Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-11-18-Speech-2-163"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20031118.6.2-163"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I should like to explain why, tomorrow, I shall vote against the compromise proposal from the conciliation committee.
The amendments adopted by Parliament during its reading of the report were a serviceable compromise between those who want a total liberalisation of port services and those who think we should take account of our workers. Unfortunately, little remains of Parliament’s amendments, which means that European port workers will face an uncertain future if the compromise is adopted. If we accept the compromise, port workers will lose their jobs, simply because seafarers on ships calling at EU ports have been allowed to handle cargoes. In that way, the EU will lose a large number of jobs. We do not want ports of convenience, just as we do not want ships sailing under flags of convenience. In Scandinavia, we have seen examples of port workers refusing to handle goods from ships on which the working and wage conditions were not in order. Now, an attempt is being made to get rid of this solidarity by means of a bad piece of EU legislation.
Those campaigning for liberalisation say that not so many people are in any case employed on modern ships and that the Port Directive will not therefore mean fewer port workers. It is, however, precisely because there are not especially many people employed on modern ships that we should leave it to the competent port workers to ensure that cargoes are handled properly. Parliament’s demand for certification has, moreover, been squeezed out of the wording of the directive in the course of the conciliation committee’s work. We are now therefore opening the door to poorly trained labour that may jeopardise port security.
When we talk about security in EU ports, there are two considerations to be borne in mind, namely the security of people who work in the ports and the security of the goods handled. I myself come from a seaport in Denmark, and I am very familiar indeed with the problems. We have solved them by cooperating with the larger neighbouring ports. We divide up the amount of goods and, in that way, ensure optimum use of the different ports, at the same time as preserving free competition.
I would call upon everyone to vote against the compromise, for where would the unemployed port workers go? What training opportunities do they have? To my fellow MEP, Mrs Langenhagen, who was in some doubt as to how she should vote, I have to say that she should vote according to her conviction and not follow group discipline. It is too bad that group discipline is allowed to decide these matters. There is, therefore, only one way, namely to vote in accordance with one’s convictions. If, moreover, the port workers are to be given help, we can give it them by voting against this bad document from the conciliation committee."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples