Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-11-18-Speech-2-144"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20031118.6.2-144"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, one can have the same goals, Commissioner, whilst nevertheless pursuing them by different means. German ports, at any rate, are currently enjoying impressive growth, and doing so without this directive. Things can evidently go the other way. This week, this House has had the great opportunity to make it clear that, far from us being the Council’s agent, our primary obligation is to people, citizens and workers.
Let me remind you: at second reading stage, all of us in this House, by very, very large majorities, joined together in calling for three important things: we wanted the ports’ financial relations to be made transparent and put on a regulated footing, and that has, in part, been achieved. We wanted pilotage services in shipping not to be just any port service like tugboats or mooring, subject to the prevalent great economic pressure that there is in ports, and not to be subject to competition but committed to safety. Being a special public task, pilotage services do not belong in this directive, but we have not managed to keep them out of it. One very important point is that we wanted self-handling to be restricted to the ship and its crew, but with discretionary approval and with decent conditions in terms of social security and labour law. Let me quote once again: ‘Self-handlers shall be treated in the same way as other port service providers. To this end, self-handlers must adhere to the same standards of social protection and possess the same vocational qualifications as other service providers in the same, or a similar, port system.’ That is what the Council rejected; that is what we failed to achieve. We cannot, then, describe this as a fair compromise; it is more like kow-towing to the Council.
If, then, you want the pilots, who guide ships safely into our ports, to continue to have obligations in terms of safety and the environment, then you have to reject what has come out of this conciliation procedure. If you want to deny social dumping a foothold in our ports, and want instead to enable qualified workers to operate under good social conditions; if you want social harmony to be maintained in our ports, then you have to reject this directive. I am all in favour of looking at these compromises to see if the glass is half full or half empty, but, in this instance, the glass is not half-full of water; it contains just a few drops for Parliament, and I can tell the Council that it cannot be in Parliament’s interest to start by taking up a firm position and then being satisfied with little. This is not just about the matter in hand, but also, in this instance, about our conception of our parliamentary function. That is why I strongly urge – as does my group – that we reject the whole thing."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples