Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-01-17-Speech-2-020"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060117.5.2-020"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, this rehashed directive will be decided during the Presidency of Austria, which has no ports at all. It follows a chaotic vote in the Committee on Transport and Tourism when there was real doubt about the correct result. Britain, may I remind you, is an island with over 100 commercial ports and the biggest, Southampton, is in my constituency. It adds over GBP 2 billion to the British economy every year and the local economy enjoys another GBP 200 million from the cruise industry alone. These are big numbers.
As a global trading nation, the United Kingdom handles more international freight than any other EU country and port management there is driven by free enterprise and market forces. There is no public ownership, no state subsidy, so expansion in the development of facilities and services in British ports depends on retaining the confidence of private investors and high standards of service and employment.
This directive will undermine confidence in those standards because it interferes in freely negotiated commercial contracts. It imposes controls that are neither necessary nor desirable. It seeks to solve problems in state-run ports that simply do not exist in Britain. The port authorities know, suppliers of services and facilities know, customers know: the only people who do not appear to know are those in the Commission. Even ship pilots’ proper concerns over safety have met with indifference. Do we really want novices piloting the biggest container ships in the world up narrow tidal waterways and trying to berth them safely?
Whenever the EU starts talking about creating a level playing field it reveals a fundamental ignorance of enterprise. British ports use their initiative and investors’ money to create competitive advantage: the very opposite of a level playing field. If passed, this directive will cost without yielding benefit and will slow down growth and confidence. The House should throw it out."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples