eurealist.co.uk

EU Access to Ports Directive. Anne Palmer 2.8.2005.

When I think there is nothing left for this Government to transfer to the European Union, up comes another EU Regulation or Directive on the further transfer of sovereignty in an area I hadn’t thought about.

First of all, there is no doubt what so ever that the majority of people in this Country

do not want any further integration into the European Union. Had we been allowed to have the promised referendum on the EU Constitution, this would have been made very clear. The Government, even knowing this, are prepared to activate parts of the now redundant EU Constitution and transfer permanently more authority (sovereignty) in areas that would be far better kept under British control at all times. We are reminded also that once an area has been transferred to the EU, we cannot get it back UNLESS WE COME OUT OF THE EU. It is time we repudiated the Treaties.

John Denham MP secured a short debate on this proposed EU Access to Ports Directive on 20th July 2005 in Westminster Hall. He makes clear right from the start that the EU access to ports directive is not wanted by the people who own the ports in this country, those who manage them or those who work in them. He states that, “The Commission appears to be pursuing the directive with a single-minded bloody mindedness, introducing a new directive without real consultation, after the failure of the first version at the hands of the European Parliament. If ever there was a case of a solution looking for a problem, this would be it”.

The United Kingdom has the largest port industry in the European Union, with 120 ports handling about 560 million tonnes of cargo annually and 68 million passengers. The cost-given in the debate- to unload a 40-ft container is, on average, $100, or £68 that compares with an average of about $134 or £91 in north Europe and $200 on the east coast of North America and $300 in Asia. Ports are vital to a nation and particularly to the UK as an Island nation. They are vital in a way that other services are not and they are vital to our security especially at a time of conflict and terrorism.

Mr Anthony Write MP says, “the most hazardous period of a shipping vessel’s voyage is when it enters or exits a port, or when it navigates within a harbour, often within restricted or dangerous water. That presents a series of risks not only to the vessel, but also to surrounding vessels and to the local environment. Indeed, many view those services as a maritime safety public service. It is madness to open such vital services to compulsory competition”.

Apparently Mr Denham was prompted to seek the debate by members of the Transport and General Workers Union (TGWU) but he quotes a briefing from the Major Ports Group which represents the owners and managers of the ports,

“It is striking that Europe’s most liberalised ports oppose a directive that aims to liberalise Europe’s ports. The problem is that far from liberalising Europe’s ports, this Directive will impose a regulatory burden that will diminish investment and threaten jobs. In terms of ports, surely the Commission should be addressing the more pressing challenges of globalisation and growth and the need to create a level playing field”.

The union has a different focus. Their briefing to me and to other hon. Members states:

“Ports are dangerous places to work . . . The last thing we need is another Simon Jones.”

That is a reference to the young man whose death has done so much to prompt the call for corporate manslaughter legislation. Everyone is brought together by the fear that the directive will undermine the long-term investment on which the success of all the ports, and therefore the jobs that go with them, depends.

The directive allegedly aims to open up greater ‘competition’ in the provision of port services, under certain conditions, requiring port services such as cargo handling to be put out to tender, enforcing the requirement to allow additional entrants into the market for port services, and extending the range of workers who can handle cargo.

We have seen from past experience what happens when anything is “opened up in this country to “Competition”. The time has come when our Politicians must put the welfare of the British people, the British workers and this Country before the furtherance of EU integration. We are not the same as Continental Europeans. We cannot walk from one country into another just by one stride. We are an Island, a sea faring nation; we cannot and never will be continental Europeans. Our ports are our lifeline with other nations. We depend on our ports for food, equipment, and anything we ourselves cannot grow or manufacture. The latter more than ever for successive Governments have allowed, through strict adherence to EU Regulations to the (deliberate) run down of the many things we once used to produce and manufacture.

One of my great concerns is the threat to investment (I am concerned in what we are seeing as regards what is happening and has recently happened to our Railways, and which may happen to our successful Ports through this EU Directive) Ports here in the UK are mainly in the private sector. Investors commit millions of pounds and it is the private sector that takes all the risks. They sink millions of pounds, which may cover a number of years before they eventually can reap any benefit from that investment. If there is an EU Directive in the offing, the company that has taken the financial risk may be expected to pass their assets over to others. This proposed Directive may shake the confidence of Investors.

I think sometimes that the continentals have taken the expression that we are “A nation of shop-keepers” to heart and that we would be happy if that is all we are left with, for if ever a nation was stripped of its assets (our own politicians so eagerly have run to oblige) we would be happy and content just to be left with our shops. The EU and our Government are so very wrong. Neither seem to ‘know’ or perhaps care about the depth of feeling the people feel against the Union at this present time. The people have lost both trust and confidence in their politicians and European Union, more so, as they see their “No” to the Constitution, ignored.

It was noted by Gwyn Prosser MP, that the “extraordinary thing about the directive is that it has succeeded in uniting us all: the port industry, both the ports associations, the ship-owners, the terminal operators and all the trade unions. They are united in their condemnation of the European Commissioner’s new directive. We are calling it mark 2. It seems from the flavour of the debate today that it is also uniting the political parties. We are building up a strong bow wave of opposition to this unnecessary directive”.

“The terminal operators are concerned about having to re-tender for services that they have provided for many years. They are not afraid of competition, but they are afraid of being outbid by powerful, cash-rich interests, and perhaps by interests whose long-term objectives are not the running of ports and the sailing of ships, but the selling of land, the building of houses and the making of money. That has to be borne in mind”.

I ask, has anyone that reads this got confidence that any person or organisation in the UK would get the jobs they know so well?

