Strasbourg, 10/07/2007 (Agence Europe) - The European Parliament plenary session debate, on Tuesday 10 July, on the completion of postal liberalisation confirmed the stances of the political groups (see EUROPE 9461). The political compromise arrived at in the EP transport and tourism committee will most probably be approved when MEPs vote on Wednesday. European Internal Market Commissioner Charlie McCreevy repeated that he was in favour of opening the final segment of the postal market that could still be reserved for a historic public operator - mail of less than 50 grammes - from 2009. It was noted that the Portuguese presidency did not attend the session. Around 200 postal workers from the UNI-Europa union federation demonstrated on Tuesday against the liberalisation of the postal sector.
“The draft directive was not drawn up in an ivory tower,” said Mr McCreevy, recalling the main points (see EUROPE 9289): opening up the last reserved area to competition, retaining a universal postal service (UPS) “of the highest quality” and “for all”, “a wide range of financial mechanisms to face up to the burden of the UPS”, increased flexibility meaning that prices would better reflect the nature of the service while still leaving the door open for a “flat rate”. He also opined that the full opening up of the postal sector to competition would be “good for the economy as a whole”. He said that unjustified restriction of market access should be reduced and that the role of the national regulator should be more clearly defined. Noting the need for postal services to adapt to “the revolution” in new communication technology, Mr McCreevy highlighted the opportunities on the horizon: the idea was not to divide up the existing cake, but to increase the size of the cake so that all operators could benefit. He was content to stick with the Commission's initial position of opening up the market in 2009, since “a lot of member states” have agreed to this timetable.
“It is important for the European Parliament to send out a clear message,” said rapporteur Markus Ferber (EPP-ED, Germany), who felt the challenge was to ensure that postal services responded to demand and not to supply. He added: “Today's problems can only by resolved if there is fair competition - and I stress the word fair - which respects workers' rights, and still allows competition to flourish”. He set out the main points in the compromise: - opening up to competition at the end of 2010, with a further derogation of two years for states which joined the EU after 2004, or which had only a small population and a small surface area, or whose topography was particularly difficult, for example with many islands; - a reciprocity clause which prevented reserved area operators from taking markets in member states which had already opened up their markets. On this last point, Mr Ferber recalled that a dozen infringement proceedings had already been opened against member states. As for the mechanisms for funding the UPS, he said he thought the compromise was “adequate”, allowing as it did member states to choose between five provisions, and even mix and match them. The EP compromise did not change the funding mechanisms as set out in the Commission proposal. These mechanisms include public subsidies, setting up national compensation funds financed by operators who failed to abide by public service obligations and/or by users themselves, and by granting public contracts.
Opinions of Parliamentary committees. Speaking for the economic and monetary affairs committee, French Socialist MEP Pervenche Berès said she thought the additional two years granted to some member states showed “the difficulty in reconciling the liberalisation of the market and retaining the UPS”. Speaking “exceptionally and personally,” she added that “the transport committee was right not to listen to the position” of the committee she chairs and which was very close to the Commission's initial proposal. The speaker sent by the employment and social affairs committee stressed that it was important to maintain “social standards”. He noted that Deutsche Post was itself concerned about employment conditions within companies newly entering the German postal market. In the opinion of Austrian Social Democrat Hannes Swoboda, who was speaking for the industry committee, it was essential to maintain the UPS and to ensure that “liberalisation does not lead to a lowering of wages simply because the prices go down”. The representative of the regional policy committee wondered about the impact the draft directive would have in terms of territorial cohesion.
Opinions of political groups. “The Commission proposal does not give enough guarantees” for liberalisation from 2009, said Marianne Thyssen (EPP-ED, Belgium). She welcomed the compromise which “will give postal administrations more time to prepare”. She said that full postal liberalisation would not necessarily have a negative impact on the social conditions of workers in the sector, although there was a need to remain vigilant. For British Labour MEP Brian Simpson, the question raised is not that of knowing whether, or not, postal services should be opened up to competition but that of defining the regulatory instruments that will control this opening. In his view, saying one should keep the monopolistic sector is like living divorced from reality. He did, however, regret the feebleness of the provisions relating to UPS financing. Speaking on behalf of the ALDE Group, Luigi Cocilovo of Italy stressed the need to take the general interest into account in a sector that cannot simply be regulated by “supply and demand”. He said he did not share the suspicions expressed by some of his colleagues who compared the authorisation procedures to a “guillotine” that would prevent competition. Roberts Zile (UEN, Latvia), welcomed the fact that the “situation of the new member states has been taken into account” as, in many countries, “the post office is not ready to take on competition”. Speaking for the Greens/EFA Group, Eva Lichtenberger of Austria said that the latest opening of the postal service had brought with it a “worsening of the service provided especially in rural areas”. In her view, the creation of a compensation fund could work in the larger member states but not in the small states as their market would not allow it. In favour of rejecting the directive, French Communist Francis Wurtz denounced the Commission's “liberal dogmatism” which, he said, “fuels the crisis of legitimacy of the European economic and social model” as well as the “arrogance that maintains the climate of defiance towards our institutions”. “As usual, the EU is seeking to manage everything down to the very last detail”, exclaimed Michael Henry Nattrass (ID, UK), calling for the directive to be rejected. On behalf of the ITS Group, Luca Romagnoli (Italy) spoke against the liberalism which he finds in no way convincing, while recognising the often excellent service provided by the private postal service in Italy. Alessandro Battilocchio (NI, Italy) hoped for “greater clarity” in the definition of criteria for granting authorisations.
Personal intervention by MEPs. According to Pierre Jonckheer (Greens/EFA, Belgium), the question raised is that of knowing whether postal liberalisation allows a relative fall in prices and, if so, who benefits from this. “In Germany, we recorded net losses of 29,000 jobs within the Deutsche Post, including 15,000 which were not offset by the creation of jobs by new operators”, whereas, “in Sweden, the falls in prices were only to the advantage of large companies, at the cost of the individual consumers and SMEs”, he said. He went on to stress: “Results have not materialised. This should make us stop and think”. Christine De Veyrac (EPP-ED, France) is on the other hand convinced that “competition is synonymous with the improvement of services and competitiveness for a sector whose turnover is falling”. She welcomed the fact that the EP compromise provides for the possibility to finance the operator in charge of all or part of the UPS by “levies on the activity of its competitors not subject to the same obligations” or “public subsidies”. She went on to ask the Commission when it would publish the “guidelines for calculating the cost of the universal service” in order to know what, in its view, should be part of universal service. Astrid Lulling (EPP-ED, Luxembourg) explained in detail the specific nature of the Luxembourg postal market which, if total liberalisation were immediate, would see the market share of the traditional postal operator fall to 4% and postal tariffs increase fivefold. “It is necessary and justified to extend the delay of liberalisation to 2013” for Luxembourg, she stressed. This is the reasoning behind the specific amendment submitted by the EPP-ED Group. (mb)