Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-01-17-Speech-2-058"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060117.5.2-058"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, even though the debate was not a chorus of praise, I have listened very carefully to each and every one of you.
That is the situation, however. I am aware that there are two schools of thought among you. There are those who say that the initial text is not amendable, and then there are those who say that it could be corrected. That is your rapporteur’s theory. Mr President, my task is a difficult one. I want to affirm my respect for Parliament: on the one hand, I have to respect the work done by your committee and, on the other hand, I also have to respect the opinion that will be expressed during a vote.
Is it not in fact sensible to wait for the vote so that I can draw all the necessary conclusions? It seems to me that, in a healthy democracy, there can be the opportunity to vote. That is what I believe, and I am not offending Parliament when I tell it to reach a verdict, while I perhaps regret the fact that this procedure does not allow it to reach a verdict on a text that has been improved – I have no hesitation in saying this – by the committee.
Be that as it may, Mr President – and I say this somewhat solemnly – on having listened carefully to this entire debate, it is quite clear that I will draw all the necessary conclusions from tomorrow’s vote by Parliament. I believe that doing so is a way of respecting Parliament and I acknowledge the strength of a number of arguments, which will enable me, I might add, to better devise an overall port policy for Europe.
I wish to thank you, ladies and gentlemen, and, once again, I undertake to do only one thing: to draw the necessary conclusions from your votes, once they have been cast.
Firstly, it is useful to point out the background to this proposal, which in fact came from the previous Commission and from my predecessor. Nevertheless, I can understand that Parliament might have been surprised, Mr President, that this proposal was presented to it again and I can understand that this move might have shocked some of you. I would simply like to raise some points that – without justifying it – also explain the reason why this proposal is back on the table.
Firstly, it is because, despite everything, we feel the need
which some of you have highlighted
to have a clear legal framework in order to promote port investments. Ninety percent of our European exports pass through our ports. We need efficient and modern ports. Secondly, this proposal was re-presented with very strict limits on self-handling, which had undoubtedly been the subject of the most serious criticism at the time of first reading.
Thirdly, as someone who has exercised social responsibilities, I cannot all the same let it be said that this proposal would violate all the social rights existing in the port sector. It was not the Commission’s intention to reduce the social rights of workers in this sector. The Commission has even included in its proposal an obligation for all the providers of port services to receive an authorisation forcing them to comply with the minimum rules of Community social law. Furthermore, Article 4 of the proposal constitutes a safeguard by stipulating that the directive will in no way affect the application of national legislation on the employment of personnel.
I will put it very simply, ladies and gentlemen: I would never have re-presented this proposal if I, personally, had felt it presented such serious risks as some of you believed it did. In all honesty, I would not have done so.
Nevertheless, I must say that the debate has all the same been useful and it has shed some light on all the aspects of a port policy which cannot, in fact, be merely reduced to the subject of this text. Many of you pointed out that other problems were very important. These include greater transparency with regard to the costs of services, the introduction of fairer competition between our ports and the need to boost investments in order to further increase the capacities of our ports. I am therefore well aware that a port policy cannot be reduced to a text of this type and, in this regard, the debate has been very useful.
Another thing the debate has done is to highlight the very diverse situations of Europe’s ports, even though I had already become aware of that state of affairs in this, my first year as Commissioner for Transport. In this regard, we are also coming up against a problem. Some of you rightly emphasised that it was impossible to deal with the fact that situations differ so greatly from one port to the next by focusing too much on centralisation, and I admit that you are right. We are also faced with the high-speed development of the technologies used in the ports, which also brings a factor into play not present in the situation that prevailed when this proposal for a directive was devised.
I would say both that the debate was useful and that your committee has done a really good job. It is true that I will give my full agreement in advance if Parliament goes as far as to discuss the amendments tabled by its committee. I am in favour of extending the expiry dates for the authorisations. I am in favour of the transitional measures, Mr Jarzembowski. I am also in favour of the compromise amendments on the protection of investments made prior to the entry into force of the directive, provided, of course, that the stated aims, that is to say non-discriminatory and fair market access for all, are observed.
It is quite clear – and here we are faced with a paradox – that the Commissioner addressing you had hoped that you would reach a verdict on the text amended by your committee. The paradox is that you are going to have to reach a verdict on the initial text. Well, you will not criticise me for having faith in Parliament when I say that, in this area and with regard to this text, I believed that the improvements made by Parliament were excellent and in fact made it possible to respond to a number of valid criticisms."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples