Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-12-13-Speech-3-015"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20001213.1.3-015"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, I should first of all like to pay tribute to all our fellow MEPs who have worked so hard on this matter and, in particular, the rapporteur for the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism, Markus Ferber, who has exhibited a most commendable sense of compromise and balance.
As we have just been reminded, the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy has tabled a number of amendments and slight modifications to the Commission’s proposals too. As is well known, there are two conflicting visions here of what are called public services, and I hope that it will be possible to reconcile them one day. According to the first view, public services cannot be truly European unless they are transformed into markets, that is to say unless the private sector is given the infrastructures, know-how and networks patiently acquired sometimes in the public domain and, where postal services are concerned, practically always in the public domain. The second view is that, if postal services are to be opened up to competition, there must be no conflict between traditional and modern practices. It must also take place in a Europe of rights, that is to say a Europe whose citizens, and in particular, those who are in most difficulty, are assured a minimum of what may be considered essential rights.
Naturally, the latter view should be taken of postal services for, as has just been seen, the post office is not just an ordinary public service. It is a public service in which the human and social dimensions are very important. It is a public service whose network is sometimes the last civic link with democratic institutions in difficult places such as inner cities. It is also a public service which has a notable territorial aspect to it. For all these reasons, the postal services which are now to be opened to competition and which are to a very large extent already in competition where very many products are concerned and which are themselves subject to competition from new technologies and are faced with new consumer expectations, as we are agreed, cannot be treated as a mere market.
As we have all agreed, it is therefore only right to talk in terms of a universal service, that is to say a service offered to everyone throughout the territory of the European Union. What is unacceptable, however, is for the cost of the service to be identical in every country, given the differences in geography and population density. What might be acceptable for the Netherlands or Malta, that is to say a reserved sector reduced to 50 grammes, may not be practicable where Greece or France is concerned because of the geography of these countries. That is why I, personally, am happy that we have compromised by setting the minimum weight/price limit at 150 grammes.
Finally, the universal service should be in a position to develop. There is no reason why the service offered to people should not incorporate all kinds of technical and economic progress, and I believe that, from this point of view, doing away with special services is a step for which no clarification had first been provided. Finally, a new date for liberalisation is unacceptable until a prior assessment has been made. That has been the major misunderstanding in this debate. The Commission ought to have provided us with an impact study of the various phases of liberalisation. It has not done so. It must do so next time without fail."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples