Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-02-18-Speech-5-041"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000218.3.5-041"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, postal services, just like any European public service, contribute to the social cohesion of Community territory under the terms of Article 16 of the Treaty of Amsterdam. By equalising tariffs, i.e. treating citizens and economic operators on a basis of strict equality with regard to the cost of the service, by meeting the obligation to provide a universal service, while complying with the requirement for quality of service, postal services reflect the concern which we must have to ensure equality between different regions and the people resident in them.
They also play a major role in maintaining links between people. As has been pointed out here on many occasions, is the postman not in fact the last point of contact in depopulated districts or divided communities, whether these are areas that are isolated geographically or the problem districts in our towns and cities? Let me cite the example of the initiative of the French postal service, which decided, for instance, to make interpreters and writers available to the public in post offices in problem urban areas.
Without even mentioning the jobs in related sectors, European public postal services today employ one and a half million operatives whose futures are clearly threatened by the spectre of radical, untrammelled liberalisation.
The European Parliament was confident of reconciling openness to competition with the obligation to provide a universal service in a manner which safeguards jobs. We may congratulate ourselves on this, but we intend that this should continue and this is the reason why one can only deplore the fact that the European Parliament is today being excluded from the main decision-making process which will determine the fate of the postal sector in Europe. Indeed it is regrettable that to date – as the resolution we are debating points out – the Commission has not taken account of the resolution of 14 January 1999. That resolution called for the European Parliament to be involved in drawing up the planned measures and urged that the reliability of impact studies regarding liberalisation should be improved. These impact studies are necessary in order to assess the effects of any untrammelled liberalisation, not just on the economic organisation of the market, but also in terms of its human and social aspects. The delays in the Commission’s work will inevitably have a knock-on effect on the proposed timetable and the deadline of 2003 must certainly be called into question.
By defining a sector reserved for public postal services, on the basis of weight and price limits, the postal service directive would clear the way for controlled liberalisation in phases. The sudden reduction of these limits poses a threat to the balance between the obligation to provide a public service and economic viability for postal services.
Against a background of globalisation, where the rationale of profitability and profit is coming increasingly into conflict with the wish to achieve both a balance between regions and social cohesion, we must here, as a matter of urgency, reiterate our commitment to European public service, whether it be, today, the postal service or, tomorrow, the rail service or, the day after that, the health service."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples