Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-01-17-Speech-2-055"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2006-01-17"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Market access to port services2
dcterms:Language	"el"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20060117.5.2-055"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2006-01-17-Speech-2-0562
lpv:speaker	lp:Nikolaos Sifunakis2
lpv:spokenAs	unknown; Panellinio Socialistiko Kinima (2004-07-20--2007-09-25)3 chair; CULT (2004-07-22--2007-01-14)3 member; Delegation to the EU-Armenia, EU-Azerbaijan and EU-Georgia Parliamentary Cooperation Committees (2004-09-15--2007-09-25)3 member; Conference of Committee Chairs (2004-07-28--2007-01-15)3 substitute; Delegation to the EU-Russia Parliamentary Cooperation Committee (2004-09-15--2007-09-25)3 substitute; TRAN (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)3 member; PES (2004-07-20--2007-09-25)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, Commissioner, the Commission has retabled the proposal for a directive on the liberalisation of port services, but without taking account of why it was rejected by Parliament in 2003. Today's proposal for a directive is basically no different from the previous one. It maintains the provision of self-service, which is out of keeping with the modern working conditions needed in European ports in the sectors of hygiene, safety and quality of port services. Where, in truth, are the proposals for the proper layout of ports? Where are the proposals for modernising the overall functioning of ports? We have not heard the old call for exemption from the scope of the directive for pilot services, which are not a commercial activity but constitute a public service, the objective of which is the safety of shipping and the protection of ports and the marine environment. Nor did we hear about the efforts made by the members of the committee in order to improve the proposal of the European Commission, despite Mr Jarzembowski's honourable efforts. The lack of policy will result in a long period of uncertainty and, of course, there will be no investment climate. The best proposal is to withdraw it."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph