Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-11-18-Speech-2-170"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20031118.6.2-170"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, I would first of all like to thank the rapporteur and the Commissioner for the debate they have both facilitated. I think that this European Parliament should be proud that every point of view has been heard and every point of view considered.
The original text was, quite rightly, heavily opposed and indeed heavily amended. It looked at ports through the wrong end of the telescope. Rather than competition between the ports it focused on competition within the ports – a little like single market legislation to increase competition within a supermarket rather than between supermarkets. It failed to tackle unfair state aids or the lack of transparency of accounts. In particular it threatened the successful United Kingdom model of ports, some of which, in my region, are amongst the busiest and indeed I would say the most successful anywhere in the world. To be fair, some of these deficiencies have been addressed, but conciliation failed to successfully address many key concerns. It failed to exclude self-handling or to ensure compulsory authorisations – the 'must or may' issue – and it failed, in particular, to exclude marine pilots from the scope of the directive.
However, this is not about what is in it but rather what is not in it. There was no real action, in my view, to tackle transparency or unfair state aids. This Parliament should also be concerned that there is no consensus either within Parliament or with society outside. I am aware of the wide range of views, both for and against. However, I am concerned in particular that we do not have the support of port workers themselves. British Labour MEPs are also very concerned that important British groups are objecting to this proposal, and we should all be concerned when British marine pilots and, in particular, British ships' officers are recommending that this proposal be voted down on safety grounds alone. I said at the beginning of the process in 2001 that this proposal should be rejected and sent back to the Commission. Given that our key concerns remain, British Labour MEPs are going to be consistent. We owe it to British jobs, the future of investment in our ports and above all safety to reject this proposal."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples