Brussels, 17/01/2006 (Agence Europe) - In the light of Tuesday's debate, the European Parliament will very probably reject the draft Directive on liberalising port services in the European Union. All the groups without exception opposed the text that is on the table, not only on its content but also for the fact that the Commission presented what in their eyes was an identical proposal to the one they rejected two years ago (see EUROPE 9110). While the majority of MEPs are in favour of setting up a legislative framework for European ports, they are against the one put forward today by the Commission. Several MEPs, however, were very critical of Monday's violence during the dockers' demonstrations in Strasbourg during which violent attacks were made on the very institution defending European port workers' rights.
The attempt by rapporteur Georg Jarzembowski to convince his colleagues seems to have been in vain. However hard the German Christian Democrat tried to convince MEPs that the Commission's text met everyone's needs, to raise the legal uncertainty in maritime transport and to call on his colleagues “not to be influenced by strikes or demonstrations”, he was unsuccessful. Opposition to the text remained constant from all the groups, even the rapporteur's own EPP-ED. “Although the European Parliament rejected the first port package, the Commission sent us a new package, with a new coat of varnish. But underneath, it's the very same. We expected more respect”, declared Marianne Thyssen, recognising the divisions within her group, the EPP-ED. “We are moving towards rejection”, she warned. Willi Piecyk of the Socialist group said that the dockers had certainly gone too far, but he felt that the Directive should be put into the port rubbish bin. He said that the Commission text would be like “serving the major Asian port competitors on a silver plate”, and called for a proposal setting up “healthy competition conditions” for the sector. A text providing for fair competition was also the aim of the ALDE group, explained Danish MEP Anne Jensen indicating that many in her group would vote against the present text, and calling on the European Commission to analyse the consequences of a possible rejection to formulate a new proposal. Although disappointed by the dockers' violence, Joost Lagendijk, speaking for the Greens/EFA, pointed out that the “absurd actions of an over-excited minority must not cause sight to be lost of the need to defend the interests of the sector's workers”. The GUE/NGL adopted the same position, and Dutch MEP Erik Meijer held that this proposal was a time bomb left by Loyola de Palacio (former Transport Commissioner: editor's note). French MEP Patrick Louis and Latvian Roberts Zile, speaking for the IND-DEM and the UEN criticised the Commission's speed in putting forward this proposal which picks up the same measures as the previous one, without carrying out an impact study.
French Socialist Gilles Savary announced his intention to vote against the proposal because it was a denial of democracy. He said that the Commission must not be encouraged to put out the same text every time the Parliament voted against. The text was “socially unacceptable and dangerous” because it would encourage European ports to “take on Filipino labour” and “proves the Eurosceptics right”. His Swedish colleague Ewa Hedkvist Petersen did not feel that there was any need for the Directive because things were working very well in many ports, particularly in Sweden.
“I cannot allow it to be said that this Directive would violate port workers' social rights” because “I would never have supported a proposal that presented the serious risks that some people believe they see in it”, responded Transport Commissioner Jacques Barrot after carefully listening to the long line of speakers. Mr Barrot repeated that “EU port policy can not be limited to this text” but also involved greater transparency in the costs of services, investments and putting in place fair competition (see EUROPE 9110). Additionally, as was noted by several MEPs, in the face of the various situations of ports in the EU, it is not possible to regulate every situation through excessive centralisation. However, while pointing out the present paradoxical situation, where the Parliament is going to vote on the Commission's original text and not on the proposal amended by its own rapporteur, Mr Barrot wisely prefers to wait for Wednesday's vote “before drawing the appropriate conclusions”.