Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-12-13-Speech-3-051"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20001213.1.3-051"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". – Mr President, the Commission realises from previous discussions the great importance of this subject for Parliament and I have carefully looked at the numerous amendments to the proposed directive. There are some amendments, in particular those which emphasise the importance of the universal service and of the rural post offices, which I can support. Universal service is the cornerstone of Community policy in this area and everything we do is designed to create a proper climate for its improvement.
All three of these people make important points. The postal service is increasingly having to compete in the wider communications market with modern technology developed by the Internet, mobile telephones and the integration of different means of communication. The traditional post offices with their rigid structure of employment and slow adaptation to market requirements will not be able to compete in those markets if they are held back by Parliament's amendments.
Society demands a modern postal sector. May I point to the main European consumer organisations, such as the BEUC, which have welcomed the Commission's proposal. Many consumer organisations would want to move even faster than the Commission in opening the postal market because they expect greater competition to lead to higher service quality and lower prices, but the Commission has not proposed this fast-track liberalisation as preferred by consumer organisations. Our proposal strikes a careful balance, because universal service providers will need time to change the structures further, to become more flexible enterprises so they can adapt to new market conditions. Only the introduction of real competition in a controlled and progressive way, according to a fixed timetable, will assist them to do this.
If the European legislator fails, those Member States progressing rapidly down the road indicated by the Lisbon Summit will be penalised, as their postal operators will be subject to competition from operators benefiting from an extended monopoly. Most of the amendments adopted by Parliament's Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism would, if accepted, lead to a situation where hardly anything would change. This would mean that postal services would increasingly lose ground to other means of communication. It would be a very short-sighted approach. It would be a rearguard battle. The monopoly of postal services would cause them to ossify and lose volume which would lead to losses of jobs.
I am aware of your concern about preserving the universal service and the postal network and I share this concern. I stand for cast-iron guarantees that universal service obligations will always be protected. Where we differ is the method to achieve this goal. Trying to preserve this
and maintaining the structures of the past is not the right way. The market requires flexibility and adaptability to the new communications environments.
The Commission proposal responds to this requirement in a very reasonable and a gradual way. It recognises that under the existing directive there was already a shift in the balance between the reserved area and other means to ensure a high-quality and enduring universal service. These include licensing requirements, including universal service obligations for new entrants to the market, a compensation fund and setting tariffs at an appropriate level geared to costs. However, without competition, the situation would become unbalanced.
In this spirit, I can accept those of your amendments which are non-contentious and others which rightly give emphasis to issues such as universal service as applied in Member States, redressing complaints, and the rural network. These concern Amendments Nos 2, 3, 6, 7, 24, 28, 29, 32, 39, 40 and 41. I can also accept the new amendments tabled yesterday, namely 46, first paragraph, 58 and 59, which clarify certain important points. Regarding Amendments Nos 60 and 61, I can agree with the principle of completing the internal market at a future date to be determined within a reasonable time frame. That is all in line with the Commission's proposal and the conclusions of Lisbon.
However, it will not surprise Members of this Parliament that the Commission cannot accept the remaining proposed amendments. The reason is that they go against the grain of what the Commission has proposed – what is necessary to achieve the process of modernisation to the benefit of postal consumers and employees alike. We must maintain the momentum for change and achieve a solid first step, plus a timetable for further change.
In conclusion, the European Union cannot afford to give uncertain signals in such an important area. That is why I cannot and will not be silent when the future of the sector is threatened by a failure to meet properly the challenges set to us all at Lisbon. If the European Union, of which the Members of this Parliament are the elected representatives, wants to have the most competitive, knowledge-based and dynamic economy in ten years time, it needs a modern postal sector. Therefore, I would call upon all the Members of this Parliament to support the European mission and I conclude by saying that the time to act is now.
With regard to most amendments, however, I must say that very little is left of the original proposal, which the Commission presented in May. The Commission proposed a step-by-step approach, with a further stage of market opening of 20% overall to be taken in the year 2003. What I see in return is not only a rejection of this degree of market opening but also of the dynamic process of modernisation itself.
What exactly do I see? Firstly, no 50 grammes, which goes against the need to create actual competition. Secondly, no opening of outgoing cross-border mail although this is already a reality in ten Member States. Thirdly, no definition or special services contrary to the existing directives' objectives and also contrary to the case law of the Court of Justice. Fourthly, no opening of express mail, even though this is a new and separate market. Fifthly, no step in the year 2003, which is contrary to Article 7 of the current directive, and sixthly, no timetable for further reform, which goes against the conclusions of the Lisbon Summit and the needs of the operators themselves.
This is not a positive way forward. In particular, whereas the Heads of State and Government at Lisbon called for an accelerated market opening, the amendments which I have just now described would result in the opposite, namely a decelerated market opening. The two years' delay in implementing the next step would not be consistent with the current directive. The debate about modernising the postal sector started in 1989 during a Telecom Council at Antibes. Look where we are now, more than ten years later. Only 3% of the letter market has been liberalised. Shifting the next step from 2003 to 2005 would be another delay that, I am afraid, is not acceptable to the Commission.
The degree of market opening as now proposed by Parliament would reduce the 20% of the Commission proposals to only 6% from the start of the year 2005, without any prospect of completion of the internal market in the postal sector and that, I am afraid, does not comply with the conclusions of the European Council, nor would it meet the needs and expectations of postal clients, both business users and individual households. Nor would it meet the interests of the employees in the sector who want to look ahead. In short it would be too little, too late, and would bring to a sudden halt the much needed momentum for further change, gravely harming the incumbent adaptation and threatening long-term employment.
In addition, stopping competition in outgoing cross-border mail would be a retrograde step, difficult to enforce by regulation and leading to complaints from competitors.
Special services are another very important area where innovation and modernisation must be encouraged. Under the existing directive the principle is clear. New and distinct services are always outside the reservable area but there is no clear definition of special services in the current directive, and that opens the door to endless debate and market uncertainty. It would be unacceptable to allow continuing litigation to determine what happens here. We need clearer definitions or else we would fail in our duty as legislators to modernise the regulatory framework.
I know that modernising the postal services sector is difficult and politically sensitive. The post office is close to people, to consumers and to employees alike. In this process of modernisation, fear should not be our guide but rather the challenge of improving the sector. If we do too little, too late, the postal sector as a whole will be in danger. It will be overtaken by technology and ignored by consumers who do not get service for their money. I am sure that many of you, and in particular the rapporteur, will agree more than politics perhaps allows you to say. I call upon all of you not to shy away from your responsibility as elected legislators to do what is required and to support a dynamic process of change.
May I quote three actors in this field. Firstly, the chief executive of the UK post office, Mr John Roberts, has talked about competition leading to improvements in quality and efficiency and lower prices. Secondly, the President of La Poste, Mr Claude Bourmaud, recently explained how the coming decade will herald the most profound transformation ever for postal operators around the world. He said that between now and the end of the decade the opening to competition of virtually the whole postal market appears to be inevitable. Thirdly, French Senator, Gérard Larcher, who is a well-known expert in the field of postal services, called upon all parties to look forward. In 1997 he said, and I quote: “We should not deal with the problems of today by focusing on the notions of yesterday. Let us open the debate to solve the problems of La Poste in the framework of tomorrow.”"@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples