WRITTEN QUESTION E-0581/02 by Professor Sir Neil MacCormick (Verts/ALE) to the Council. Postal services in rural areas.
Date: 2002-03-05
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: liberalisation of the market, postal service, rural region, services contract, universal service

C 52 E/10

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

6.3.2003

governing Community assistance to micro-finance operations, it is suggested to refer to the Community
publication ‘Micro-finance (cid:1) Methodological considerations’ (2). As far as food security is concerned, India
is not considered as a priority under the Food Security Budget line, since the country has not experienced
acute food shortages for many years and is even a surplus producer. In India, therefore, this budget line
provides only sporadic funding and mostly via the association ‘EuronAid’ to very few local non-govern-
mental organisations (NGOs). Moreover, considering that India has not agreed a food security strategy with
the Commission, and to concentrate our efforts in other regions, the Budget line will discontinue the
financing of project in India.

The Commission never financed or co-financed projects with ‘SHARE’ and therefore cannot comment on
the efficiency of this organisation.

(1) COM(2000) 212 final.
(2)
ISDN 92-828-8998-1.

(2003/C 52 E/011)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0581/02

by Professor Sir Neil MacCormick (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(5 March 2002)

Subject: Postal services in rural areas

Is the Council aware of the concern in rural communities over the need to maintain local offices for postal
services, given that these often also function as local stores for general merchandise and thus form a focus
for remote communities?

In that light, will the Council look favourably on the European Parliament’s approach to liberalisation of
postal services, maintaining the proposed 150g limit until such time as an in-depth review is undertaken
on the feasibility for further liberalisation? Furthermore, will the Council reject any moves towards the
introduction of a limit of 50g in 2006, as proposed by the Commission in October 2001, without a
proper understanding of the likely effect that such as a move would have on universal service and
universal tariff provision?

Reply

(5 November 2002)

Regarding the proposal for a European Parliament and Council Directive amending Directive 97/67/EC
with regard to the further opening to competition of Community postal services, the European Parliament
adopted a number of second-reading amendments to the Council’s common position at its plenary session
from 11 to 14 March 2002.

These amendments include the addition of an obligation on the Commission to provide information on a
two-yearly basis about developments in the sector, with particular reference to the economic, social,
employment and technological aspects, as well as about the quality of services.

At its meeting on 7 May 2002, after approving the amendments adopted by the European Parliament at
second reading, the Council adopted the Directive amending Directive 97/67/EC with regard to the further
opening to competition of Community postal services. The Directive seeks to liberalise a further instalment
of the postal market (20 % according to some estimates) by 1 January 2006, while maintaining existing
safeguards on universal service provision. In this connection, the new recital 6 inserted at the European
Parliament’s request takes explicit account of the considerable social and economic importance of rural
postal networks which can provide an essential infrastructure network affording universal access to new
telecommunications technologies. Further measures may be adopted on the basis of a proposal to be
submitted by the Commission by 31 December 2006.