Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-11-20-Speech-4-078"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20031120.4.4-078"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Yes to liberalisation, but on the right terms.
I am in favour of opening port services to competition, subject to conditions, which ensure satisfactory safety standards.
I chose to abstain on the compromise that emerged from the conciliation procedure, because the result of the interinstitutional negotiations fail to reflect the work that has been done over a period of more than two years. Had the text been approved as it now stands, port services would have been opened to competition on terms which were far removed from the reality of seaport operations and, more seriously, which were detrimental to maritime safety.
On the issue of self-handling, there should have been a provision designed to guarantee that each of the handling services would be performed by suitably qualified staff, but the draft in its present form contains no such provision.
I am in favour of gradual opening of port services to competition, and I am convinced of its beneficial economic effects, but all these things have to be properly prepared. As the elected representative of a coastal city, I do not consider that the proposed directive was worded in such a way that it corresponded to the actual situation on the ground. This radical change in the life of seaports has to be prepared differently. Ideally, each port service should be the subject of a specific instrument rather than being crammed into an ‘all-inclusive’ package like this latest proposal. I hope that the Commission’s future proposals will be based on this different approach."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples