate normal repayment and performance of investments, and we therefore accept an extension of the time limit and also, possibly, compensation where total repayment has not taken place, as certain other amendments suggest.
There are other amendments that, although they do not introduce changes, provide useful clarifications, particularly in relation to the continued application of the rules currently in force with regard to safety, the environment and social issues. All of these amendments can be accepted, though with modifications to their wording.
However, there are issues that we cannot accept, for various different reasons, and you must understand this, ladies and gentlemen. In the case of certain amendments to the recitals of the directive, they do not really correspond to the legislative text itself, for example: Amendments Nos 2, 3 and 12. Neither can the Commission accept amendments that substantially change or reduce the scope of the directive.
Having reached this point, please allow me to point out two problems which have been at the centre of the debates in Parliament’s Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism: should ground services be included in the scope of the directive? The enormous majority of parties accept that this inclusion is necessary, and we could not accept any amendment, such as No 52, which leads to the exclusion of this sector. If we want modern, high-quality ports, that which is possible and necessary for ground services in airports must also be possible and necessary in ports. Furthermore, this position received majority support in the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism.
The same is true with the amendments aimed at excluding self-handling and the right of service providers to employ the personnel of their choice, such as Amendments Nos 69, 70, 71, 72 and 73, which are also rejected. The latter is already included in the legislation. However, if you read our proposal correctly, you will see that service providers cannot employ so-called ‘pirate workers’. It is not possible. If these misunderstandings can be overcome by clarifying our text, the Commission is prepared to seek an appropriate wording.
I would therefore ask Parliament as a whole to try to give the rapporteur the greatest support possible, with certain slight modifications to what Mr Jarzembowski proposes, since, for once, I do not agree with some of his suggestions.
Another problem is the issue of pilotage. The question is once again whether pilotage can be included in the directive or not. Many people believe that certain safety considerations make it difficult to include this particular sector, but there are ways to ensure safety which are different from those which are currently applied. The same is true for other technical-nautical services, which is why the Commission cannot accept those amendments which exclude
pilotage from the scope of the directive. In this regard also, Parliament’s relevant committee supported our proposal.
Certain other amendments are also unacceptable for various reasons: specifically, economic considerations concerning the service provider should not be a criterion, as is mentioned in the second part of Amendment No 25. Service providers must accept commercial risks and public authorities must not carry out economic assessments. Having said this, our proposal leaves a door open: when exceptional circumstances arise relating to the volume of cargo, the number of service providers may be restricted.
Furthermore, without going into detail, we cannot accept various amendments for technical reasons and the list is available to you.
Lastly, I would like to refer to Amendment No 26. Our proposal indicates that normally, and I repeat, normally, at least two service providers will have to be authorised for each category of cargo. If we were to remove this article, we would have to apply the rule established in another paragraph, which would authorise the greatest possible number of service providers, a consequence which I do not believe was intended on presenting this amendment.
Certain amendments express the desire to put more stress on competition between ports than the Commission’s package on ports does. Please allow me to deal with this issue by saying that I agree with the need to consider competition between ports as well, but I think that we need to find a more appropriate way of doing so.
For example, the increase in transparency: Amendments Nos 9 and 48. The Commission accepts this principle and I am counting on your support so that we can jointly find the best way to apply this principle.
Another example is the State aid mentioned in Amendment No 49. We all agree that this State aid should not exist, but we must first provide a clear definition of the dividing line between what is State aid and what is not. The Treaty lays down that the Commission and only the Commission applies the Treaty’s rules in the field of State aid.
The current legislative process will focus on this issue and I hope that we can sit down together to find a viable solution, within the framework of the Treaty, which clarifies such a thorny issue. And if it is necessary to go further – and I have the impression from what you have said, and I share many of your concerns, that this is the case – I must say that I am prepared to go further than the provisions of the current proposal in the fields of State aid to ports and competition between ports.
Lastly, a few words on Amendment No 79, which proposes excluding private ports, many of which do not apply access restrictions. During the legislative process, we will have to study ways of suitably dealing with this issue.
Of course, this is only the beginning of the legislative process. During this long process, the Commission will be open to finding constructive solutions with the European Parliament which will allow us to be able to count upon the broadest possible support for this proposal, which is aimed at ensuring that a mature industry, an industry which has much to gain from the restructuring of the European transport industry, can meet the challenges before us and make a crucial contribution to our creating a sustainable transport system at the service of economic development, the creation of jobs, respect for the environment and the quality of life of our citizens.
I would like to remind you that 70% of trade with third countries depends on the efficiency of our ports. It is clear that sea ports play an essential role in relation to the European Union’s trade. But furthermore, if we want to deal with the future of transport within the European Union in a credible fashion, not trade between the European Union and third countries, where we will continue to depend largely on sea transport, but within the European Union, we must move on from words and declarations to actions, once and for all, and make short sea shipping a reality. This requires our ports to be as competitive, as efficient and as well-interconnected with adjacent territories as possible.
As you know, to this end, a few months ago, ports were incorporated into the trans-European networks for the first time, precisely so that they may be fully integrated into the Union’s internal transport system and thereby play a crucial role in making that system sustainable and competitive.
The Commission’s proposal is part of a package which deals with various issues of port policy: the transparency of flows of public funds destined for ports; criteria for what is State aid and what is not. It deals with aspects relating to competition between ports. The proposed directive which you must vote on deals with the issue of competition between service providers within ports, covering all the services that are normally provided to port users and are of commercial value.
In a moment I will mention something which several of you have referred to; competition between ports.
However, now we are going to talk about the proposed directive relating to competition within ports. The proposal is based on two pillars: one relating to content and the other to procedures. With regard to content, we propose bringing ourselves into line with the legislation passed by Parliament and the Council in similar areas, where rules have been established to open up the markets. I am talking about telecommunications, gas, electricity, but especially, in the transport sector, ground services at airports.
Although the Treaty does not in principle allow restrictions to market access, the ports have their own specific characteristics such as possible space limitations and the fundamental importance of safety and environmental issues. Our proposal guarantees a fair balance between these needs.
I am pleased to note that, in its vote, the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism expressed its satisfaction with this approach. We must allow self-handling in ports where operators consider that they can obtain better performance from their own personnel and equipment and we must guarantee that, as in the case of all the other sectors, the number of service providers can only be restricted for justifiable reasons, such as space limitations, or the safety of sea traffic in this case."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples