The current page is not translated to the selected language.
In November 2003, the European Parliament rejected a conciliation text of the proposal for a Directive on market access to port services, with the result that the proposal had now lapsed. This development has been welcomed by trade unions, which had feared that the proposal would have opened up the sector to workers without adequate qualifications and experience, thus endangering employment for dock workers and lowering health and safety standards.
At its plenary session held on 20 November 2003, the European Parliament (EP) rejected the text of a Directive on market access to port services which had been brokered by a Council-Parliament conciliation committee on 29 September 2003.
The proposal was initially issued by the European Commission on 13 February 2001. Its stated aim was to establish a Community legal framework ensuring access to the port services market in application of Treaty rules, whilst also allowing Member States and their competent authorities to fill in this framework with specific rules which take due account of the ports’ geographic and other characteristics as well as of local, regional or national specificities. In essence, the consequence of the proposal would have been to open up access to port services. It has been controversial among trade unions and workers (EU0302201N), who were concerned that the proposal would open up the sector to underqualified workers, endangering employment among dockworkers and threatening health and safety.
The proposal was subject to the co-decision procedure, under which the EP and the Council of the European Union must agree on the content of the final text. It made its way through the EU decision-making process, but on 15 April 2003 the Council found that it could not accept all of the amendments to the text made by the EP at its second reading. Under the co-decision procedure, a Council-Parliament conciliation committee was then convened. This committee issued a new text on 29 September 2003.
However, at its plenary session on 20 November, the EP rejected the conciliated text. The most contested element of the agreement was the definition of 'self-handling' in ports. A majority of MEPs argued that the Directive would allow workers from boats in harbour to carry out unrestricted loading in ports which would, in their opinion, significantly degrade safety conditions in EU docks. Until now, only professional dockers employed by port authorities have been allowed to do this type of work. The EP stated that these dockers are considered more qualified and can ensure higher safety levels. Therefore, the EP was of the view that, if the Directive were adopted, competent workers would risk losing their jobs to cheaper and less qualified people, and that the text achieved by the conciliation committee had not brought about a satisfactory solution to this problem.
The proposal has now lapsed, a development which has been welcomed by trade unions, including the European Transport Workers’ Federation (ETF), which stated that it: 'welcomes the decision of the European Parliament to reject the compromise on the proposed Directive on market access to port services. In particular, the ETF thanks those MEPs who have committed themselves in ensuring that the workers' concerns towards that text were duly taken into account. This has also given a clear sign that European workers can trust European democratic institutions. The ETF also wants to congratulate all European port workers for their continuous fight and commitment in defending their legitimate arguments. The ETF further expresses its determination to protect the port workers' interests and [ensure] a safe working environment in European ports'.