Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-01-17-Speech-2-015"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060117.5.2-015"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, almost 50 years since the Community was founded, there is now still no specific legislative framework for port services. The ports sector is the only transport sector in which problems involving the free movement of services have to be solved one by one by the Commission and via the Court of Justice. Of course, port services come under the fundamental freedoms listed by the EC Treaty – that is to say, freedom of movement and the right of establishment, as mentioned by yourself, Commissioner – and the general principles of the Treaty do not take full account of the special conditions that apply in ports. That is why a legislative framework is needed for the ports sector.
We in the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe are, then, in favour of a ports directive, albeit not in the form presented in the Commission’s proposal. Indeed, very few people support a directive in that form. We have supported the rapporteur, Mr Jarzembowski, in his efforts to transform this directive into something more sensible. In the light of the developments reflected in Mr Jarzembowski’s efforts, I have been surprised at the violent demonstrations against the Commission’s proposal, which does not, of course, have an earthly chance of being adopted in its present form. Mr Jarzembowski is to remove self-handling from the proposal in order to make it less controversial. That said, we have to listen to bizarre and untrue assertions about Filipino dockworkers poised to take over the jobs of port workers. Meanwhile, the port workers have repaid the good will that exists by staging disturbances in front of our Parliament building and smashing a large number of windows in the facade. I think this shows a lack of understanding of, and indeed contempt for, the democratic process.
We need a ports directive that can establish the framework for free competition between service providers in ports and also for such freer competition between ports as will provide a safeguard against state aid that distorts competition. The Commission’s very point of departure is that, by putting an end to the monopolies, we could obtain more efficient and better run ports. We should then see more goods transported by ship, something that would reduce the burden on both the roads and the environment. This objective has, however, been completely lost sight of in the debate. It has to be recognised that the Commission’s proposal contains a number of weaknesses. We think that better account needs to be taken of the ability of service providers to pay interest on, and write off, the often very large investments they have to make. There must be better transitional rules when new service providers take over from old ones.
If the directive ends up being rejected – as many of us believe, but do not hope, it will be – the document should be used in future work involving a new impact analysis of legislation in this area. Given the chaotic nature of developments so far, it is understandable that many should want the Commission to withdraw the proposal. I have to say that my own group does not have a unanimous view on the approach we should adopt to this issue. Precisely in view of the chaotic way things have gone, there are many who will simply vote against the proposal, but we continue to be interested in a ports directive."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples