Proposition 51K2383

Proposition de résolution visant à assurer une haute qualité du service postal universel.

General information ¶

Authors

MR François Bellot, Valérie De Bue
PS | SP Camille Dieu, Karine Lalieux
Vooruit Philippe De Coene, Inga Verhaert

Submission date

March 29, 2006

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

resolution of parliament postal service

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP Open Vld N-VA MR FN VB

Contact form ¶

Do you have a question or request regarding this proposition? Select the most appropriate option for your request and I will get back to you shortly.

Discussion ¶

Feb. 8, 2007 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, there are circumstances in which members of this assembly question whether an oral or written report is appropriate. Today’s debate in itself already indicates the answer. This issue is very important for the future of the postal sector. As this is a political matter, an oral report is justified.

The Infrastructure Committee has carried out a very important work over many months (hearing, debate on several proposals for resolutions, consideration of amendments and sub-amendments) to reach a final result. This should be ⁇ in the plenary session. There is a huge discussion of society and current events.

Social debate because universal service is at the heart of our social model. In fact, it is the State that must make every effort to ensure that all citizens have access to a series of services that are considered indispensable to lead a life worthy of this name. From healthcare to education, public transport, housing, postal services and telephony, a whole range of sectors are the subject of special attention. They must be at the reach of everyone. The State must ensure that all services which it considers to be of general interest are well accessible to all citizens at an affordable price and regardless of the place of residence of that citizen.

This social debate is now even more relevant when it comes to postal services. To be more precise, I should mean the universal postal service, since the European Commission has submitted a new proposal for a postal directive, which provides for both ensuring a universal postal service across the EU and fully liberalizing the postal market by 1 January 2009.

When the Commission presented its proposal for a directive, the Infrastructure Committee, which was to examine various resolutions relating to the universal postal service, both from a national and European perspective, organized this broad debate that I just talked about. The objective was double: to clarify the issues in the light of the different points of view of the relevant stakeholders and to update the texts of resolutions in the light of this new proposal for a European directive.

Therefore, the Infrastructure Committee has conducted numerous hearings. Thus, we heard the Post’s Mediation Service, the Post’s management itself, the PostEurop Secretary General, the representative of the European Express Association, the president of the IBPT, a representative of Commissioner McCreevy, the PWC consultants who are at the base of one of the Commission’s reference studies, a representative of Unizo, a representative of the middle classes, representatives of the CGSP, the SLFP and the CSC.

I will not summarize here the intervention of each of the speakers; for this reason, I refer to the written report. I would like to thank the staff who have done this very important work. However, I will try to classify the various interventions into different categories.

I would like to emphasize the quality of the debates and thank all participants for their availability, as they had to come often in committees, and for their willingness to defend their point of view.

To return to the hearings itself, it must be noted from the very beginning that everyone has expressed a very great attachment to the very principle of universal service, recognizing his economic and social role in our society. That said, we can divide the different stakeholders, and this without a priori ideological, between those who express concerns of different nature about the possibility of ensuring the viability and a certain quality of the universal postal service and those who unreservedly support the proposal for a directive of the European Commission.

Without wanting to be ironic, I must nevertheless emphasize that, except for the representative of the European Commission and the consultants of PWC, few interventions abounded in the direction of massive support for the McCreevy Directive proposal.

Without necessarily commenting on liberalization as such, its alleged benefits or faults, a very large majority of the people interviewed express concerns about the maintenance of a quality universal service that could be financially viable with the financing mechanisms as proposed by the European Commission. Fears that a very large majority of colleagues have also relayed in their speeches and in the amendments they have submitted.

For some – the middle classes and the Unizo, for example, who present themselves as a priori favorable to market opening and who question the quality of the basic services of La Poste – for these two associations there is, therefore, the risk that the universal service cannot be guaranteed in the way it is provided today and that only large companies will not benefit from a total market opening. It is the modalities of financing the universal service and this liberalization that are put into perspective.

The smashing and price increases for small and medium-sized customers are denounced. Several speakers therefore ask the Belgian authorities to be careful about the choice they will make to finance the universal service so that the liberalization does not result in an increase in prices.

The management of La Poste as well as the three representative trade union organisations have strongly criticized the proposed directive of the European Commission and call for the postponement of this market opening as a whole. Both with regard to the volume of employment in the sector and the possibility of ⁇ ining a quality universal service thus satisfying consumers and with regard to competitors’ access to the market, significant reservations have been made with regard to the Directive.

Now, I am coming to the debate itself. I will be quite brief.

The questions and concerns that have gone through this debate were expressed during the consideration of the resolution we are going to vote on and most often translated into amendments submitted by the different political groups of this assembly.

The uncertainties generated by the Commission proposal for a directive call for further studies and new examinations by Member States of certain specific elements such as, for example, the levels of consumer satisfaction in countries where the market is fully liberalized or the social and economic costs of the first opening already operated. The resolution also covers a whole series of issues that the hearings did not resolve. What about financing? How can a compensation fund operate in a sector such as the Post? How to calculate the cost of universal service? How to prevent scratching?

At the present stage and at the end of this debate, our Parliament asks the Government to question, in all its meetings concerning the liberalization of the postal sector, the proposal for a European Commission directive as well as the existence of a full opening date for the market. This position, which is more than expressing a reservation, can be lifted when the government and Parliament have proceeded to review the studies and the answers requested from the European Commission in our resolution.

I started this report by emphasizing that our work included us in a real social debate; I will conclude by highlighting the fact that this resolution was unanimously voted by the Infrastructure Committee. The importance of the debates and this vote illustrates how the future of the universal postal service is a crucial issue for our society and all its citizens.

The general discussion included Mr Deseyn, Mr Lavaux, Mrs Vautmans, Mrs Lalieux, Mr De Coene, Mr Bellot and Mr Van den Eynde.

Mr Deseyn, you have the word.

Mr. Speaker, I find it a little regrettable that the government is not also represented by State Secretary Tuybens, who follows the postal file. In fact, I find it very important that Minister Verwilghen and State Secretary Tuybens together give sufficient follow-up to what was unanimously approved in the committee and is therefore an explicit question of this Parliament.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, there were several resolutions on the basis. We have then come to an integrated text, which has the support of the whole Parliament.

It is about ⁇ ining the quality of the postal service. Sometimes one asks what it is about when it comes to the quality of the Post or of the services. For us, it can not only be about the quality of the universal service, but should be about the quality of the whole postal company and, in the expansion, the postal sector.

Thus, it is much wider than just the delivery time or some minimum collection or delivery obligations as described in the European Postal Directive. It is also about organizing in a quality way and how the company deals with employment. The quality and maintenance of that quality of postal services is therefore quite extensive. We have tried in this resolution, with the various recommendations to the government, to be able to effectively express that concern.

In terms of quality, it is also about a reasonable price. This is also a European requirement. This is a very up-to-date debate, colleagues, because we note that consumers have to pay more and more, even before the full liberalization of the postal market. I point out the abolition of the distinction between the prior and the non-prior seal. For many people, there is no choice for a cheaper rate possible, which de facto means an increase. Another proof of this is the proposed tariff simplification. In terms of communication, it is of course a genius to say that the tariffs will be simplified, but if one combines a number of tariffs and does not level down the prices, it de facto means a higher price again for the consumer.

I come to a third aspect. The Christmas season is behind us. No favour was made to the public, the consumers, whom we defend with the resolution, by offering special rates. I find that strange. One pays more and more for basic products, but on the other hand, De Post now makes a nice profit, allowing it to pay dividends. By the way, we find that a good thing. Fortunately, no 10 million euros per partner was found, because how could one have fulfilled the promise of financial compensation when new partners joined the company. I consider that there is a large gap between, on the one hand, the distribution of profits and, on the other hand, the ever-increasing contribution requested from the general public for the postal products. This is, in my opinion, an important point of attention in the business operation of De Post. In the coming months and years, however, we would not be allowed to tax this particular person even more, if we find that there can be profits, which will pay serious dividends.

When we talk about quality, colleagues, it is also about the spread of services. It is about that customers can reach the postal services well and therefore that there are sufficient postal offices and contact points of De Post. Of course, we are not an unreasonable party that wants to keep all the offices, because liberalization is not yet on the table. Of course, we must prepare for the future. We know that it is not always easy for a company like De Post to remain competitive in certain points. When it comes to the postal offices and from the company it is said that a third is losing, it is not possible to reduce the office network to half. Also in my city, Kortrijk, action committees are rightly taking action against this with the argument that such a benevolent office does not belong to the worst third of the postal offices. We still cannot find an adequate explanation for why such offices are closed. A third of the offices are losing, and yet half of the offices are closed. That is problematic. We must remain alert to this.

The postpoints can offer an alternative. Opening a post office can only in the light of the closure of an office. This order should also be respected: first the opening of a post office and then the closure of the post office.

The Secretary of State reacted vigorously when we made public statements around it. He said that the promises would be kept and that the postpoint would be opened first. However, we see in a number of cases – whether or not isolated – that there is still a closure without one being able, for all sorts of reasons, to proceed to the opening of a postal point. I think this is the policy of the door. On behalf of our group, I therefore call on the government, in consultation with the company De Post, not to open that door too much. The explicit promise made here in the Parliament several times to go to the closure of an office only if a post office is first opened must be kept. A postpoint provides in certain cases soil. However, we must not forget that there is always only a limited range available here.

Regarding the postal policy, I would like the government to have a little more transparency on the remuneration and the business models that are established there with the partners. If we are rightly concerned about continuity, it is good to know what is done for those partners, what their contribution is in the story and what the possible benefits or profits they can get from it. It is also important to know that to introduce the project to new partners. We already see that the first postpoints are forced to close because the local partner is about to close his business or store. Therefore, there are few guarantees for continuity. If we talk about a quality postal service, that should also be one of our concerns.

I have also called in the past to make the local government partner in this. One should then not send a letter to the mayor on the day of closure, one must go in advance with the local authorities, the mayors and the competent mandators, to see if the municipality is willing to provide a local in a submunicipality or a piece of public infrastructure. One can then set up a stop there somewhere – the model of the post station is unfortunately abandoned by the company De Post – to set up. I think that a number of municipal governments, from a legitimate concern for the provision of services to the citizens, will make effective efforts to do so.

There is also the neighborhood shopping project, with European funds and accompanied by the regional governments. There are also openings for the company De Post. There are opportunities to better serve the public without having to harm the economic situation of the company De Post. I see to this day that the willingness to cooperate there is not really large. I regret this.

Now to the universal service. If other operators are also granted permits for certain new postsegments in which they are not yet able to operate, I hope that – I look forward – a logical and transparent division of the territory will be achieved. Otherwise, it will be ⁇ difficult for the consumer to know which operator serves which care area. One could work with a regional or provincial arrangement, but my concern is that each one would perform his part of the assignment so that the universal service would not be jeopardized.

I just talked about an office per municipality, because the range in the post points is limited. However, an additional criterion must be included, namely the maximum distance. In our amendment, we have proposed very concretely to include 10 kilometers in the resolution. It has been said that distances must be respected, but one has not wanted to stick to a figure. However, it is important to give people the guarantee that within an acceptable distance they can rely on a full postal range and on De Post’s broad service, including for financial aspects.

Regarding the government’s commitments to De Post and the social role that politics has to defend in it, I believe that we should address the social role of the postman. It is a passage from the government agreement. Fortunately, this concern has also found a place in the final text of the resolution. However, when it comes to the concrete fulfillment, I see few commitments. One remains on the ground.

For us, the quality of the postal service also means the quality of employment. I think this is essential. If we see what is happening in other postal markets – sometimes in neighboring countries such as the Netherlands and Germany – then, from a social reflex, we cannot take peace with it. If we see how ridiculously low the wages are in certain cases, if we see who is engaged for it, namely often minors who are unreasonably compensated and often also people who do so as side benefits, without building up social rights, then it does not seem to be the model of employment that we would support through a public company and from public responsibility.

In this context, I would also like to point out the personal policy that is now being carried out at De Post. Sometimes, after a number of renewals of a temporary contract, one comes to an outflow to keep the cheapest in employment. One almost abstracts the quality of an individual postal officer. This is a regrettable determination. I would be ⁇ sorry if, in the light of liberalization, large concessions were made at that point.

In this discussion around the quality of De Post, one cannot always ignore the community aspects. The figures around absenteism are quite relevant here. I mean, when it comes to fulfilling agreements within the Post. I will give a concrete example. There has been some work to be done around the closure of the post sorting center in Oostende, where international mail was also processed. That piece of work is now going to Gent. It was then agreed within the organization of De Post that the West Flamings would offer these sacrifices. After all, there was also an agreement with the center of Libramont that even there, with the abolition of the international mail sorting, the local mail sorting around Libramont would also disappear, as in Oostende, for larger collection platforms for the new sorting centers. Now we see that Oostende is being forced to fulfill previously made agreements, while this does not apply to Libramont. This is how groups are put against each other and de facto a community policy is carried out, and we cannot tolerate that.

When it comes to universal service, we are at the heart of the debate. Many speeches from colleagues will probably also have to allude to this. The whole discussion revolves around how much it costs and whether there is an unbearable burden attached to De Post to organize the universal service. In this regard, we must however admit that we could read in the annual reports of the BIPT allusions that this is not an additional cost for the company. If one then asks for perspectives, support and figures for such statements, then it is very difficult to gain insight into them. I call on the government to inform Parliament as much as possible in this discussion, so that it can be conducted intellectually fairly and we would know after the classical arguments with which alternative operators both and The Post screen, where exactly the truth lies now.

I also hope that when there is a clear position and this is adopted, the government will play a very active role as requested in the resolution, namely to consistently communicate the position taken by this Parliament to the European Commission, especially when it comes to a response to concrete concerns. I mean, then, how a compensation mechanism should be organized or how to avoid the burden on the budget of an individual Member State by having to compensate for the universal service. These are very concrete questions that are very important for the further course of the debate. We hope that at a suitable time, for example the preparation of a European Council, the government will knock on the table to force those answers on the Commission before it can determine a further position or choose a date when the last portion of the postal market – at least fifty grams – will be opened to alternative operators.

In his excellent report, the rapporteur pointed out that this was adopted unanimously, thus with the greatest possible consensus in the committee. In recent days, I have read in the press all sorts of comments and considerations from socialists and liberals.

Mr. Deseyn, I thought you were landing. Mr De Coene would like to ask a question.

This is my last point.

Can I let Mr. De Coene interrupt you?

I will wait until the end.

I wonder if there are new elements in the debate. Are they now leaving the positions taken then and for what reasons? That would be of great interest to me tonight.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Deseyn, you said later: “If the committee would possibly formulate a new proposal ...”. Did I understand you well?

Suppose that, when the entire decision-making process and all appropriate procedures have been completed, it would be effectively branched or decided at the European Council or the European Commission that at that moment the definitive liberalization enters into force, then also the last section of the postal market is liberalized. It is in that perspective that you should look at it.

The European Commission is still an arbitrator, but can not make a new decision. Once the European Commission has formulated its co-decision proposal, the actors are, on the one hand, the European Council of Ministers and, on the other hand, the European Parliament. The European Commission can still act as an arbitrator, but cannot itself formulate a new proposal. I want to give you that.

That means the following. The importance of the resolution is just that we are facing a rather unique situation. It is one of the few times – you should check it out – in European decision-making that a Parliament, possibly unanimously, instructs a government to take a position in the co-decision process.

I am ⁇ aware of this. Now, however, there is the proposal of the European Commission, which we cannot ignore. It was the focus of our debate. The decision lies with various bodies and with the Councils. However, there will also be a co-decision procedure. The European Commission will also defend its proposal.

If this or that decision is then taken at some point, the matters that I have just outlined are especially important. In this case, we can provide a correct answer to a large number of concerns at the national level.

I agree with your words that the mandate to our government will be absolutely non-binding. However, the new Chamber Rules also stipulate that resolutions will have to be follow-up and reporting. I hope that both ministers involved in the debate will work together and lean as closely as possible to the mandate they will receive from the House tonight.

The word is now to Mr. Lavaux. Then it is Mrs. Vautmans and Mrs. Lalieux.

I would like to speak on the work. It must be my heartfelt regret that the competent Secretary of State is not present in this debate, which is fundamental for the future of a public service with tens of thousands of workers under his responsibility. If the resolution is approved, it is one of its implementers. I know it is a parliamentary initiative, but it is a pity.

You are right. I let him call. There is, however, a minister present, but I know that you would like to have many ministers and secretaries of state around you.

There is only one Minister and one Secretary of State. That is not numerous.

Mr Lavaux, you have the word to explain how this works.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, the universal postal service as we know it is in danger by 2009. The progressive opening to competition of the European postal sector has prompted historical operators to modernise, to restructure themselves in depth and La Poste, our post, has succeeded in the operation. However, it must be noted, like the European Commission, that competition is not an end in itself – in my opinion, it is fundamental, it is the heart of the debate – but a means to promote innovation, investment and consumer well-being.

Today, the European Commission has submitted to the Council of Ministers and to the European Parliament a proposal for a Third Postal Directive with a view to closing the internal market. The vast majority of my colleagues and myself seriously doubt the validity of the general guidelines of this initiative. This proposal, although it confirms the universal service as defined in the two previous directives, questiones its method of financing. The latter was until now based on the maintenance of a legal monopoly on a part of the postal market (sendings of less than 50 g), in exchange for the charges assumed for the good of the community. This mechanism is known as “reserved domains”.

This proposed directive replaces a self-financing mechanism by a mechanism requiring either the provision of public appropriations or the establishment of a compensation fund which appears ⁇ difficult to implement. In doing so, it breaks a subtle balance that allows historical postal operators to contribute favorably to social cohesion and well-being within the Union. Market forces alone cannot guarantee a reasonable level of service at an affordable price for all our fellow citizens, especially those in rural and outermost regions. Distribution costs are higher in rural areas than in urban areas, and sorting and logistics costs vary with the distance between the issuer and the recipient.

To analyze in detail the issue of the shift in the postal sector and the dangers that await it, important work has been provided in the committee; it can be commended. Many stakeholders were audited about the prospects for developments in various European countries and the usefulness of further liberalization. The Commission has issued an opinion on the monitoring of the subsidiarity and proportionality of the proposal for the Third Postal Directive. The observations of our committee conditioning this opinion have been sent to the European Commission.

Finally, the commission prepared a resolution to the government, involving all political groups, regarding the policy to be pursued at the national and European level. I would like to emphasize some conclusions of our work that are fundamental for the CDH group.

On the national level, first of all, it is necessary that the postal services maintain the high level of quality we know today, which requires a number of things, including that the offer of the universal service is ⁇ ined, that is to say that every citizen has access to the services of La Poste at the same price, affordable, throughout the country, five days a week, regardless of the place, regardless of the destination of the shipment.

This also implies that the Post ⁇ ins a sufficiently dense network, distributed in a balanced way across the entire territory, including rural areas, and ensures that each office or post point continues to offer a range of basic services. This also implies that information campaigns are planned for the attention of citizens before any changes to this network.

This supposes, finally, that the social role of the factor as an agent contributing to the fight against isolation, to improve the condition of certain citizens, in particular the elderly with low mobility or disabled persons, be emphasized.

At the European level, we would like the Belgian government to question the draft directive of the European Commission as presented by the European Commission, due to the impact that the project could have on consumers, on employment at La Poste and on the Belgian authorities.

Specifically, our committee has raised a series of questions related to the full opening of the postal market that we seem to need to get an answer in advance to any new regulation. Some of these questions were addressed directly to the Commission through the Opinion on Subsidiarity and Proportionality and condition the positive nature of that Opinion. In the event that they do not receive an adequate response, the opinion given by that assembly would be de facto negative.

Other issues are included in the resolution submitted to today’s vote.

We call on the government to make every effort to make the decision-making on the liberalization of the postal sector more informed.

Dear colleagues, it is obvious that the proposal for the Third Postal Directive, if it does not allow the maintenance of a reserved sector, will not be beneficial for anyone: neither for particular consumers who will see the quality of the services offered decline and the tariffs fly down, as is the case in the countries that anticipated total liberalization – we have been able to observe it – nor for the vast majority of companies who will also suffer the increase in the price of basic postal services with the multiplication of interlocutors.

It will also not be beneficial for employment as new jobs created by alternative operators will likely be more precarious than those offered by the historic operator and will ⁇ not be sufficient to compensate for the job losses in our current postal sector.

Finally, it will not be beneficial to the State because, as I have already said, a self-financing arrangement is replaced by a mechanism that will require the provision of public credits. However, we do not believe that the state has the means to conduct such a policy given the many other challenges it faces, including the cost of the aging population.

Therefore, the general interest commands us not to blindly reform the postal sector. Nothing is inevitable, as evidenced by the decision of the U.S. Congress – Republican at the time – when it decided to maintain the monopoly of postal distribution in the United States. However, this liberalization had been announced by President Bush while he was running his first term.

