Brussels, 24/11/2005 (Agence Europe) - The vote of the Parliamentary committee on transports on the report by Georg Jarzembowski (EPP-ED, Germany) on the proposed directive on access to the port services market took place on 21 November amid the greatest confusion. All 13 of the rapporteur's compromise amendments were adopted, but the final proposal, as amended, ended up being rejected by just one vote (24 votes in favour, 23 against and two abstentions). Notwithstanding, the committee went on to adopt a legislative resolution, the result of which was an equally close call (26 in favour and 24 against). This brings the EP back to square one, or the initial proposal of the Commission, as the amendments of the GUE/NGL, Greens/EFA, PES, and IND/DEM groups, calling for a blanket rejection of the proposal, were not adopted. The next battle will take place at the January plenary session, at which each political group will be able to present its own amendments to the original text of the Commission.
The directive on the liberalisation of port services did not end up causing a rift between the Commission and the European Parliament, but also between the MEPs themselves. The adoption of the compromise agreements, however, indicates that the rapporteur was able to resolve a number of problems brought up over the course of debates within the committee with representatives of the port sector. Amongst other things, the compromise proposed to exclude self-handling and piloting services from the scope of the directive. On self-handling, the dockers were concerned that by allowing ship companies to use their own staff for ship loading and unloading operations, professional port service providers would suffer from the competition of cheap, on qualified labour. The European Maritime Pilots' Association (EMPA) also opposed the inclusion of piloting in a directive which covers purely commercial activities, whereas piloting is a service of general interest which should respect environmental and security constraints (EUROPE 8973). However, these amendments are not enough for those, such as the Greens/EFA and PES groups, who believe that the Commission had "served them up the same dish again" after its initial proposal was rejected by the plenary session of November 2003. These political groups are calling for the outright rejection of this second version.
"This confused voting session finished with an unanticipated about-turn", commented French Socialist Gilles Savary, who feels that "this is a defeat for the EPP-ED", as the Commission's original proposal had first of all been amended in the sense supported by the EPP-ED group, but the final vote cancelled out this result. Mr Savary spoke of Belgian and British dissidents within the EPP-ED group and the extremely changeable attitude of the Liberals. German Green Michael Cramer, who had spoken out for the proposal to be rejected, said that he was optimistic about the outcome of the vote in plenary, noting that both Parliamentary committees to which the issue had been brought for opinion ("internal market" and "employment and social affairs"), had called for the proposal of the European Commission to be rejected. The Greens/EFA are calling for European rules to provide a framework for competition "between" ports (rather than "in" ports) and the establishment of a clear framework for State aid for European ports.
The rapporteur is already supposed to have started discussions with the political groups, in order to verify whether joint amendments can be presented to the plenary. In the absence of a clear majority in favour of the rejection or adoption of the report, the outcome of the vote in plenary is very uncertain for the time being, even though several groups claim that they can get a majority together in the plenary. The European Commission is also waiting to see which way the Parliament comes down on its plenary vote. "Today, the European Parliament has decided to create more suspense", commented the vice president of the Commission in charge of Transport, Jacques Barrot. "The glass is half empty or half full, and I don't think that this is the moment to put an end to the discussion process (…), as this would be to send out the wrong signal". It may be more reasonable for the Commission to withdraw its proposal and start discussions with the port sector in order to find an alternative solution, be it legislative or otherwise, suggested the European Sea Ports Organisation (ESPO). "Whatever becomes of this directive, the ports must not disappear from the European agenda", pleaded Giuliano Gallanti, President of the ESPO, who feels that "the time may have come to propose a new Green Paper on ports, giving European ports a stable framework, and which is well adapted to the developments they have experienced since the last proposals were made, in 1997".