Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-11-18-Speech-2-176"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20031118.6.2-176"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, a parallel has repeatedly been drawn between the problem of ports and port services and the problem of airports and airport services, and the issue of security has been raised as a crucial reason for rejecting the current text, essentially security relating to the issue of pilotage and also with regard to the issue of self-handling in general. I would like to say that I believe it is a mistake to compare air traffic with self-handling.
Ladies and gentlemen, I wonder whether we have read the same text. If we look at the issue of pilotage, it also says that – we know that pilotage has a very important component and that it therefore requires certain types of supplementary guarantee: ‘the competent authorities may recognise the obligatory nature ...’. It is true: they will be able to. If there is really a security risk, do you believe that any national authority is not going to recognise the obligatory nature of pilotage? Ladies and gentlemen, I believe that we are talking about risks which do not exist.
Another issue is the pressure from the dockers’ unions. This is another matter which is politically very important and is very respectable, I do not doubt, but let us remember that we are talking about pressure from a specific group, it is one of the examples always used in certain economics and sociology books, because they have been very well organised for a very long time. What we have is a problem of pressure or of relationships with these unions. That is another matter, ladies and gentlemen.
Do not mix it up with security problems, however. Let us not talk about something which is not the case. I could accept you saying to me: ‘there is a political problem, we need the support of the unions, they are against it and we cannot vote for it’. I would have no objection. I would say that that is politically entirely understandable, but do not tell me that it is a security problem. It is not. At least I believe there is no such problem, ladies and gentlemen. It is not a security problem, but a political problem. Let us call things by their name and therefore take on, each and every one of us, our responsibilities. Because I believe that if we deal with this political problem involving the dockers – which I believe not to be justified because there will be more work for them and more opportunities in our ports if we approve this directive – we will be able to achieve greater efficiency in our ports and this is crucial in order to promote cabotage.
How are we really going to develop more cabotage in the European Union if we do not improve the performance and efficiency of our current port services? Ladies and gentlemen, we have a deadlock here which is preventing us from going any further and we need this cabotage. In the next 10 years we need European cabotage to increase its capacities by at least 40% because anything which does not go by sea will go by road. We also need the railways to increase by 40%, but cabotage must take up at least 40%, even a little more, in order to take the burden off the roads.
Ladies and gentlemen, the dockers are very respectable, I agree. However – and I would ask you once again to reconsider the issue – it is not a problem of security we are discussing here, but a problem of union forces. We are currently dealing with the problem of a form of transport which is genuinely sustainable over time, an efficient form of transport which we need in the European Union for our competitiveness and also for our citizens and for the development of all our countries and for the improvement of the environment.
Thank you very much, Mr President, thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen. Whatever the result is, we will continue working once again and I will continue to count on your support, as I do generally in relation to all the initiatives I present.
I do believe it makes sense to compare openness and competition in port services with that in airport services. At the time, this also provoked all sorts of arguments and it was said that it was going to jeopardise security in airports. This has not turned out to be the case. On the contrary, what we have seen has been greater activity and more opportunities for everybody in airports.
Liberalisation has been proposed and today aircraft maintenance services in airports are liberalised. At the time it was said that this would pose enormous risks in terms of aircraft safety.
There are currently companies which resolve certain issues themselves. Other companies, on the other hand, employ third-party service providers. There are various possibilities, and this reduces costs for aviation – and the honourable Members are the first to benefit, as are all we citizens of the European Union – and none of this has meant an undermining of security in aviation. What we have had is more activity, more employment and more opportunities. And that is what we are proposing.
Air traffic is equivalent to maritime traffic. On the entry to the majority of large ports, there is maritime traffic, which is controlled by means of totally modern systems. We are not talking about liberalising and implementing the various controls of maritime traffic in ports, nobody is proposing that. Let us not mix up things which cannot be mixed up. Let us make comparisons which make sense.
The liberalisation of the aircraft maintenance service has not in any way undermined the security of aircraft. Is any port authority, or any government of our countries going to take a decision which suddenly means that a ship hits a jetty or fills airports with inappropriate waste or that there is an accident?
Ladies and gentlemen, we are operating within certain frameworks which guarantee the viability of a liberalisation of this nature, which allows greater competition and port activity, greater opportunity and capacity for ports, greater development of cabotage and therefore greater development of maritime traffic, in order to decongest other types of transport which are currently completely congested.
What is so worrying in Belgium? It has the legislation left by the previous Belgian Minister in relation to ports. They are not going to have to change it. They may have to make some modifications. And they will have to justify why pilotage, self-handling, is carried out. The reasons for which self-handling can be restricted are ‘safety considerations or requirements resulting from environmental rules’ (Article 10), amongst others.
Furthermore, Article 16 states that ‘the provisions of the present Directive shall not in any way affect the national rules in the field of professional qualifications and training requirements, employment and social issues provided that they are compatible with Community legislation’."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples