Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-11-18-Speech-2-167"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20031118.6.2-167"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, although the outcome of this conciliation procedure differs from the Commission’s initial proposal, it is still quite negative. We cannot, therefore, support the text that has been proposed since, in addition to its emphasis on liberalisation, its position on the issues of self-handling and pilotage is far removed from that advocated by Parliament. In fact, on the basis of this position, by means of what is known as ‘self-handling’, the shipping company could provide one or more port services for itself, provided that it uses its own seamen and equipment. Furthermore, the proposal does not stipulate that authorisations shall be compulsory, and the Member States would find it hard to restrict these activities, except in special cases.
This situation will cause serious problems for the job stability of port service workers, will hamper the coordination of interactive on-board and on-shore operations and will help to create conflict and a breakdown in solidarity between the established workforce in ports and ships' crews. Safety problems might also arise for facilities and workers, since the seamen might not be familiar with the specific characteristics of the port.
Parliament had suggested that pilotage services should be excluded from the scope of the directive, but the conciliation text states that the competent authorities may, for reasons of public safety, recognise the mandatory nature of pilotage and maintain the service themselves or award the service directly to a single provider. This means that pilotage might also be undertaken on a self-handling basis, with the potential consequences for maritime and environmental safety that this entails, and this is something we cannot accept.
With the various options given to the Member States for imposing more restrictive rules if they wish, there is a possibility that, in future, we will have ports of convenience, in which everything, or almost everything, is permitted, with the inevitable consequences for competition between ports and for maritime safety itself. Hence our vote against this proposal."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples