Luxembourg, 17/06/2002 (Agence Europe) - Monday's Transport Council reached a political agreement on the opening of port services to competition. Sweden voted against. The directive will make it compulsory for port authorities to make calls for tenders for the attribution of authorisations to exercise port services (piloting, tugging, mooring, handling). The agreement is "as important as that obtained on the rail package", said Gilles Gantelet, spokesman for Transport Commissioner Loyola de Palacio. "Social concerns and concerns about the public service have been taken into account, so there will not be social dumping", he assured. The compromise introduces many derogations allowing Member States to do what they like, in practice - to such an extent that Finland and the Netherlands wondered how relevant the text really was. Finnish Minister Kimmo Sasi asked whether competition between European ports would not be better assured without the directive through simply applying the current Treaty rules. The main points of the agreement reached in Luxembourg, pending the second reading at the EP, are:
Duration of authorisations when number of service providers is limited: After a long discussion, the Council reached an agreement on the duration of authorisations granted to service providers for 10 years for services not calling for investment, 15 years for investment on mobile assets and 36 years for fixed assets (modernisation of quays, etc.). The delays of 15 to 36 years could be extended for 10 years when the service provider makes major investment during the duration of the authorisation. The United Kingdom insisted that the maximum duration should be fixed at 45 years for the new private ports to be created.
Self assistance: Ministers reached, with difficulty, a definition of a compromise text concerning authorisations that could be granted to operators so that they may use their own personnel in handling operations. The text specifies that, "when" authorisations are needed, the operator's staff should be used in accordance with the social norms of the port country. Belgium, France and Germany in particular insisted on this point in order to avoid social dumping. The United Kingdom was opposed to the initial wording because it felt that the directive could not make it compulsory for the Member States to comply to their own national rules. Sweden, on the other hand, voted against the political agreement as it did not reach satisfaction on this chapter. It hoped the text would specify that the self-assistance authorisation would imply that only personnel and material on board the ship would be used. The Commission voiced objection to this stressing that the scope of the text could not be reduced at a later date. Belgium felt that such a clause would give rise to the risk of unfair competition between the personnel on board and personnel on the ground.
Piloting: The Council had already reached an agreement on most of the points concerning piloting services (see EUROPE of 15 June, p.11). Denmark had reservation, as it hoped to maintain its system of sharing out piloting revenue between ports, both small and large. For the same reason, it was opposed to the fact that waterways giving access to ports should be included in the scope of the directive, stressing that the piloting services on such waters are linked to conditions of security and environmental norms. The Commission confirmed in a declaration that the opening up to competition of port services may be limited for security or environmental protection reasons. Belgium also agreed to rally to the compromise whereby the duration of authorisation for piloting will be 10 years, instead of the 13 years it had initially hoped for.
Social conditions: We recall the text stipulates that Members States will take the measures required to ensure application of their national legislation, including rules relating to the employment of personnel, by a service provider who takes over an authorisation after selection procedure". The new service providers will therefore have to take on the personnel of the former service provider, if the national legislation thus provides.