Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-01-17-Speech-2-050"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060117.5.2-050"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"As the previous speeches have shown, this proposal for a directive has caused huge controversy, which has extended way beyond this Chamber, covering many port operators and most workers in the sector. As regards the latter, I should like to state that we understand their protest but do not accept their violent methods. That said, the two committees called upon to give their opinions both declared their opposition to the proposal for a directive, thereby further securing its political fate.
The importance of the port sector, Mr President, needs no added emphasis. We all know that almost all external trade in the EU is conducted through its ports and that the ports employ some 350 000 people directly, not to mention those employed indirectly in the sector. What is more, techniques for moving cargo and equipment are constantly evolving and this requires constant investment and renewal.
The questions that arise are therefore the following:
Is the proposal for a directive conducive to investment, competition and access to the market? Does it respect the rights acquired as regards current operators? Does it violate the principle of subsidiarity? Is it fair as regards compensation in the event of replacing providers? Does it affect the labour market and the social rights of workers in the sector? In a word, does it achieve the objectives of greater efficiency, better competition, more internal market and better services?
Mr Jarzembowski sought to find even-handed answers to these questions, and I therefore wish to congratulate him. It does strike me, however, that this proposal needs to be looked at again, in light of the conditions under which it has been presented by the Commission. What is needed is a political strategy which genuinely stimulates the development of Europe’s ports, as the rapporteur himself points out and amends, which takes account of the current state of affairs in the market and which involves all interested parties, naturally including Parliament. It is for you, Commissioner, to provide the answer. As far as we are concerned, it will obviously be much easier to make a decision in line with the stated objectives."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples