Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-02-18-Speech-5-052"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000218.3.5-052"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, I consider it a privilege that I am replacing my colleague, Commissioner Bolkestein, on the occasion of such a high-quality debate on postal services. I will try to respond to the debate on the basis of information provided by Commissioner Bolkestein. May I repeat that on Monday he will be available to the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism of Parliament.
The studies have been the object of some criticism, especially on the part of the public postal services. I am aware that all the studies launched experienced difficulty in collecting adequate data. This was no surprise, since the universal service operators do not always have the systems in place for detailed letter collection. Does that not say a lot about management ability? No single methodology for accessing the cost and financing of the universal service is accepted by all the parties. Nevertheless, Mr Bolkestein is convinced that the studies undertaken provide enough clarity and precision to form the basis of the decision-making process.
I finally come to three interventions about a subject I am supposed to know better than postal services, that is competition. Mr Purvis, I found your methodologically provocative remark about the tender interesting and certainly worth exploring. Mr Medina Ortega, I am as convinced as you are that we must be even more vigilant after liberalisation, because we do not want the disappearance of public monopolies to give rise, through unchecked concentration, to private operators. This applies both to the post and other sectors. If I can provide one example of this sort of vigilance, it is the case of Deutsche Post where, following complaints and an action before the court, the Commission initiated a formal state aid procedure in July. We have just received the reply of the German Government to the observations made. The state aid procedure covers the question of cross-subsidisation between monopoly letter services and commercial business parcel activities as well as the financing of Deutsche Post’s numerous recent acquisitions. I will not go into the details due to lack of time, but this is perhaps one illustration of the fact that the Commission does not stop its work as liberalisation progresses. In a sense this is where its work begins.
Finally, Mr Radwan, of course, there should be limits to competition and there are limits to competition. In particular, if we take the issue of competition and services of general interest, where a Member State defines a mission of public service, it is important to quantify the costs for discharging that mission and state aids that compensate for those costs are certainly not a violation of competition.
I would slightly disagree with the terminology you used when you said, Mr Radwan, that it is time for the needs of citizens to be taken into account rather than exclusively the need for competition. That concept I reject firmly, because competition is there for the citizens, and for them alone. Most companies hate competition. Competition is run and managed in the interest of the citizens, their economic interest and for their liberty. The examples of liberalisation and competition in air transport and in telephony services in Europe show that citizens have benefited from this.
I can only say again that Commissioner Bolkestein will be able to address all the concerns on Monday, in the appropriate committee, more competently and in much more detail.
Some Members, like Mr Stenmarck, complain that there have been delays with the new proposal. Others believe that it is not so bad after all, if there is a slight pause after the first step of liberalisation. This is, for example, the position expressed by Mr Berthu. The Commission’s position is that the new proposal was delayed mainly owing to the internal problems of the Commission, of which I am sure Parliament is not totally unaware. But we feel that there is a legal obligation for a proposal to be made. It is Commissioner Bolkestein’s intention to present such a proposal to the Commission for adoption in the first half of this year. The scheduled date of 1 January 2003 for implementation of the next steps remains feasible. The proposal will take account of the studies undertaken and in particular look at such issues as universal service, to which I will come back in a second.
As regards the existing directive and its implementation, most Member States have taken the necessary legal measures to transpose the directive. A number of problems exist as regards the structure of the regulator and its independence. The implementation deadline for the Member States is January 2003. Further liberalisation will occur afterwards. In some areas competition is already taking place, as in the parcels sector and in the express services. The quality of services has, generally speaking, improved, in particular in regard to cross-border activity. The quality of services, which is so relevant to consumers, was a main concern of all speakers, some of whom, like Mr Rübig, were very explicit on this point.
The experiences in countries where liberalisation is more advanced such as Sweden, Finland and the Netherlands, prove that when liberalisation takes place in an orderly way, the quality of service may be raised as a result of higher-quality service requirements imposed by the national regulations and their follow-up. So this is not a selling-out of the service and of its quality. Frequently liberalisation leads to guaranteed standards and the on-going standardisation of the measurement of the quality of service also contributes, as these standards will better reflect actual performance. This will allow for meaningful bench-marking and improved customer orientation by the incumbent operator as a result of the combined pressure by regulators, competitors and customers. We can see in the incumbent operators, in public post offices, a change of culture that I believe nobody can consider negative if the current trend towards concentrating on customers’ needs continues.
The concerns expressed in this Parliament this morning by honourable Members will be at the core of the activity of my colleague and of the Commission as a whole in the preparation of the further proposal. That proposal will fully take into account the need to ensure universality of service, the development of efficient safeguards for consumers, and the creation of a climate which would be favourable to new jobs – not to fewer jobs – in the framework of a progressive, gradual evolution.
The issue of universal service was mentioned by Mrs Isler Béguin, by Mr Miller, whom I thank for his personal message, and by many others. We are all aware of the extremely important aspect of social and structural cohesion, especially in the sparsely populated rural areas, one of which has been particularly strongly and overwhelmingly represented in the debate this morning. We believe that the universal service is a pillar and I am sure that my colleague will be able to provide reassurances to the appropriate parliamentary committee.
Mrs Gillig, but others like Mr Markov and Mr Ésclope, voiced concerns about employment. Experience in other sectors show a sort of U-curve pattern: a phase of reduction in employment starts just before liberalisation takes place, as, of course, the incumbent prepares itself to be competitive; then a second phase of steady employment, as new jobs in newcomer operators balance further potential employment reductions; finally, a third phase of net job creation, both in the incumbent and new operators as the benefits of liberalisation reach users and the market develops more quickly.
In the postal sector the first phase is already in progress, as the universal service providers have embarked on a process of modernisation. The new technologies and logistics rather than the process of postal liberalisation are the most important factors impacting on employment.
On the availability of the studies, – a point raised by Mr Staes and others – copies of each of the studies were handed to Parliament in September 1999. They have all been available on the Commission’s Internet website since August 1999 and the Commission is willing to provide copies to anybody who is interested."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples