Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-01-17-Speech-2-017"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060117.5.2-017"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, legislation at European Union level or the imposition of obligations to harmonise national legislation of Member States is only of any use if it solves problems. For the people working in the ports, this port directive only causes them.
The Commission has opened up the possibility of self-handling, as a result of which trained specialists, who know how to move cargo safely and accurately, could well be replaced by cheap ships’ crews from outside of Europe. Even if this Member State obligation is taken out of the directive, it still remains detrimental to ports where governments own the port’s inner harbours, the quays and adjacent industrial sites.
As a result of compulsory periodic tendering for operators, the people who work there could lose their jobs when the contract expires. Continuity will then remain possible only in private ports, provided, that is, that they do not go into receivership or are not bought by the competition.
This proposal has met with huge opposition, starting in 2003, when it was eventually rejected at third reading, only for Commissioner De Palacio, just before her departure in 2004, to leave the repeat of this proposal behind like a ticking time bomb. An important underlying motive may well have been that there were interested parties outside of ports that wanted to make transport by sea even cheaper. That is astonishing, given that the rates in Europe are lower than those in Asia or America and also because they are only a negligible part of the production costs for industry.
Commissioner De Palacio’s official main argument was to promote shipping between Spain and Italy as an alternative to the huge stream of lorries that drive along the southern coast of France. Even without a port directive, this short-distance sea transport appears to have skyrocketed already in recent years. Moreover, it is reported that the impact on the German, Dutch, Belgian and French ports along the North Sea and the Channel with their major common hinterland would create chaos.
As long ago as 1998, this House took the view that a possible port directive should focus on putting investments paid with taxpayers’ money in the public domain and that it should also focus on the extent to which the rates included cover the costs. The Commission’s two subsequent proposals did nothing of the kind.
Nevertheless, whilst up to a week ago, the Christian Democrats and Liberals, half of this House in other words, were backing this proposal, now, virtually nobody seems to believe in it anymore. We can defuse this time bomb in tomorrow’s vote once and for all."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples