Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-02-18-Speech-5-034"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000218.3.5-034"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, we are currently in the first phase of transposition of Directive 97/67/CE on postal services and I am terribly afraid that a new phase of liberalisation might be reflected in a significant reduction in the public service offered. During Mr Bolkestein’s hearing, my colleague Véronique Mathieu asked for an undertaking “that any new proposals, once these are known, should be the subject of impact studies to determine the implications of this liberalisation programme before these provisions are adopted.” What has become of it? Do we have the results of this impact study? As you know, we members of the EDD Group, are in favour, along with others, of rural life, maintaining employment, and social cohesion in rural areas, a cohesion reinforced by high quality universal public service.
Most assuredly I would like to be able to say that the examples I observe every day in my own country and in my own region, a very rural one, convince me that we can safely proceed to a new phase of liberalisation. Unfortunately, this is not the case and currently, by merging the start of the application of the European directive and the application of the 35-hour law, which is purely French, but also by changing the working time criteria, such as the 1 700 objects per hour to be handled per workstation as opposed to 1 400, as previously, in our rural areas we can observe either a reduction in public opening hours or a threat that some post offices will be closed. This is already an intolerable withdrawal of the public service. I have here the local paper for my municipality, which reads, “The manager of the post office wishes to inform the local population that as of 3 January 2000” – you can see how topical this is – “the last collection will take place at 3.45 p.m. instead of at 4.30 p.m. as at present.”
So you can appreciate why I am afraid of a phase of extensive liberalisation, and a package of measures which will entail a new wave of depopulation. As you know, in our country, each village has its own local post office or at least a post box, with a collection every day. The postman is not just a simple mail distribution operative but also the only social link with the local residents. So he delivers money too, and sometimes even medicines, thus making it possible for isolated elderly people to be supported in living at home. If postal services are liberalised in a poorly regulated way, more post offices will be closed, in the name of this infamous profitability, which is often the cause of rural regression.
Once again, Europe is distancing itself from its poorest and most vulnerable inhabitants. They will be told that they are too expensive, without drawing any comparison with other social services such as police and health services but also sports and cultural services, where lack of profitability is scarcely admitted in urban areas. Everyone is free to choose their lifestyle. They should be able to do so without compromising their equal opportunities and equal treatment. In sport the saying goes, “Do not change a winning team.” Why should we wish to change a system which is satisfactory? The universal service will be able to fulfil its social mission only if it retains an area of monopoly enabling it to balance its budget.
We cannot afford to make a mistake, for we know for a fact that we shall not be able to turn the clock back and that in the event of an imbalance, the firm will know how to tackle it: jobs will be lost, services will be reduced, the dead wood will be removed and we already know which areas will be considered dead wood. We are told we should change the limit from 350 grammes to 150 grammes, or even 50 grammes. So be it. But the 200 grammes that make up the difference will be seized upon by many private and therefore profitable bodies. So, once again, why not leave things as they are and allow the public service to fund itself and to guarantee the annual excess cost of its operations in the public interest, valued in France, by Senator Larcher, as it happens, at FF 8 billion?
If revenue is lost, then public interest operations will be revised and cut, and again it is in rural areas that the most swingeing cuts will be made. What we should do now, I feel, is wait, particularly until we know the economic and social impact of one phase of liberalisation before taking the risk of destabilising an entire section of our universal public service, which many of our fellow citizens still value highly."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples