Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-02-18-Speech-5-033"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000218.3.5-033"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, the 1997 directive, issued on 21 January 1998, which undertook the partial liberalisation of postal services in Europe, envisaged a revision at a later date, in a rather convoluted manner, indeed, since it was to be dealt with in a Commission proposal by the end of 1998, then decided by 1 January 2000, to come into force finally by 1 January 2003. Well, for the time being, the revision has not got off the starting block. The two initial phases were not observed which, logically, ought to compromise the third.
My first question is this: surely the scheduled time limits were too short in any case? Apparently, they were. It is really not possible to see how the Commission could by the end of 1998, as stipulated by Article 7 of the directive, have evaluated the effects of a text which came into force in February of the same year. Moreover, the Commission was also not able to provide the implementation report which, according to Article 23, it was to submit by 31 December 2000.
Should we complain about this delay? We do not think so. If the Commission actually did have convincing evidence in support of taking liberalisation forwards, no one doubts that it would present it without delay. For its part, the European Parliament, which had fought hard to ensure that the 1997 directive was balanced and respected the requirements of a universal public service, is rather satisfied to see that the compromise it obtained then is proving to be tenable. In these circumstances, it is quite reasonable for this House to express concern today, asking an oral question which urges the Commission to show the definite and unquestionable feasibility studies which to date no one has seen.
What are the scenarios for development and the potential risks? The main risk is that the Commission, without adequate justification, might upset the balance which exists now by proposing to go swiftly on to a second phase of liberalisation which would, in some countries, throw off balance the funding of the universal postal service, making it unmanageable. Today, following the 1997 compromise, Member States can give public monopolies responsibility for the postal service involving mail and parcels whose distribution cost is less than five times the basic tariff, with a weight of less than 350 grammes. It may be supposed, for example, as Commissioner Bolkestein gave us to understand during his hearing on 6 September last year, that the Commission might propose reducing these limits to 50 grams and two and a half times the basic tariff. This solution would not, in our opinion, be a fair one and indeed the Commission would have no irrefutable figures to support it. But, unfortunately, we are aware since Seattle that the Commission has no need of a proper assessment of the previous stage before proposing that we go rapidly on to the next stage.
The second scenario, which we prefer: to defer the revision and maintain the current situation until such time as we do actually have a proper, detailed objective study of the effects of the 1997 directive. In saying that, we are not seeking to protect monopolies whose pernicious effects we are already familiar with, but we wish to be certain that it is possible to combine the gradual evolution of the organisations with maintaining the key principles of public service.
Finally, the Union for a Europe of Nations Group wonders if the idea of foisting unified management rules on the postal services of the fifteen Member States might not be, essentially, flawed. In France, for example, the unequal distribution of the population over a vast territorial area makes the obligation to provide a public service absolutely indispensable in mail distribution if one wishes to maintain the equality of citizens and social cohesion. But other countries, in other situations, may have alternative analyses. In our opinion, each one must be free to make its own organisational choices.
In fact, Article 86 of the EC Treaty, formerly Article 90, stipulates that services of general economic interest are subject to the rules on competition only insofar as the application of such rules does not obstruct the performance of the particular tasks assigned to them. But who defines these tasks? Who established the limit beyond which this public service mission is compromised? Our answer is clear: it is not the Commission nor even the Council or the European Parliament, but the people of each Member State by democratic procedures. To wish to proceed in any other way would be to distort the spirit of our institutions."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples