Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-07-10-Speech-2-023"

PredicateValue (sorted: default)
rdf:type
dcterms:Date
dcterms:Is Part Of
dcterms:Language
lpv:document identification number
"en.20070710.5.2-023"2
lpv:hasSubsequent
lpv:speaker
lpv:spokenAs
lpv:translated text
". Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the proposal for an amendment to the directive on completing the internal market in postal services, put forward by Mr Ferber, has been met with a broad consensus, as demonstrated by its reception in committee as well as the compromises reached on this subject by the political groups. As I have already stated on other occasions, I am by no means a card-carrying supporter of liberalisation, but quite the reverse. This is partly because, particularly in Italy, it has not produced the miraculous effects in terms of improving services and prices that consumers so often hear alluded to. In fact, in Italy and I challenge my fellow Italian Members who are champions of liberalisation to prove the contrary the liberalisation of various sectors, from insurance to energy, rail and postal services themselves, has resulted in higher costs and greater difficulties in using services. So much so that, in Italy, despite coming from a certain Marxist tradition, people are becoming champions of liberalisation and becoming ministers. These are not just communists, but communists who, in order to meet the market, actually become ministers, after having sat in passing on these chairs, but with little in the way of commitment or helpful contributions. Thus from communist ministers there is agitation which then affects the various categories, from lawyers to notaries, then taxi drivers, and then bakers, and this confirms the justice of consumption and competition. So this is how, in addition to my ideological convictions, I, a people’s nationalist, have also seen a concrete demonstration that the free market certainly does not cure all ills, but instead often feeds them. In the hope, however, that at least in my country greater competition in the postal sector – which is, moreover, a public sector which, having been partially privatised, has experienced nothing but a rise in costs compared with a service that is wholly of a European standard – in the hope that all this will finally produce an improvement in the service, I intend to support the Ferber report. I must not omit to say that, in Italy, the service offered by private operators in the sector of deliveries is often excellent and seems to have created more employment than that lost in the public service. Neither can I disregard the fact that, while the large commercial customers do not need any special protection with regard to bad services, small customers are in the opposite situation with regard to the universal service. It is right for the universal service to be guaranteed for at least five days a week in all Member States, and we must not go back on this. Similarly, I wonder who could oppose the wish for faster, more regular and more reliable postal services or a fair system of reimbursement or compensation, as referred to many times in the Ferber report? The issue is complex and, as is usual here, there is not enough time to analyse all the aspects, both positive and negative, of the report. I hope that from January 2011 the fact that exclusive rights to provide postal services will not continue will bring universal benefits for all. It will also be the first time that I find myself forced to change my mind about the positive nature of liberalisations."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

1http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/English.ttl.gz
2http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/Events_and_structure.ttl.gz
3http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/spokenAs.ttl.gz

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph