Representatives from UK port operator Associated British Ports (ABP) and union Unite have travelled to Strasbourg to argue against proposals for EU ports regulation one day before voting on a directive will take place.
The European Parliament voted against EU ports legislation twice in the past, but on March 8, MEPs are due to vote on a revised EU Ports Services Regulation (PSR), which aims to increase the transparency of EU ports.
ABP, which said in a statement that the UK ports industry is united in urging MEPs to vote against the regulation, believes that privately-financed ports would be undermined by the PSR.
James Cooper, CEO of ABP and chairman of the UK Major Ports Group (UKMPG), claimed that the current text is ambiguous, adding that this “ambiguity” is unhelpful as it creates uncertainty and puts future investment, growth and jobs at risk.
The UKMPG and the British Ports Association (BPA) claimed in a statement that the new legislation could lead to more unfair competition and force private ports to put their services out to tender, adding that they may lose freedom over port charges and commercial confidentiality may be threatened.
However, the Federation of European Private Port Operators (FEPORT), which said in a statement that the Transport Committee of the European Parliament adopted “en bloc” the compromise amendments on the legislation, called for MEPs to vote in favour of the text “en bloc”.
Lamia Kerdjoudj-Belkaid, FEPORT’s secretary general, commented on the amendments applied to the legislation: “We particularly support the exclusion of cargo handling from chapter II, organization of port services.
“The competitiveness of the cargo handling industry is thus recognised, particularly in a context where efforts to respond to customers’ demand are so significant in terms of investments and continuous adaptation.”
Knut Fleckenstein, a MEP from Hamburg, home of Europe’s second container port, who drew up the revised legislation, recognised in an article in The Parliament Magazine earlier this year that there are diverse organisational models for ports across Europe.
Fleckenstein added that a major challenge has been to make the regulation flexible enough to take into account these national and regional “particularities”.
He said: “It should come as no surprise that a member state with privatised ports does not support a European framework. In my opinion, were Parliament’s transport committee unable to vote in favour due to national lines, it would be a lost opportunity to provide the ports with stability.”
“The result of our joint work is a framework that takes the diversity of European ports into account, strengthens their autonomy and provides the financial transparency that will foster progress on state aid rules,” he claimed.
Andrew Moffat, chair of the BPA, said in a statement: “If MEPs cannot reject the PSR, we urge them to support an amendment which would clearly and unambiguously remove privately financed ports from the scope of the regulation, in a way that is entirely consistent with EU law.”
Meanwhile, as the June referendum on whether Britain should remain in the European Union comes closer, some Eurosceptics have taken a political view of the dispute.
Nicholas Finney, former head of the UK Seaports Federation, claimed in a Conservative Party-supporting website that “the PSR is the perfect example of all that can be wrong with both EU principles and process”.
Finney continued in claiming that if “the Prime Minister’s negotiations [with the EU] are to be evenly modestly fulfilled, he should demonstrate his real commitment to reform by insisting that all such controversial draft regulations like the PSR are suspended until the re-assessment of their status can be completed under the terms of the EU declaration”.
