Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-03-10-Speech-1-095"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030310.5.1-095"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Madam President, firstly, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to thank Parliament for the work it has done to date with regard to this extremely important directive and I would like in particular to thank the rapporteur, Mr Jarzembowski, for the work he has done in relation to this issue, which is extremely important in terms of providing the European Union with a competitive transport system.
Having said this, I would like to make a few brief comments on other issues which Mr Jarzembowski has mentioned.
Firstly, the question of competition between ports. I know this is an issue of great concern to the rapporteur and other Members and furthermore I believe that progress must be made on it. That is why I intend to accept those amendments which propose the inclusion of ports in the Commission’s Directive on transparency. The Commission understands the current concern here. In fact, our recent document on this issue demonstrates our will to resolve the problem while respecting, however, the provisions of the Treaty, Mr Jarzembowski. That is to say, State subsidies have a framework, which is the one we have proposed, but they cannot just simply be regulated, since the Treaty itself lays down the regulatory framework. We must clarify this in order, as I said, to prevent legal doubts or uncertainties. And therefore, Mr Jarzembowski, I must say that Amendment No 15 goes further than such provisions and we cannot accept it.
We are, however, prepared to try to seek, together with this Parliament, an approach which is acceptable to everybody. In this regard, Amendment No 10, duly modified, with certain important alterations in accordance with the solution we may find, could help us to find that compromise formula. I would ask you that we may work as hard as possible to find it as soon as possible.
With regard to Amendment No 16, I must remind you that the Commission, within the context of the so-called ‘range of port measures’, has already carried out a study such as the one requested and unfortunately there was little cooperation on the part of the ports.
Secondly: Mr Jarzembowski has talked about the practice of self-handling. This practice should be allowed in all modern ports where possible, with regard to both operations on board and those on land. The Common Position reflects this desire to send a message of progress and looking forward rather than rigidity. A message of progress but with every guarantee. In this regard, it is made clear that this type of action must comply with the social, environmental and safety standards required in each port and that this demand is essential in order to be able to carry out this self-handling.
Those amendments which seriously restrict this approach – since, in various ways, they hinder self-handling operations – restricting them exclusively to seafaring people, cannot be accepted. Amongst other things – we are talking about ships from third countries and from European Union countries – because these crews are not subject to the same requirements as the professionals who work in our ports and what we are proposing in the Council’s Common Position is that, in order to carry out these actions, they must be carried out within the framework of social and safety standards in accordance with the rules of each port. Because the additional limitation relating to ships flying the Union flag will bring the Union into confrontation with its partners in the world and that must also be avoided.
Finally – briefly – we have always believed that pilotage is a commercial service. Therefore, access to such a service should be regulated by the Treaty and by this directive. For this reason, we support the consensus reached on the common position that authorisations should be conditional upon compliance with certain particularly strict criteria with regard to public service and maritime safety obligations – and again we return to the reality of each port. But this approach can be adapted by means of specific solutions for each port, which allow self-handling, within the field of pilotage, in the form of exemption certificates, under certain conditions.
In conclusion, Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, tomorrow’s vote will have great repercussions on the legislative process. The Commission has always shown itself prepared to seek constructive solutions with the European Parliament. I would like to remind you once again that our general objective is to guarantee that the port services industry, which is expanding greatly, is ready to confront the challenges facing us. Furthermore, the future European transport system will only succeed with efficient and forward-looking ports.
I would therefore like once again to ask you to support this Commission proposal and I would like to congratulate the rapporteur, Mr Jarzembowski, and the whole team which has worked on this text, and all the Members of Parliament for your attention.
We often complain that Europe could use sea transport as an alternative to road transport and land transport in general. However, we are now sometimes being faced with a situation in which those same people who say that we must promote maritime transport create more difficulties when it comes to creating a sea transport system which is more competitive and more suited to the new circumstances.
We clearly need to improve the efficiency of port services, and that is what this initiative intends to do. We need to improve the efficiency of these services, put an end to situations of monopoly, which sometimes mean that the same services cost three or four times more in one European Union port than in another, indicating that something is not working, and – I insist – we must guarantee, by excluding or imposing restrictions and guarantees, so that marine safety aspects are maintained at the highest possible levels.
We in the Commission believe that the Council’s Common Position to a large extent takes account of the amendments approved by this Parliament at first reading which represent a balanced solution for achieving these objectives and I believe it would be a real mistake not to maintain this balance and to change the broad balance established within the Council.
In this regard, ladies and gentlemen, I will explain to you the Commission’s position on the proposed amendments. Some of them clearly improve the Council’s Common Position and the Commission therefore accepts them in their entirety, in principle or in part. In other words, the Commission is once again making an effort to ensure that the codecision system works as well as possible.
In this field, I would firstly like to refer to the amendments which highlight the provisions of the Commission’s directive on transparency with regard to the ports to which the directive we are dealing with apply. This achieves the objective we have all shared from the outset and in this regard I regret the fact that the rapporteur, Mr Jarzembowski, believes that what is proposed here is insufficient. In any event, I will refer later, in particular, to some of the amendments which deal with these aspects.
Secondly, we can accept Amendment No 11 – which relates to a lesser frequency for the review of the list of ports of a high seasonal character – and Amendments Nos 5 and 27 – which provide examples of expensive moveable assets which could be considered equivalent to immovable assets when considering repayments or residual costs. Furthermore, we can support all those amendments which, without going into detail, we believe make appropriate contributions to the common position or those which provide additional clarification, in one way or another, of the final text.
I would once again like to congratulate both Mr Jarzembowski and the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism in general for the work they have done.
Certain amendments, however, appear to attempt to slow down, and even to paralyse, the efforts made to promote this stimulation of European ports, aimed at improving, as I said earlier, the potential of long-distance maritime transport, aiding our exports to other parts of the world, but also short-distance maritime transport, providing an alternative to land transport. We therefore clearly cannot support Amendments Nos 36 and 66 which call for the Council’s Common Position to be rejected."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples