Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-03-11-Speech-1-090"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020311.7.1-090"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Ladies and gentlemen, this week we will vote on the proposal by the Council of Ministers to pursue the opening of the postal sector to competition, which will bring about the swift removal of the monopoly by 2003.
As reiterated in a petition signed by French postal workers, we would like to point out that, the monopoly on the postal system in France has enabled us to build up a high quality public service that is valued by all. A comprehensive service is provided throughout France with 90 000 postmen and 17 000 post offices, whilst prices are some of the lowest available, thanks to tariff equalisation. In all European countries, the public postal service is experiencing the same effects as a result of liberalisation. As regards closures, for instance, 400 post offices closed last year in Belgium, half of the 1 600 post offices in the Netherlands closed down, 30 000 jobs were lost in England, tariffs were increased for people in Sweden. In France, the effects of liberalisation will also be felt, the quality of service is falling and workers who have left are not being replaced. Several post offices were closed last summer; 4 000 workers on private-law contracts working for the postal service had inferior conditions of employment compared to existing permanent members of staff. In 2002, 12 800 employees are due to retire, approximately 2 000 workers need to be recruited, which equates to 10 000 job cuts.
This ideological aim corresponds to a short-term economic interpretation of the internal market. There are numerous examples of the failings of alternative systems such as deteriorating quality, an increase in tariffs, even that the service can no longer be provided. The harmful effect on users is therefore more serious than what you could envisage happening in State monopolies. We refuse to allow a model of social and territorial cohesion based on equal citizenship to disappear, even if the situation still has some way to go before it is perfect.
We refuse to sacrifice a quality service simply in order to open up markets to capitalists, especially since we do not know whether or not they will be European. We must take urgent action, and I am pleased to hear that some Members are prepared to ignore instructions from above and even that these instructions are becoming increasingly vague.
Ladies and gentlemen, we must therefore vote to reject this common position, which means, for some of us, having the courage to meet our commitments and for others to respect the diversity and a model that we want to maintain on the basis of satisfactory experience.
As two final points, I must remind those who claim and who fear that, if the common position is rejected, the Commission will use Article 86, which bizarrely enables civil servants to pass legislation directly. Having failed itself, is the Commission in a position to point the finger at others’ faults? Despite renewed promises, the impact studies are unofficial, biased and incomplete. Even the Court of Justice could find fault with them. And if it risked using Article 86 anyhow, the Convention would have to redefine Europe’s objectives with full background knowledge of the situation.
With this situation in mind, we ask you to reject the draft directive, which would speed up the deterioration of public service."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples