Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-11-30-Speech-3-215"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20051130.19.3-215"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, the rapporteur has managed to secure a majority for her report in the Committee on Transport and Tourism. Despite it being a majority, it is striking how many Members abstained from the vote; 20 voted in favour, 7 against and there were no fewer than 19 abstentions. Needless to say, I was, despite the outcome, very disappointed about that.
I would therefore beg to differ with the previous speakers. Article 81 of the Treaty stipulates that cooperatives that distort the market are not compatible with Community law. Paragraph 3 of the same article formulates, however, a number of exceptions which must be met in order to allow those cooperatives to go ahead after all. On that basis, a block exemption shall apply to the liner trade under Regulation 4056/1986. The Commission has launched an inquiry into the question to what extent this block exemption is still admitted in 2005. Are the conditions of Article 81 (3) still being met? The Commission has reached the conclusion that that is not the case and would thus like to review the rules. The Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe supports the Commission in this, and our Amendment 10, among others, is evidence of this.
In paragraph 9, the rapporteur flags that the four cumulative conditions of Article 81(3) are only partly being met. At the same time, the rapporteur calls for the enforcement of a cooperative. This raises some question marks, to put it mildly. After all, if the conditions are only partly being met, we can quite clearly state that they are not being met, because the four conditions are really cumulative in nature.
The members of the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats and the Socialist Group in the European Parliament were concerned about the impact a possible review may have on the shipping companies of the SME sector. What businesses are we talking about then? The likes of Pino Nedlloyd, Hapag Lloyd, APL, MYK? To include these businesses under the heading of SMEs is, to my mind, going too far.
Nevertheless, the Commission has taken this on board and commissioned a study, among other things, to clarify the impact on the so-called smaller businesses. This study has now been published and what is the conclusion? The repeal of the regulation leads to lower transport prices and better service, and smaller shipping companies have not experienced any drawbacks. This stands to reason, for the SME sector is mainly on the side of the consumers and shippers. However, if Amendment 17 is anything to go by, both the Group of the European People’s Party and the Socialist Group in the European Parliament remain unconvinced.
I would like to call on my fellow Member to have another careful look at paragraph 1. According to the text before us, the objective of the review is to maintain and extend the European line trade sector in the framework of the Lisbon Strategy. This strikes me as a misconception. The objective of this review, as indeed that of the Lisbon Strategy, is to create a competitive climate in which the sector can operate as efficiently and effectively as possible. It has never been the intention to protect the sector on the basis of improper arguments.
Finally, I should like to ask my fellow Members to have another closer look at the amendments – namely Amendment 1 to 14 – that I have tabled together with the Group of the Greens; I probably did this against my better judgment, but I did it all the same. In this respect, the Commission does deserve more support than it is currently getting. Finally, unlike the rapporteur, Mrs Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou, I wholeheartedly endorse Commissioner McCreevy’s conclusions."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples