Mr President, the Commission proposal for a decision on market access to port services should be considered and appreciated as part of the comprehensive Commission communication on improved quality of services in ports. This communication was to draw conclusions from the positions of Parliament and of the Council on the Commission's 1997 Green Paper. When we consider the past weeks, we must observe that, whilst the European Parliament was in 1999 still able to agree by a large majority on a position on the Green Paper, the present Commission proposal, which is only intended to regulate market access to services in individual ports, has aroused a great deal of controversy in the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism, as attested by the result of the vote on the report – 26 in favour, 21 against and 11 abstentions. So I hope that today's debate and tomorrow's vote will produce a clear position from this House, something in which I intend to play my part. For if we cannot work out a clear position at first reading stage, the Council then has the last word. We do not want to trust the Council to that extent, but rather we want to pull our own weight. In Committee, the majority supported the Commission's desire to adopt only regulations on competition in individual ports and include in this all service providers. The report is, though, ambiguous on one point, that is, on whether pilot services should fall within the scope of the decision. On the one hand, Amendment No 14 in the Committee's report states that pilot services are not to be affected by the provisions, but the application to delete pilot services from the appendix to the opinion, which alone defines the opinion's scope, was not accepted. That being the case, we, as Parliament, must give a clear lead tomorrow. Among the other amendments in the Committee's report, I would like in particular to highlight the fundamental extension of the scope of the proposal to include port access, be it by sea routes or canals, likewise a more restrictive definition of self-handling and the abandonment of the requirement for at least two service providers per category of cargo handling, likewise the requirement we have incorporated into the opinion, that, when tenders are invited, the new service provider should compensate its predecessor for the investments. A minority in the Committee tried to highlight, above all, the Commission's failure to comply with Parliament's 1999 demand for conditions for fair competition between ports in the EU, and produce a proposal for a regulation to create them. The Commission has produced neither a transparency study nor guidelines for the monitoring of aid. A minority in the Committee therefore proposed the adoption of new regulations on transparency in financial relations between ports and State offices and also on permissible State aid measures for ports, the intention being to provide legal protection for ports and also to prevent excessive aid provision. For me personally, this is very much about our need to agree tomorrow on this transparency issue, for the issue of transparency and fair conditions for competition between ports is crucial to the ports' ability to function. All of us have repeatedly emphasised that ports play a central role in European transport policy, with 70% of foreign trade and 30% of trade within the Community passing through them. They are significant junctions, and they must work well. I believe that nobody need fear transparency, which leads to fair conditions for competition. That characteristic and criterion is, I believe, a good basis for a real increase in the efficiency of ports. In that spirit, I hope we will have a good discussion this afternoon and that this House will vote wisely tomorrow. IN THE CHAIR: MR ONESTAVice-President

Political group: PPE-DE