Dr Alan Whitehead makes the point that “Creating a level playing field is not just a question of not building it on the side of a mountain, but of what people do on that level playing field. We expect two sides to turn up and that there should be the same rules for both. There should be a referee and the game should proceed in an orderly fashion. The rules should protect the players from being injured or killed. Contrary to that, the directive appears to suggest that the rules can change during the game. For example, the manager might recruit someone from the crowd during the game to play in the match or, during half time, a player might be sold and come out during the second half for the opposite side”.

“It is certainly the case that ports throughout Europe have different definitions of what constitutes a port. In Germany, for example, ports are treated as part of the transport system. In France, there is substantial investment in port infrastructure, dredging, buoys, lighting systems and so on through regional and national assistance, which varies in different parts of France”.

“In elements of the directive, the assumption is made that ports somehow exist independent of the trade that goes on in them, so that the trade can be deregulated in the way suggested by the directive without harming the infrastructure. If we are to have an infrastructure directive that produces a level playing field, the issue of who funds what in relation to ports must be addressed. In the UK, ports are regarded as commercial entities in their own right and, as hon. Members have already mentioned, they must pay their own way in terms of all infrastructure”

Andrew Mackinlay said, “there will be no more Mr. Nice Guy, because we are sometimes far too polite in relation to the Government. Even my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) seems to accept the concept of a directive. I say that it is not necessary at all, and I want to elaborate on that. My mandate for being here is that I represent the port of Tilbury—the last working part of the historic port of London—and also 18 miles of river frontage, which includes wharfs that will not be covered by the directive. If the directive were put into practice, it would create some distortion and unfairness in relation to the enterprise of the port of Tilbury and those smaller wharfs. That needs to be spelt out. The port of Tilbury is owned by the Forth Ports group, which is a significant player when it comes to ports in the United Kingdom. Its headquarters are in Leith”.

“The important comparison is between the UK, which has a really good market in terms of port handling, and the rest of northern Europe. I suspect that there is protectionism in relation to the national ports in all those areas, and many countries in the European Union are up rivers. The Danube covers several European Union countries, and the prescription does not fit all of them. The UK can legitimately say, “Don’t wreck our highly competitive market”—because the figures that I have before me stand up—”to address high prices elsewhere in northern European ports.”

While the UK holds the Presidency, the MP’s generally seem to think the Government can rebuff this EU Directive but as pointed out by Ms Karen Buck the Presidency’s role is impartiality and to take forward the agenda of the European Union, “which the UK has helped to shape”. “Presidencies that are perceived to focus exclusively on national interests soon lose credibility and undermine their capacity to deliver.”…”The Commission believes that the directive will allow for market access, providing that there are suppliers seeking to enter the market. Those are admirable intentions”. Ms Karen Buck goes on to say, “Our ports are vital to the continued economic well-being of the UK. The directive would have an impact on the 45 UK ports, which have an average annual throughput of more than 1.5 million tonnes, and 200,000 passenger movements per annum, if calculated on currently available data for 2002–03. These ports handle 95 per cent. of the UK’s trade by tonnage, and it is vital that any regulation that impacts on them is of net overall benefit”.

“As many hon. Members have recognised, the directive has a long and contentious history. In his opening remarks, my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen made it clear that the European Parliament rejected the original proposal at the conciliation stage in 2003. The revised proposal was issued in October 2004, and initial deliberations were taken forward under the Luxembourg presidency. The published Luxembourg-UK presidency programme commits us to progressing that dossier”

“The UK took a leading role in steering the original proposal into what was generally regarded as a reasonable and proportionate measure by member states, but not, in the end, the European Parliament. If there is to be a directive on opening up port services, our European partners now look to the UK, as a major maritime player in the Community, to grasp the nettle once more. They want us to move towards a workable and workmanlike proposal that delivers market liberalisation where it is required, but with full regard to the commercial realities of the European port sector”. As a major maritime player, we obviously have more to lose from this directive than the others in the European Union. Hasn’t this always been the case? Our fish, our oil? Etc. The answer has to be an emphatic “NO”.

And there you have it. Will we transfer sovereignty over our ports? Will we continue to transfer sovereignty until we have nothing left to transfer? This once great nation, its people that trusted those they voted into power? This great nation that handed down for hundreds of years the Common Law Constitution for it to be respected, obeyed and preserved for future generations, the history and those that sacrificed their lives so that this present generation could live in peace and freedom from being governed by those on the Continent of Europe. Without those brave people there would have been no Britain left to give away.

Should the Government accept and incorporate this Access to Ports Directive, they will betray the people and betray our Country for the Directive is to further deepen integration into the Union and to increase the authority of the EU. The European Union Commission does not care one jot whether this Directive destroys an excellently run British Ports system, it doesn’t care how many people it puts out of work here in the United Kingdom, it doesn’t matter to them if, under its “competition policy”, the emphasis goes on quick profit rather than safety. It can collect “fines” and take to court if problems arise, for the EU just wants power.

Our Government’s loyalty at all times, (whether our Prime Minister is “President” for six months or not), is to this Country, to promote its wealth, to strengthen its security and its defence, to protect its own borders, to have the ability to decide who to let in to this Country and who not, to protect its sovereignty, and last but not least, its constant loyalty to the Crown and through the Crown, the people, in fact, the whole nation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain. Treaties that say otherwise are incompatible with our Constitution and should not be signed, if signed then repudiated. Loyalty can only be to one master.

What Ms Karen Buck has said, “Presidencies that are perceived to focus exclusively on national interests soon lose credibility and undermine their capacity to deliver”, is important, because what the temporary President does while in that sixth months of Office, he or she will have to live with for the rest of their lives. I doubt there are many people on this island that cares one jot what others on the continent think of our Prime Minister, it is what the people of this Country think about him that really matters and if he can live with what they think.