Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-11-18-Speech-2-143"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2003-11-18"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Market access to port services2
dcterms:Language	"el"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20031118.6.2-143"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2003-11-18-Speech-2-1442
lpv:speaker	lp:Konstantinos Hatzidakis2
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 member; Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 unknown; Nea Dimokratia (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 member; EPP-ED (2002-03-08--2004-07-19)3 member; Delegation to the EU-Armenia, EU-Azerbaijan and EU-Georgia Parliamentary Cooperation Committees (2002-02-07--2004-07-19)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, today, with the report by Mr Jarzembowski, whom I should like to congratulate on the lengthy efforts he has made to bring us to this point, we are essentially doing no more than what we did when Parliament called for postal services to be opened up to competition, railway services to be opened up to competition and air transport to be opened up to competition. It would be strange if this Parliament, which has been at the vanguard of opening up these services, came along tomorrow and said, for incomprehensible reasons – to me at least – that there must be an exception from this long line of action to open up all these services to competition and that the exception was port services. At the end of the day, as Mrs de Palacio said, numerous positions expressed by Parliament were accepted during discussions with the Council. Pilotage services, which are an exception, self-handling, which has been restricted to on board ship, competition between ports, where basically Parliament's position was accepted, while the Commission – at the beginning of the procedure at least – was against. Protecting employment rights, where there is an express provision in the directive that we cannot have a lower level of protection than that which exists in each Member State. Consequently, I at least honestly fail to understand why certain people continue to oppose what we have achieved which, it should be pointed out, does not make industry absolutely happy, especially the shipowners, who wanted something bolder. I, for my part, think that this compromise which we have before us serves the interests of industry to a certain degree in that there are other service providers – it breaks the monopoly and there is greater choice – and it serves the workers, because in this way new companies are being created and new companies mean new jobs. Consequently, it is a step forward, which is why we must support the outcome of the conciliation and vote yes."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph