Brussels , 20/06/2005 (Agence Europe) - During a public hearing the European Parliament Committee on Transport held on 14 June, to consider the Commission's second draft Directive on access to the port services markets, the most controversial items turned out to be the handling of freight and pilotage services, while the need for Community regulations for financial transparency and state aid appears to be unanimously agreed upon. In spite of the changes made in the light of the conciliation text, which the European Parliament rejected on 20 November 2003, during a plenary session, (EUROPE n°8589), solely the shipowners (European Community Shipowners Association), shippers (European Shippers Council) and freight transport operators (European Association for Forwarding, Transport, Logistic and Customs Services-CLECAT) have come out in favour of the thrust of the Directive, provided one or two changes are made. This mainly involves ensuring that service provider authorisations, due to become compulsory, do not lead to any more red tape. On the other hand, some stakeholders are opposed to the very principle of a Directive, such as FEPORT (Federation of European Private Port Operators) and ETF (European Transportworkers Federation), which present figures to back up their claim that European ports are already highly competitive compared with their Asian or American rivals, and that competition does therefore exist. These organisations are urging the Commission to step into the state aid arena to set the record straight on the conditions governing competition between ports. Generally speaking, the stakeholders are calling for inter-port competition to be made more transparent, while competition in the ports (between the providers of the same services within a port), raises concern, particularly amongst representatives of dockers and pilots.
In the case of freight handling, the Commission proposes allowing self-handling subject to certain conditions so port users may call on the services of their own crew or port-based casual workers to load and unload cargoes, instead of using qualified, unionised dockers. The dockers recently demonstrated in the ports of Antwerp and Rotterdam, to express their concern about their jobs being under the rake from unqualified, low-paid workers. In order to avoid any unfair competition, the Commission proposes that employers who do take on these kind of workers should observe national social laws and European rules, plus the conditions applicable to freight handling workers. In order to offer quality and safety guarantees, national professional qualifications and training requirement laws will have to be applied, provided they are consistent with European rules and international standards. Against this background, the European Commission believes the use of land-based staff would have a welcome impact on local employment, while guaranteeing the standard of the work performed. However, the self-handling issue has been so much criticised by various stakeholders that the rapporteur Georg Jarzembowski (EPP-ED, Germany) planned, at the end of the debate, to urge the Commission to withdraw its proposal. "Under the heading of proportionality and subsidiarity, the conditions where self-handling may be carried out are better defined at local or national level", said Giuliano Gallanti, quoting a report by ESPO (European Sea Ports Organisation), tabling proposals for reframing the Directive. Some MEPs are in favour of withdrawing this item from the Directive, including Corien Wortmann-Cool (EPP-ED, Netherlands), who is apparently unable to back other key items in Directive, precisely because of this issue. Willy Piecyk (PES, Germany) said self-handling could endanger relations between employers and employees in the ports.
Pilotage services, which involve assisting and advising a ship's captain near to the ports, have also given rise to certain reservations. The Commission's second proposal reproduced the compromise agreed upon during the conciliation procedure. This specifies that although these services are included in the Directive, the relevant authority may acknowledge the "compulsory nature" of pilotage and prescribe organisational rules they deemed necessary to ensure the safety of maritime traffic", including limiting pilotage services to a single provider per port. In spite of this reference, Juha Tulimaa, speaking on behalf of the European Maritime Pilots' Association (EMPA), called for pilotage to be excluded from the Directive. The Directive deals only with commercial activities, where most Member States regard pilotage as a general interest service, owing to the environmental protection and safety rules that have to be applied. Marco Mandirola, representing the EBA (European Boatmen's Association), says boatmen, too, want to be excluded from the Directive for the same reasons.
As for the rest of the items (such as the period covered by the validity of service authorisations, concessions and transitional periods, and compensation for former concession holders), the Commission "is not a masochist, and remains open to changes" after the first setback it suffered, but it will still continue to seek to "persuade the European Parliament and Council about the need for a minimum level of Community rules to provide a framework for the liberalisation of port services", according to François Lamoureux, Director-General of the DG TREN. The Commission claims the added value of Community rules in this area is based on the same analysis used to justify the initial proposal: the total lack of an integrated, competitive market. The ports are the only transport sector with no legal framework 50 years after the inception of the Community", Mr Lamoureux told MEPs.
This debate will be used to pat the Jazrembowski report into final shape in October 2005, so it can be voted on during the plenary session in Brussels on 30 November and 1 December.