Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-07-10-Speech-2-020"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20070710.5.2-020"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs |
substitute; Delegation to the Euro-Latin American Parliamentary Assembly (2007-05-23--2008-10-22)3,3
|
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, competition has always delivered positive results when it has operated within a good framework. The same applies to postal services – wherever feasible. For the sake of fairness, however, it must be said that in the latest phase of liberalisation, consumers, particularly in rural areas, have noted a decline in service quality. Private does not automatically mean good, just as state-owned is not automatically good. What we need is good, positive and fair conditions.
The Commission rightly points out the importance of comprehensive service provision, particularly for rural areas. Services must not be allowed to concentrate only in the cities. The proposals on funding these services, which are more costly, are, however, largely unrealistic, only aimed at the large Member States and are defined in vague terms. The European Court of Justice will have its work cut out for it.
Another result is that many fellow MEPs have requested derogations. So now we have one law for Greece, whereby countries with many islands can liberalise more slowly. There is another law for Luxembourg, whereby small countries with a restricted population – an interesting choice of words – should liberalise later, and ditto for the new Member States. In summary, these are rather vague formulations. Nevertheless, I appeal to you: do not postpone your decision! Problems cannot be solved by shelving them. That is why I cannot agree to mere postponement, and the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance is with me on this.
What we need to end once and for all – and this is the crux of the report – is the option of demarcating a reserved area, which ultimately means that everything is subsidised, from profitable junk mail to loss-making private mail. This practice must end. However, in its generosity, the Commission continues to allow such state subsidies. This I regard as an erroneous approach. I am more in favour of a benefit-oriented approach. The compensation fund that is being proposed, while it may be feasible in large Member States, is not feasible in small ones, as the market has not yet adjusted itself adequately.
Direct mail is a goldmine. Letters weighing less than 50 g are the category that the private operators are waiting to get their hands on. They are not in the slightest bit interested in the Christmas card to auntie Maria who lives up the mountains. So what will the result of the report be, if it is adopted as it is? Overflowing mailboxes in the cities, mountains of junk mail, and good private mail service provision in the towns, but a gradual running down of services in the country. This will be the inevitable result, as governments will in the long run no longer be able, or want, to fund the service.
And how will the providers compete? At the price of the employees working there, and of the rural population. The private operators will only be able to take their cut if working conditions deteriorate: please bear this in mind during the debate. What we will have on our hands is social dumping, which we will not be able to reverse by some recital or other."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples