Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-02-18-Speech-5-036"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000218.3.5-036"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, besides the fact that the postal services doubtless play an extremely important part in providing employment, they are very helpful in the effort to achieve the cohesion we all want so much and which is a basic reason for the European Union’s existence.
As is known, the Commission should already, before the end of 1998, have tabled new proposals for a revision of the Postal Services Directive 97/67, guaranteeing the continued provision of a universal service, securing its economic viability, and regulating the gradual liberalisation of the postal services market while taking into account the consequences of this for all those involved, including postal workers and customers. To that end, the Commission has commissioned studies on the cost of universal services, the consequences of liberalising cross-border mail and direct mail, the consequences of reducing weight and cost limits in the reserved sector, the consequences of liberalising the other phases of the postal process, excluding distribution, and an overall appraisal of the results of those studies.
Mr President, we are therefore wondering, and we ask the Commission – although, of course, Mr Bolkestein is not here, but Mr Monti is a man of many parts and I think he may have a view on this: should those studies not examine the economic and social impact of the various liberalisation scenarios envisaged on each, and I repeat, on each one of the European Union’s Member States? The postal services in Greece, Great Britain, the Netherlands or Belgium are, of course, all different. With liberalisation, how will it be possible for the universal postal service to be funded and to operate correctly in a country such as my own, Greece, with its particular geographical features and its numerous, small but inhabited islands? How can a universal service provider in my country survive with the liberalisation of cross-border mail which amounts to approximately 25%, as opposed to less than 5% in other countries? How are we to deal with the transfer of the national post office’s business
abroad? We have just heard Mr McCartin on the subject. It will most certainly be necessary, we say, because of the technological developments that simplify this transfer and thereby make it more profitable, to determine the further gradual and controlled liberalisation by setting weight and price limits. But what will those limits be? Are we naively to grant ‘freelance’ enterprises the right to operate selectively and therefore circumvent the weight limit very easily since the content of letters cannot, of course, be checked?
In any event, we ask the Commission to lay its cards on the table and put forward its proposals, having examined the ultimate foreseeable development of the matter from every aspect and for all the Member States.
It is self-evident that liberalisation is not an end in itself, but only a means towards improving services."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples