Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-11-18-Speech-2-156"

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	"nl"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20031118.6.2-156"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2003-11-18-Speech-2-1572
lpv:speaker	lp:Jan Marinus Wiersma2
lpv:spokenAs	member; PETI (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 substitute; Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 member; PES (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 chair; Conference of Delegation Chairs (2002-09-25--2004-07-19)3 chair; Delegation to the EU-Ukraine and the EU-Moldova Parliamentary Cooperation Committees and Delegation for relations with Belarus (2002-02-07--2004-07-19)3 member; Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 unknown; Partij van de Arbeid (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 member; Delegation for relations with the NATO Parliamentary Assembly (2002-02-07--2004-07-19)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, there is a world of difference between the words ‘must’ and ‘may’. The Directive that is now in front of us following conciliation states that ports may introduce a system of authorisations, and then, in particular, for ports doing loading and unloading work themselves. The Jarzembowski report, which we adopted earlier at second reading, still states that ports introduce a system of authorisations. A significant part of the compromise text differs from the text adopted at second reading. The difference between ‘may’ and ‘must’ has significant implications for ports and dockers in Europe. A non-compulsory authorisation system promotes unfair competition, which can harm quality of employment in the ports that do have a good authorisation system. Surely that was not the intention of this liberalisation. Second-class ports would remain, and the unfair competition resulting from this could harm quality of employment in the well-organised ports. One point has always taken priority in my party, the Dutch Labour Party, and that is our minimum. The scenario of ports doing loading and unloading themselves must be well regulated by means of a good authorisation system that applies across the board. This was conceded in the conciliation procedure. There is now to be no compulsory authorisation system for self-handling. In short, genuine harmonisation on a key issue such as ports doing their own loading and unloading is out of the question, as a result of which there can be different regimes in different ports. It has thus become a bad example of liberalisation. It is remarkable, however, that the EU is able to lay down detailed rules for all and sundry in many situations, but has proved unable to do so in this case, where job quality is concerned. We have to explain that once again to those people whose interests are at issue here. It will surprise no one, therefore, having heard my speech, that my group has no choice but to vote against this directive."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph