Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-03-10-Speech-1-123"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030310.5.1-123"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would firstly like to thank you for all your points of view and comments, including those which reject the Commission’s proposal. I believe it is important that we can hold a debate and that you can present your arguments. But there are certain issues I would like to clarify because, having heard some things which have been said here, it appears that we are talking about different texts.
The key is that we are talking about regular personnel. But, as well as regular personnel, I would point out that Article 13(2) states that the national employment and social rules will be obligatory and that social dumping cannot take place. Ladies and gentlemen, please read the way this text has ended up because I believe it is crystal-clear.
I believe we have to consider what we are doing. We do not intend to reduce safety levels, to carry out social dumping, or anything of the kind. If we were to abide by your fears in relation to liberalisations
or
would not be operating, for example, and we would all be living with State monopolies, and I believe that more than one of you makes use of
and
. So do I. Let us see if we can come to an agreement. And we have not as a result reduced safety in European air transport. Let us tell the truth, please. I understand that there has been a protest outside this Parliament. You are politicians, ladies and gentlemen. So am I. We must listen to everybody, but let us tell the truth. Nobody is proposing social dumping. On the contrary, we are talking about guaranteeing social standards and requirements relating to employment, and of regular personnel, not temporary personnel. If we restrict it to just seafaring personnel, we would then, on the contrary, be taking the wrong approach. I believe we also have to consider land-based regular personnel equally.
The third element which you have insisted on once again is that of competition between ports. Of course we are dealing here with competition between ports. What we have to ensure is that that competition is not unfair. And in this regard I agree with the honourable Members and the rapporteur, Mr Jarzembowski, in particular. With regard to Amendment No 10, let us find a solution which can clarify it further, within the limits and margins laid down in the Treaty, which we clearly cannot change by means of this text.
Finally, the issue of timeliness, mentioned by Mr Savary. He said that we should do everything apart from this. Mr Savary, the problems of the maritime sector, maritime safety ... this House has done a lot of work, as have the Commission and the Council, to improve maritime safety and we know, and the honourable Members are perfectly aware, that if the rule we proposed had been in force, we could quite possibly have prevented the last accident. Still more can be done and we are going to do it. But let us not say that we have begun with the ports because that is not true. On the contrary: we are practically ending with the ports.
We have a very serious transport problem in Europe and we must seek solutions which are alternatives to road and rail transport, in other words, land-based transport. In an enlarged Europe, in which distances are increased, the maritime sector has many more possibilities and it makes much more sense to create European cabotage. But in order to create European cabotage and for it to genuinely compete with other transport systems, that is land transport, we need efficient port services. And that is what we intend, once again: to introduce competition into the large ports – I would insist – in a regulated manner, providing social and safety guarantees. That is simply the European model.
Firstly, the general issue of whether or not we want a competitive maritime transport system which can be incorporated into an intermodal network and which can provide an alternative to road transport. Yes or no?
Secondly, we have an entirely ideological question. Some of you believe that monopoly is the ideal situation. Ladies and gentlemen, I believe in principle that the option of healthy competition is much better than a situation of monopoly. This is essentially an ideological question. Having said all this, the facts appear to point more to one side than the other. It is true that there are elements, areas, market segments, which, due to a lack of size, do not allow for several operators. But when there is competition things work better. There is a higher quality of service, better prices and better costs, and more competitiveness.
Ladies and gentlemen, our air sector, as was said a moment ago, does not appear to have suffered as a result of introducing competition. This Parliament wishes to introduce competition into the rail sector and has voted for that by a majority. Here we are talking about also introducing competition into port services in large ports.
Ladies and gentlemen, you say that this puts an end to safety and you link it to the
. What does this have to do with the
? Absolutely nothing, ladies and gentlemen. It bears no relation. I am sorry, but they are different issues. Furthermore, nobody is asking for a reduction in the safety elements. This is why in the fields of pilotage and mooring services, in all these fields, specific and special precautions are being put in place, including in loading. It is said that the port authorities, which have the best knowledge, can regulate conditions in their own cases – which may consist of a certificate or of proven knowledge. We are allowing the port authorities to develop this aspect in accordance with their better knowledge of the situation in each European port.
Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to say that this is a proposal in favour of transport in general and also in favour of creating more work in our ports and having more competitive ports, which have more activity and which can cooperate in the economic development of the European Union. That is what I am in fact doing in transport, in the ports, in the other sectors of transport and in energy. That is quite simply what lies behind the Lisbon spirit.
In fact, what we are talking about here is a fundamental proposal and what we are proposing is the European model.
I will now discuss the second point that has been discussed, which is social dumping. Nobody wants social dumping, ladies and gentlemen. Nobody. We want more work for more activity in ports and furthermore with adequate social guarantees and conditions. Because, according to the European model, competition is introduced while maintaining social standards and guarantees. That is the European model, which is regulated liberalisation and which is not genuine liberalisation. Because liberalisation and regulation in principle appear to be contradictory, but, nevertheless, in Europe we are capable of combining the two elements: the advantages of the market with the guarantees of a system of solidarity. And that is what we are doing, ladies and gentlemen.
I would read two things to the honourable Members. One, what does self-handling mean? Article 9 states that self-handling is the situation in which port services can be provided for an undertaking or by an undertaking for itself using regular personnel, not temporary personnel or personnel employed for a specific task, but ‘regular land-based personnel and/or seafaring crew’."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"Virgin"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples