Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2010-09-09-Speech-4-035"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20100909.3.4-035"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, I speak on behalf of the Committee on Transport and Tourism, of which I have the honour to be chairman.
We require the guarantee of a universal service. We want to see the studies demanded in the directive on the cost of delivering that universal service or at least a date for their completion. We want the Commission to carry out a full impact assessment on the liberalisation of the postal market and on the effects that it will have across the sector, and not just in terms of the economic aspects of that sector.
In conclusion, one could ask why this oral question is being placed before Parliament at this time. Sadly, the answer lies in a suspicion – even a mistrust – that having got, after many years, full liberalisation of this sector, Member States will ignore the social and service provision articles that are contained in the directive and that the Commission will allow them to do so.
That simply cannot be allowed to happen. We as a Parliament are not prepared to have the same debacle afflict postal services that has been prevalent in the railway sector. Member States must abide by all the provisions of Directive 2008/6/EC and the Commission must be vigilant in ensuring that they do.
Failure to do this would, in our opinion, be a dereliction of duty.
Those of us who have followed the process of postal liberalisation will be aware of what a long drawn-out affair it has been. Right from the outset in the late 1980s, this Parliament was keen to ensure that any liberalisation process should not adversely affect working conditions and should guarantee a universal postal service to the citizens of Europe.
Modern technology has radically changed the way people communicate with each other, but at the end of the day citizens still like to see, on a daily basis, the postmen and postwomen who deliver our mail.
Therefore, the starting point has to be that our postal services are not just about economic bottom lines, but they are also a social service that needs to be supported.
It is from this basic starting point that we must judge Directive 2008/6/EC, which will complete the internal market in postal services by 31 December this year.
The aim of this oral question from the Committee on Transport and Tourism is to remind the Commission forcibly of the safeguards put in place by Parliament in this directive in the areas of social protection and the delivery and financing of a universal service, and to remind the Member States that the obligation is on them to protect both of these areas and not, as they have done with railway liberalisation, just to ignore the law.
Therein lies the dilemma faced by this Parliament. Firstly, there is a suspicion that the Commission will not enforce these important aspects of Directive 2008/6/EC but will act with great zeal in enforcing the economic liberalisation side of the directive and, secondly, that Member States will move at a snail’s pace, will do nothing to protect postal workers and postal services and will fail to finance adequately the universal service.
Therefore, there are four clear questions requiring four clear, unambiguous answers from the Commission. Those questions are the ones contained in this oral question.
We do not require technical Commission-speak answers or even quotes from the various treaties, etc. My committee is well-versed in the treaties. We require guarantees that what was agreed in Directive 2008/6/EC will be implemented, including the safeguarding of postal workers in all sectors."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples