Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-07-10-Speech-2-025"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20070710.5.2-025"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, the Postal Directive is a particularly important proposal. It affects not only a million postal workers, but practically all citizens. That is why we did not try and make it easy for ourselves in the Committee on Transport and Tourism. I would like to thank the rapporteur, as the amendments and compromises have enabled us to take major steps forward, and significantly improved the report of the Commission.
What was important to me was, firstly, that service provision should remain at the centre of attention. Secondly what is the future role of the Member States? This should be clearly defined. Service provision should remain the main point, but to me this does not mean that tomorrow you can have lower wages, poorer services, and in the end higher prices, too.
Unlike some of my fellow MEPs, who have a more pessimistic view of the whole matter, as I see it, the Member States have been given an important role in the current proposal. You can utilise your role by maintaining service levels as regards distribution and collection. What citizens respect in terms of services has already been covered in the draft. Social dumping can be avoided if the Member States so wish. In our country, too, there have been petitions on the subject of postmen, to the effect that postmen should keep their present role. Not only did we make allowance for this important function in the draft, but we also stated clearly that Member States may maintain this profession.
As for financing, there is a variety of models. My opinion – although this is not feasible for the time being – is that secure financing should be offered to a part of the reserved sector. But as we are only on the first reading, perhaps the second one will bring in some amendments.
Monopolies must be eliminated, but not at any price. I have already stated our conditions regarding the price: service in the first place, keeping the profession in the second, and guaranteed funding in the third. And finally: to me, the elimination of monopolies does not mean letting new monopolies take their place. It would therefore be good if Parliament again carried out a detailed discussion of the entire principle of liberalisation, particularly as regards service provision for citizens."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples