Verbatim report of proceedings

Wednesday, 1 February 2006 - Brussels

19. Application of the Postal Directive

  President. – The next item is the report (A6-0390/2005) by Mr Markus Ferber, on behalf of the Committee on Transport and Tourism, on the application of the Postal Directive (Directive 97/67/EC) as amended by Directive 2002/39/EC (2005/2086(INI)).

  Markus Ferber (PPE-DE), rapporteur. – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, first of all I would very much like to thank the Commission for having produced a very ambitious report on the application of the Postal Directive, which forms the basis for today's debate and tomorrow's vote here in the European Parliament.

It has become very clear – and this is also expressed in the resolution we adopted in the Committee on Transport and Tourism – that the journey we started in 1992 with the Green Paper on the development of postal services in the European Union has continued successfully to today. We have succeeded in reaching a compromise between comprehensive, high-quality provision of postal services and ever increasing competition in the sector, two essentially contradictory aims. That, of course, is the specific aim in 2006, if the obligations in the current Postal Directive also have to be met. I am delighted, Commissioner, that the Commission has put forward a very ambitious timetable, that the prospective study laid down in the directive has now been commissioned, and that, on the basis of this prospective study, we will then be in a position to take further decisions.

Obviously, we cannot be satisfied with what we have achieved so far; we must ensure that we complete the internal market in this field too. But the postal market is not telecommunications, it is not electricity, and it is not gas. We therefore need to take a closer look at how we can achieve further developments here. In our report we have tried to raise a series of questions to which, of course, we would very much like answers, Commissioner, when you present the studies that you have planned for this year. This will give us the materials we need to be able to reach decisions.

The question is: how can we ensure that postal services work throughout the European Union – not just in the big cities, in Greater London, in the Ruhr valley, in Berlin, in Madrid or in Rome, but in all regions of the EU? How can we permanently guarantee the high quality that we now enjoy even in cross-border regions, and how can we do this in a sector that – as the Commission's communication also says – is continuing to grow? I can still remember the debates in this Chamber when the opinion was that postal services would die out anyway, because we could use faxes and e-mail. Postal services are a growth sector. So, how can we mobilise market forces to develop new products and thus to create more jobs in the sector?

These are questions to which we in the committee expect answers from the Commission over the course of this year. They are questions that we have included in this report.

If we can work together very intensively this year – the Commission and the European Parliament, and the Council, which is not very involved at the moment, will join in at some point – then we can enable further developments in this sector that, at the end of the day, will live up to all of these conditions.

I am very grateful to all my fellow Members who worked with such commitment on this topic. Postal services affect all of us: in every one of our electoral districts there are many postal customers, many post offices and sorting offices, in some cases run by several postal service providers. There are therefore always very lively discussions both in committee and here in Parliament. Many thanks to all those who helped me produce this report. I would also like to be quite clear: a rapporteur is always pleased when only a few amendments are tabled. The Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats has tabled an amendment that certainly helps to improve the wording of a point that had not come out of the voting in committee very well. I hope that it will meet with broad approval. We will then have produced, on the whole, a thorough report which puts the European Parliament in a good position to complete its further legislative tasks successfully.

  Charlie McCreevy, Member of the Commission. Mr President, I very much welcome this opportunity to briefly inform the House on the state of play of the Community’s postal policy from the perspective of the Commission and to share with you my thoughts on how I see that policy developing in 2006. But first of all, I should like to thank Mr Ferber for his report, which is very timely, constructive, balanced and well informed. In fact, the findings of the report correspond with our own thinking. Like the report, we are convinced that postal reform in the European Union has brought about positive results for all players and has significantly contributed to the European Union’s competitiveness.

This directive has already paved the way forward by asking the Commission to submit this year three initiatives: a third report on the application of the Postal Directive, a prospective study about the impact of competitive postal markets on universal postal services, and a proposal on the future of EU postal policy. The shape of this proposal will be influenced by a number of factors. One of these, and perhaps the most important, is the impact of Community rules on the postal sector.

The Postal Directive, as amended, establishes balanced principles to allow a gradual phasing-in of competition while maintaining the necessary safeguards for the provision of a universal service. I must say in this context that developments to date provide no evidence supporting the need for a change to the deadlines set out in the Postal Directive. The year 2009 thus remains the reference date for our work.

The Commission will ensure that the enforcement of the Treaty provisions on competition will accompany the process of liberalisation. As far as the state aid rules are concerned, in July 2005 the Commission adopted a package of measures providing guidance on the principles under which it assesses public service compensation for services of general economic interest.

Furthermore, the Commission is fully aware of the social relevance of postal services and will pay particular attention to the situation of every Member State so as to be able to reach common ground. The results of the prospective study will help us in doing so and will contribute to the analysis of the conditions for a successful postal internal market.

Additional elements will be provided through the results of our recently conducted public online consultation on the future of European postal services. The Commission will continue its preparatory work in full transparency, and pursue its dialogue with all those involved.

This own-initiative report of the European Parliament represents a very good basis for further discussions. I very much welcome this initiative and I warmly thank Mr Ferber and his colleagues from the Committee on Transport and Tourism for the excellent work.

  Georg Jarzembowski, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats fully supports the substance of the rapporteur Mr Ferber's opinion on the European Commission's progress report. By means of the opinion presented by the rapporteur, we want to ensure that the Commission uses the measures announced up to 31 December this year to examine closely all the economic, technological, social and geographic aspects of the increasing openness of the postal market and to inform us of its consequences.

To date – I would like to remind you of this, Commissioner, and I am keen to hear your response – not all Member States have, to our knowledge and that of the rapporteur, correctly implemented the Postal Directive on time. I think that it is the Commission's duty to monitor the implementation of the measures taken so far very carefully in each Member State, to hold the Member to their obligations and, if necessary, to refer them to the European Court of Justice. Community law must be applied in all Member States. By way of conciliation, though, I will say that, following the generally positive developments in the postal market for the benefit of the consumers so far, in my opinion the Commission should stick to the joint decision to complete the opening up of postal services in 2009.

I would also ask you to really go into the issue of universal service in detail once more. If I may summarise, universal service should mean that we can expect high-quality services at affordable prices in all Member States. That is our goal, but we should take a careful look at that. I will give you an example: If even Germany now deviates from the principle that the postage charge for a standard letter should be the same both internally and to all 24 other Member States, then we have to consider what that means. A standard letter in Germany now costs 55 cent, but the same letter to any other EU country costs 70 cent, the first time there has been a difference. If that means that the postage charged depends on the costs – the distance and the type of delivery – then what is the justification for a universal service? What is left to justify the restriction of competition by a regulated reserved sector?

We need to examine carefully the question of what the universal area is, what we want it to guarantee, and whether we need a reserved sector to do that. I am therefore awaiting your assessment and your opinion with great interest. Thank you very much, Commissioner.

  Gary Titley, on behalf of the PSE Group. – Mr President, it is obviously important we are having this debate today, because on 1 January, the latest step down to 50 grams for the reserve sector took place, and we are awaiting the Commission’s study – hopefully to be published in the summer – on accomplishing the internal market by 2009.

There are great challenges facing the postal sector, but also great opportunities. Post has to keep up with developments elsewhere, not least the switch from consumer-to-consumer business to business and consumer, but also as regards the single market. It is a condemnation of the European Union that 13 years after the completion of the single market, there are huge obstacles to cross-border postal activity, the work of the expanding home-shopping market and indeed for newspaper and magazine publishers.

In order for this process to work properly, we have to have transparency, clarity, certainty and the clear involvement of postal customers and consumers. We recognise of course that each postal market is unique, but that cannot excuse serious regulatory asymmetry leading to serious market distortions. We have to have a structure whereby national regulatory authorities must work together. We have to have greater clarity and transparency in the authorisation process and this is one area on which the Commission must focus. We need Member States to adopt and implement the quality of service standards devised by CEN so that we can compare like with like. We must ensure that postal customers, small as well as large, are involved in this whole process.

Ultimately the success or failure of this venture will depend on us being able to satisfy people that our little old mothers living in isolated places are still going to get a universal service. Answer that and this process will be successful.

  Nathalie Griesbeck, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like straightaway to join others in thanking our fellow Member, Mr Ferber, for his own-initiative report. Allow me to present my point of view from two angles.

Firstly, together with my Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, I am delighted that this report will henceforth give us the opportunity to debate the legal framework that our Union should implement by 2009 with a view to regulating the opening up of postal services. Secondly, I support the method proposed, which offers us an approach to the process of modernising this sector that is both controlled and balanced.

Nevertheless, ladies and gentlemen, while the aim of opening up postal services is, as has just been explained, one of modernising the sector of activity in question and of improving the services provided to customers, no one is oblivious to what is at stake in the reform or to our fellow citizens’ legitimate fears that a high-quality service will no longer be maintained and that the service will no longer cover all territories, including the remotest ones. It is therefore with a great deal of interest that I await the economic impact study due to be presented by the European Commission some time this year. It should be based on reliable economic data and on the results of consultations with all the interested parties, from the trade unions to the chambers of commerce and industry, via all the social partners concerned.

I also draw the Commission’s, as well as the Council’s, attention to the need to combat distortion of competition in all its guises. I am thinking, in particular, of VAT liability and tax harmonisation.

To conclude, I am counting on the Commission to propose relevant and fair schemes for funding the universal service, without second guessing choices that Parliament will have to make because, in the last resort, ladies and gentlemen, it is undoubtedly up to Parliament, as our democratic arm, to explain to the 450 million Europeans that the strong Europe that we want to build together belongs to them.

  Eva Lichtenberger, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, when we talk about the future of postal services, we should start by considering what we are trying to achieve. The completion of the internal market cannot be an end in itself, but should – as it says in all the declarations of intent – bring positive results for the citizens of Europe.

However, it can already be seen that several states where services have been diluted have recorded a huge impact on remote regions and areas with low population densities. People in poorly accessible areas must also not be cut off from services. The idea that opening up the market would, as the rapporteur stated in committee, automatically guarantee that services would be provided to the proverbial old lady in the mountains has since been proved wrong by some classic examples.

For that reason, a study like the one that has been prepared should not pose the questions in a way that practically presupposes the desired answer, as has been done in point 13, for example. This point clearly shows the author's desire to get a certain answer – so clearly, in fact, that it almost makes the study superfluous. If we commission a study, we must be prepared to face up to the whole truth.

  Georgios Toussas, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (EL) Mr President, the liberalisation of postal services is a piece of the puzzle of the general liberalisation of services and the privatisation of public utility companies and harms all the workers.

The social need for reliable, modern postal services is becoming the subject of exploitation in order to secure greater profits for big business.

On the pretext of the new operational programmes, redundancies and changes to postal workers' contracts of employment are taking on mass proportions.

On the pretext, again, of changing communication conduct, the report paves the way for the definition of the universal service to be re-examined. It endeavours to abolish the obligation which this service provider has to provide ready access to the postal network to all users at adequate fixed collection and distribution access points which cover national and cross-border services.

These amendments, as part of the liberalisation of postal services and the completion of the internal market in postal services in 2009, as referred to in the report, objectively give private post offices the facility to wrest the lion's share of the postal market from public post offices, with painful consequences for users and workers in general. That is why we are opposed to and voted against the report.

  Michael Henry Nattrass, on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. – Mr President, we have seen the proposed Constitution for Europe rejected by the French and Dutch people. The computer-implemented inventions and port services directives were also rejected. Despite these rejections, the drive towards harmonisation goes relentlessly onwards, even when it has nothing to do with trade or EU efficiency and is bad for citizens.

So here it is, another second-class act, the Postal Directive. This is none of the EU’s business, and I advise the EU to stay out of it. The Postal Directive seeks to impose value added tax on postage at a time when letter writing is under great competition from e-mail. The UK does not want it! The British Post Office is now 371 years old, and it was the British in 1840 who brought out the first postage stamp, bearing the head of Queen Victoria.

Now the EU wants to stamp its dead hand of inefficiency on it. A high watermark of philatelic interference, perforated only by ignorance of British tradition and a wish to kill letter writing stone dead. From Penny Black to EU attack in 166 years! Is this progress?

In 2004 the Postmaster General stated categorically that the British Government did not want VAT on stamps. The Royal Mail told me this very week that it does not want it, as it would be bad for small businesses, charities and customers. The British people do not want it. They are already paying for the cost of the EU’s common agricultural policy.

What would Stanley Gibbons have said from the Strand in London if he had still been alive? I suggest he would have published a book with pictures of MEPs who monkey with British postal traditions entitled ‘Stanley Stamps Gibbon Catalogue’.

When UKIP vote on this report, it will vote in accordance with the wishes of UK citizens. I hope British MEPs stick up for Britain. The people will watch as Europhiles submit their nations to another excessive stamp of EU authority. Thank you, Mr President, and good luck to the interpreters!

  President. – (FR) Mr Nattrass, for your information, your group may speak today for five minutes, divided up as follows: one minute for Mrs Krupa, one minute for Mr Bloom, a further one and a half minutes for Mrs Krupa and one and a half minutes for yourself, and not two and a half minutes. If Mr Farage has ‘sold’ you five minutes, then he has sold you something that did not belong to him.

  Seán Ó Neachtain, on behalf of the UEN Group. – Mr President, the postal directive should serve all consumers and particularly the needs of rural dwellers. The liberalisation of services very often benefits those in areas of dense population at the expense of consumers in less-populated areas.

As a Member of the European Parliament for the West and North-West of Ireland, I represent a predominantly rural constituency. In my experience, many directives over the years have had a negative impact on rural areas and rural development because they inadvertently or advertently benefited areas of high population where liberal policies were easier to follow.

The local post office in rural communities is a vital economic, social and cultural institution and the rights of rural dwellers to postal services cannot be ignored when framing liberalisation plans for those services in the EU. The provision of and access to such services is the essence of what sustainable rural development is all about.

It has to be highlighted that the opening-up of postal services does not always bring benefits in terms of an increased level of employment and I would ask the Commission to address this in a detailed study that will be given equality, efficiency and customer-orientation in the postal sector, particularly as regards those peripheral areas.

The intention behind the postal directive was good but, like all good intentions, the application was not so good. I would ask the Commission and the rapporteur to try and put in place a system of postal services that will be fair to all, a universal service.

  Armando Dionisi (PPE-DE). – (IT) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the process of gradual liberalisation in the postal sector that has begun in recent years has produced a positive change, in that it has encouraged operators to improve the quality and efficiency of the service and of their production processes.

Mr Ferber’s report on the implementation of the postal directive is well-balanced: it underlines the positive effects of the liberalisation undertaken so far, but it also points out the need to assess the social and employment consequences of a further stage in the completion of the internal market, taking account of the particular situations in individual countries. This further stage will depend entirely on the results of the Commission’s study, the purpose of which is to assess the impact that completing the market will have on the universal service in each Member State. It is therefore inappropriate to make any predictions about this study.

Parliament’s role at this stage is to emphasise that the effect of liberalisation on the universal postal service must be assessed in relation to national differences and particular geographical, social and economic situations, and that political decisions on liberalisation must be made wholly in accordance with the principles of proportionality and subsidiarity.

The postal service is a vital link for our citizens in certain areas. To maintain current universal service levels requires a gradual approach. That is why the Italian delegation cannot support the amendment proposed by Mr Ferber, because it implicitly casts doubt on the need for a universal service, which, in my view, remains a right and an inescapable duty for Europe’s postal services.

  Gilles Savary (PSE). – (FR) Mr President, I will be very brief when I say that postal services are not like other services. They have a human dimension, as has been pointed out, but they also have a social and territorial dimension, which means that the services provided vary greatly from one country to the next.

There is a big difference between serving a very dense population, like that of the Netherlands, which is concentrated on very flat territory, and serving, on the same terms, the same population spread over thousands of islands, as in Greece, or over a very diverse territory, as in France.

Consequently, I hope that the assessment planned by the Commission is objective and that it is not based on the belief shared by some in this Assembly, namely that there is no need for a framework because the market, and nothing but the market as a whole, is equal to the job of regulating postal services. I also hope that this assessment helps ensure that the opening up of the postal market - which is something Europe needs – is carried out in such a way as to respect what the postal service represents: a universal service whose territorial and social dimension is irreplaceable.

  Guntars Krasts (UEN). – (LV) The goal of liberalising the postal sector by 2009 is real and achievable. Results in the Member States where postal reform has been more rapid demonstrate this fact. It is difficult to understand why the report stresses that as a result of competition in the postal sector former employment levels have not always been preserved. The goal of postal reform is not preserving jobs, nor of course reducing them. Jobs can also be lost without liberalisation – as a result of technological modernisation, for instance. We should not look at industry reform from the viewpoint of the postal sector as a business. The development of the postal business and its adjustment to new market conditions are business management issues.

The fundamental goal of the restructuring of the postal sector is to better meet consumers’ interests, by giving inhabitants of the European Union the opportunity to receive a universal service. At the same time, however, the post should not remain simply an industry for the maintenance of the universal service. We should not forget that the majority of postal services customers – in fact over 90 per cent – are business customers, whose requirements of the postal sector may be different. A broad spectrum of high-quality postal services needs to be developed, in order for the industry not only to survive but also to develop.

The range of postal services increasingly interacts with other sectors such as financial services, advertising and commerce. The future of postal services will be dependent on such successful interactivity. Postal sector development is one of the engines for the European Union’s economic development, productivity and competitiveness. Unfortunately, progress in the direction of a common European Union postal market remains slow.

  Inés Ayala Sender (PSE). – (ES) We are once again holding a debate which affects one of European society’s most emblematic public services, which is of great symbolic value and inspires great confidence; hence its diversity and strong roots. Furthermore, postal services are essential given their importance in terms of an intensive workforce: a workforce with a level of training and sense of belonging to the service which deserve immense respect and recognition.

Furthermore, the postal services’ capacity to enhance social and territorial cohesion is fundamental in an enlarged and increasingly individualist Europe. In this new phase that is opening up – and at this point I would like to acknowledge Mr Simpson as well, whom I wish had also been present, and I hope that he is here later – I would therefore like to say to the Commission that it is essential that the new process have true and acceptable justification and that it be fully credible, because we are being told that the service will be better afterwards, but what we are seeing today is that what is being proposed to us is greater insecurity in terms of jobs, with a large number of question marks being placed over the service.

We must therefore argue that it is essential fully to guarantee the universal service with all of its quality of service and price conditions and also argue that account be taken of social and territorial cohesion and of the diversity of the current systems in terms of what is good about them – they cannot all be homogenised.

  Emanuel Jardim Fernandes (PSE). – (PT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, I should like to congratulate the rapporteur, Mr Ferber, on his excellent report, which clarifies the social and economic importance of the postal services, in the face of indications of unemployment and concentration. It is necessary in my view to prevent this public service, with the advent of liberalisation, from becoming merely an economic service, in which only the wealthier sections of society will be able to enjoy the basic right to send a letter, with the universal provision of service denied to the least privileged members of society and to those living in outlying regions.

I should therefore like to call on the Commission, in future analyses of the sector, to differentiate on the basis of costs associated with funding the universal service, particularly in view of geographic and demographic constraints, in order to guarantee access for all to this service of general interest.

In common with the rapporteur, I feel that postal services are fundamental to the EU, and that they have a positive influence on various sectors of society, such as trade, services and jobs, by modernising investments capable of increasing competitiveness, quality and efficiency, which in turn make it possible to charge less to the citizens and to businesses. In so doing, a decisive contribution is made to achieving the objectives of the Lisbon Strategy, as a sector capable of generating jobs and growth.

  President. – The debate is closed.

The vote will take place tomorrow at 11 a.m.

Written statement (Rule 142)

  Hélène Goudin (IND/DEM). – (SV) 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 H-1135/05). 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.