Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-02-01-Speech-3-218"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060201.19.3-218"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"I am sympathetic to the fact that the report emphasises that the principle of subsidiarity must be applied to the authorisation procedure. I also welcome the fact that the European Parliament points out that the Commission should devote special attention to the consequences that liberalisation of the postal market will have for the inhabitants of sparsely inhabited regions (paragraph 9).
What, however, I should like to have seen are stringent wordings that made it clear that a worse service for the populations of isolated regions of Europe is unacceptable. The Commission has not adopted a position on modifications to rules governing how often post is to be distributed (see oral question). Nor is the European Parliament clear about this issue.
One basic condition for enabling postal services to be used in the future by people living in sparsely populated regions is that services be priced at a level comparable with that applicable in the rest of the country. The European Parliament does not adopt a position on this issue in the report. Nor has the Commission done so.
I am also unsympathetic to the European Parliament’s criticism of national value added tax on the postal market (paragraph 18) and to the proposal that the European Commission should investigate how the pension liabilities of the public postal operators are being dealt with (paragraph 17). These are issues that should be dealt with at national level.
I shall vote against this report."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples