Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-01-17-Speech-2-022"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060117.5.2-022"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to join many others in the sharp criticism levelled at the Commission for the way in which it has handled this issue. It remains astonishing how the Commission, less than a year after the previous port directive was rejected, launched a fresh proposal without consulting the sector, or Parliament for that matter, knowing full well how sensitive this issue is. I would like to make a point of saying this because I am convinced things could have gone differently had there been a willingness early on to enter into dialogue with the parties involved.
I do know, however, that Mr Barrot is not particularly happy with this dossier either, and my comments are therefore not meant for him personally, but they need expressing nevertheless. He knows, as well as I do, that it is not only the methodology, but also the content, of the text that meets with major opposition in the sector. The trade unions are obviously concerned about the extent of self-handling, but the proposal has also come under heavy criticism from ports, port companies, pilots and even ship owners.
Mr Jarzembowski deserves credit for making an attempt to save the day despite all this, but I beg to differ with him as far as content is concerned. Given the way in which this dossier was submitted and subsequently received by the sector, we have no choice but to reject it comprehensively and to ask the Commission to go back to the drawing board.
Approval would be an act of bad governance, certainly because we have no idea whatsoever what the outcome of the vote could be. If you want to build a house, but know that the foundations are inadequate, you have no choice but to stop the building work and start again. Rejection means that the ports will simply be able to continue working, as they have done for the past 40 to 50 years with spectacular growth figures in many cases.
This does not mean, of course, that we can afford to sit back. The Commission should take its time, mull things over, enter into a discussion with the sector and study what there is in ports that really requires a European approach. A fresh Green Paper or White Paper, as is suggested by some, strikes me as a good approach and the Commission can, meanwhile, focus on what is needed across the sector, namely clear rules on transparency with regard to government investments. We need to reject this proposal first, though."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples