Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-03-10-Speech-1-107"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2003-03-10"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Market access to port services2
dcterms:Language	"fr"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20030310.5.1-107"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2003-03-10-Speech-1-1082
lpv:speaker	lp:Gilles Savary2
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 member; PES (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 substitute; Delegation to the EU-Czech Republic Joint Parliamentary Committee (2002-02-07--2004-04-30)3 unknown; Parti socialiste (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 vice-chair; Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism (2002-01-21--2004-07-19)3 member; Delegation to the EU-Kazakhstan, EU-Kyrgyzstan and EU-Uzbekistan Parliamentary Cooperation Committees and Delegation for relations with Tadjikistan, Turkmenistan and Mongolia (2002-02-07--2004-07-19)3
lpv:translated text	"Commissioner, I must reiterate the position of the French socialists on this document. Consideration of this report began in confusion during the first reading. We are opposed to it for three main reasons. Firstly, we believe that, if we want to purse the aim of sustainable mobility as part of our policy on ports as proposed in the White Paper, the problem of competition in ports is certainly not the most appropriate or timely way of approaching the issue. At stake are problems concerning the development of different areas, the North-South balance and congestion problems in the Pas-de-Calais area, in particular. It seems to us that the Commission has failed to respond to this issue and is displaying a haste to liberalise port services which we feel will have no real impact. Secondly, although we are in favour of competition, it must have an equitable basis. The Commissioner said a few moments ago that there is a one to three ratio between the prices charged by different European ports. While this is probably true, the main explanation lies in the radically different social conditions in different countries. Without directives on social issues, collective agreements and harmonised statutes, what has happened to road transport for example, will also happen to ports. In other words, competition will not be fair but will entail a levelling-down of social conditions. The dock workers understand well that we are not implementing competition but a terrible mechanism to reduce prices and salaries. Thirdly, we are completely opposed to the way the concept of self-handling has been introduced. Why are we opposed to this? Mr Hatzidakis wondered why we should not liberalise everything now that we have liberalised one sector. He is fully aware that the greatest amount of social malpractice probably takes place in the maritime sector. We fear that self-handling would simply be an excuse for significant social dumping. We would like to pose the following questions. How can we guarantee that national social standards will be complied with when they are all different? Who will ensure compliance with social standards? How can we ensure that multinational crews, comprising Philippinos and Malaysians, for example, respect social standards? How can we ensure fair competition with the port’s dock workers? This is why we propose the common position be rejected. This is doubtless also why the dock workers are demonstrating their discontent."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph