Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-01-17-Speech-2-018"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060117.5.2-018"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, the French delegation of the Independence and Democracy Group is in favour of promoting maritime transport. In the current legal context, maritime transport yields good results. In 2000, 41% of the bulk consignments transferred within Europe were transported via maritime transport, compared with 43% transported via road transport. Yet, do we need this port services directive in order to promote this effective mode of transport?
The aim of this new proposal is to overcome the failure of the first package on port services, which was rejected by this very Parliament. This new proposal takes up the main points contained in the first arrangement. The scope remains the same, the list of services is identical and the promotion of competition remains excessive. The few changes affecting this text do nothing to improve it. The authorisations issued to the providers of port services genuinely give rise to suspicion. The burden of new procedures will give rise to a whole host of disputes, and the management costs will increase as a result of legal uncertainty. The authorisation periods do not take account of the long period of time required to justify significant investment decisions. This succession of patch-up jobs belies an impulsive move made without any serious impact study.
The study published by the British Transport Ministry on 26 August 2005 even falls under the heading of aggravating circumstances: an increase in the ticket granting entry into the market and an allowance granted to large suppliers at the expense of small companies. Changes affecting self-handling are re-igniting criticism of social dumping. This crucial issue shows just how central the Bolkestein Directive continues to be to all of the Union’s arrangements. Therefore, despite Article 4 and the exclusion of transport services from the ‘Services’ Directive, we know that these are the kinds of ploys we are used to in this House.
Yes, maritime transport needs specific and precise reforms. Yes, this directive is primarily designed to disguise a new and obvious failure on the part of the Union’s institutions. Yes, maritime transport needs sovereign States that make it clear how they stand. Consequently …"@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples