Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-12-13-Speech-3-035"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2000-12-13"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Competition between postal services2
dcterms:Language	"nl"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20001213.1.3-035"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2000-12-13-Speech-3-0362
lpv:speaker	lp:Erik Meijer2
lpv:spokenAs	unknown; Socialistische Partij (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 member_of_the_bureau; EUL/NGL (1999-10-13--2004-07-19)3 member; Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 member; Delegation to the EU-Slovak Republic Joint Parliamentary Committee (1999-09-29--2002-01-14)3 substitute; Delegation to the EU-Czech Republic Joint Parliamentary Committee (2000-11-09--2002-01-14)3 substitute; Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3
lpv:translated text	"Madam President, the public monopoly for postal services was introduced in the nineteenth century for a very good reason. The governments which brought this about were not Socialist, but Conservative or Liberal. They only made this decision after it transpired that private companies were unable to guarantee a swift, regular, steady, affordable and universally deployable service. The radical reform which the Commission proposed at the beginning of this year is threatening to turn the clock back by two hundred years. Why should we impose that model which is now being tested in the Netherlands, Sweden and Finland on the entire European Union as a permanent measure? Apparently, the proposal is founded on an ideological principle, namely that companies should no longer be publicly owned. If this is the case, then not only banks, chemical companies and steel companies must be privatised, but also public utility companies such as the energy supply, public transport and the postal services. On the one hand, the proposal aims to create a great deal more space for competing private companies, without waiting for the promised evaluation of the effects previous liberalisation decisions have had. On the other hand, the proposal would mean that the position of a group of interested companies which benefit from the wholesale liberalisation of the postal company would be strengthened from 2007 onwards. The proposed liberalisation has sweeping implications for the services in rural areas, for employees of postal companies and for private users of the post. It ultimately means that there will be fewer post offices, the service will slow down and the post office will no longer be able to provide the social services functions. Nor let us not overlook the higher rates due to the fact that different service companies will operate alongside each other. This translates into longer hours and less job security for the staff. It is unlikely that the planned protection of the universal provision of services by means of a compensatory fund, as a result of which private profits are ploughed back into public services, will last. Fledgling companies could in future cite this restriction in their freedom as grounds for filing a complaint on account of improper government intrusion and distortion of competition. This is why it is positive that a majority of this House now refuses to take matters as far as Commissioner Bolkestein proposed at the beginning of this year. This has my support, but it would also be preferable if mail between 150 and 350 grammes remained in the hands of the existing postal companies."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph