WRITTEN QUESTION E-3295/01 by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Deregulation of seaports.
Date: 2001-11-28
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: competition policy, harbour installation, liberalisation of the market, ports policy, provision of services

18.7.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 172 E/33

radioactivity. How does the Commission intend to combat these security risks? Would it not be better to
suspend the transport of nuclear material
in Europe for the time being, that is for as long as the
international security situation remains tense?

Can the Commission force European nuclear power station operators or the Member States in which
4.
nuclear power stations are located to revise their safety standards in view of these new forms of terrorist
attacks and their inherent danger?

How does the Commission view the proposal to close down until further notice nuclear power plants

5.
which do not have appropriate safety standards?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(4 February 2002)

1. and 2.
forms of power generation, are not risk-free.

Nuclear power stations, like any other industrial installations such as chemical plants or other

However, particular concerns about non-proliferation and radiation protection have made the nuclear
sector one of the industrial sectors with the most stringent safety and security standards.

An accidental plane crash into a nuclear power station falls in the risk category of external events
associated with human activity, a type of accident taken into account in nuclear power station design. The
national authorities are responsible for ensuring that practical action is taken at the design stage, though
the situation varies according to the State and the generation of nuclear plant concerned.

According to the information available to the Commission, in most countries the relative risk of an air
crash has been taken into consideration, with the probability of such an event generally estimated at one
in 10 million (10-7).

The most recent nuclear power station designs feature a containment building strong enough to withstand
an aircraft collision.

That does not mean, however, that power station containment buildings not specifically designed to
withstand impact will yield under the force of such a collision.

3. and 4.

Nuclear safety and security are still chiefly the preserve of the national authorities.

Nonetheless, after the terrorist attacks of 11 September, there is a need to review factors that make nuclear
installations vulnerable. The Commission is liaising with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in
Vienna on the specific issue of nuclear installation safety. Discussions should indicate the value of action at
Community and/or international level.

All power stations operating within the Union are subject to strict standards prescribed by the

5.
national safety authorities.

(2002/C 172 E/036)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3295/01

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(28 November 2001)

Subject: Deregulation of seaports

The Commission has submitted a communication on improving the quality of services provided in
seaports. Firms are to compete to load and unload ships, maintain docks and warehouses, and provide
lead to wage
other dockside services. The trade unions are deeply concerned that deregulation will

C 172 E/34

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

18.7.2002

dumping. Since firms will be able to select their employees without restriction, it is possible that current
agreements with the employers’ organisation, Sveriges hamnar, will not be respected and that employees
who accept
fierce
competition in the industry already, but it is between ports.

lower wages than the present dock workers will be recruited. There is in fact

The deregulation proposal is based on the assumption that current stevedoring is inefficient. Many in the
industry believe that to be wrong. The port of Gothenburg, for instance, competes with Hamburg and
other major ports. However, that level of competition will be constrained if 10 to 15 firms are to share
stevedoring between them, which will be the case in a port the size of Gothenburg if deregulation becomes
a reality.

If an exception is made for cargo handling, then piloting, towing and passenger services will be left to
open up to competition. According to the National Maritime Administration, piloting cannot be
deregulated, towing is already open to competition and there is no monopoly on passenger services.
Passenger services are in any case not extensive, amounting to no more than dockside boarding and
disembarkation.

Does the Commission not agree that competition does take place between various ports within the Union
at the present time and should that competition not be sufficient to ensure that stevedoring and other port
services continue to operate efficiently?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(22 January 2002)

The purpose of the proposal submitted by the Commission is to establish a regulatory framework for
operating ports in line with the principles of economic efficiency, transparency and non-discrimination.

The Commission appreciates, understands and shares the particular concern which the Honourable
Member attaches to the social aspects of the proposal.

Generally, Article 15 proposes that Member States must take the necessary measures to ensure application
of their social legislation. This therefore makes it clear that the proposal is not intended to weaken the
existing social framework in the Member States; ports are and will remain subject to the social legislation
applicable in their country.

Article 6 proposes empowering the competent authority to lay down clear criteria governing service
providers’ activities in each port. In line with the subsidiarity principle, these criteria can vary from one
port to another, depending on local conditions. The criteria must be transparent, non-discriminatory,
objective,
in particular, may relate to the provider’s professional
qualifications. In other words, the competent authority may decide the qualification requirements for
workers at a given port and, therefore, bar anyone who fails to meet them from working there.

relevant and proportional and,

The fact that providers of port services would have the right to employ personnel of their own choice
(Article 6(5)) creates no new rule on port workers’ qualifications, since providers would be able to recruit
only workers with the qualifications required by the port authority.

(2002/C 172 E/037)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3300/01

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(28 November 2001)

Subject: Harmonisation of alcohol tax

There are significant differences between the Member States’ taxes on alcohol. Sweden has one of the
highest alcohol taxes, which is justified on the grounds that it takes account of public health.