I will conclude by pointing out that commission work could only be possible thanks to a progressive coalition of circumstances uniting cdH, CD&V, PS and sp.a. For their part, the MR and the VLD refused for a long time, until the last minute, to provide their support for the text, multiplying the negative votes or not ensuring the quorum in the commission.

I am also somewhat surprised by a certain hypocrisy of deputies who, however, at some times, multiply the oral questions on their village post office, on the mailbox of their main street, or even on the fate of their factor.

Postal services are an important element not only of the activity of economic actors but also of social cohesion. We look forward to finally reaching a joint resolution that – we hope – will be fully supported by our government. As for us, we will not let go of our vigilance and commitment to a quality postal service.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, in the past days and weeks, the image has been repeatedly hanged that we - liberals - in this dossier almost dogmatically assume that the liberalization of the postal sector must come de facto and at any cost.

That image is not correct. We also have questions about the proposals of the European Commission. That is why we have adopted this resolution in the committee after a very long round of discussion and after interesting negotiations. We finally unanimously approved this resolution in the committee.

This does not take away that we do not believe in the dark images that are now sketched by some. Some speak of brutal liberalization, some fear a social massacre at De Post, some hang the horror picture that the prices of stamps and postcards will multiply...

Mr. Van den Eynde, why do you interrupt Mrs. Vautmans?

Mr. Speaker, I would like to hear Mrs. Vautmans say that she does not deviate from the position she has taken in the committee. I appreciate this.

Mrs Vautmans, however, you have here drawn a black and white picture of the debate of the last few weeks. However, you have played a very important role in this. I refer in particular to your free tribune today in The Standard. You blame others for doom thinking, but you write a piece under the title "The Postman Will Keep Coming".

Absolutely absolute .

I do not believe it.

I will show you why.

You give the following argument. You refer again to Sweden where everything has not ended so badly. You even say that the stamps have become more expensive but will soon become equally expensive with us, and so on.

I will return to that later.

I would like to refer to page 25 of Mr Delizée’s report. It is not the words of Mr. Delizée, but of PostEurop that liberalization is not ⁇ hostile. PostEurop says about Sweden that the employment reduction in the postal sector was 30%. This is a social massacre.

Mr. Van den Eynde, you will have the word later. Your time will come.

Mr. Speaker, I want to finish my speech. They also say that prices in Sweden now fluctuate between -50% - which is positive - and +90%. They are not my words, they are the words of Marc Pouw and Bernard Damiens.

Mr. Van den Eynde, you will have another presentation. I don’t know why you interrupt me.

I don’t want to be too cultural, but “the postman rings twice.”

I was there when one side of the other was discussed. I also participated in this process because I felt that certain committee decisions were not correctly translated. It is no one’s fault. I just wanted a correction.

The point of view that liberalization is not good for nothing and only hangs dumb images is just as dogmatic as it is to assume that liberation solves all problems. The latter is equally little substantiated.

The discussion we have here today is not new. We have already held them in 2001 under Minister Daems, when the European Union, under the Belgian Presidency nota bene, in principle confirmed the date of 1 January 2009 as the end date for the full liberalization of the sector.

During the discussion in 2001, you, Mr. Daems, as a competent minister, made the affairs very clear. I would like to quote you, if you allow me. You said, “Liberalizing a market means opening a market to competition. Competition increases efficiency, reduces costs, improves quality, expands supply, increases innovative power. A free market is therefore potentially more social than a market monopoly.”

Mrs. Vautmans, I was already participating in the previous legislature and I was sitting with Mr. Vautmans. Daems, as a commissioner. We had concluded in parliament by voting a resolution whose words translated the opposite of what you say.

It should be noted that Belgium, at some point, ran into the camp of people and countries who opposed the opening of the market, much too quickly and this resulted in the vote of a resolution in parliament. I hope it will be exactly the same phenomenon with this new resolution. There is a historical return: it is cyclical.

by Mr. Daems will tell us what it was about in his time.

Mrs. Vautmans, you are provocative. It is heard.

I want a real parliamentary debate, Mr. Speaker.

You have it.

Mr. Speaker, that sounds, of course, all quite old, but the reality of the file is that the liberation of the postal market, which is one of the components of a communications market, was previously blocked for seven to eight years. Under the Belgian Presidency, we have indeed come to ⁇ a gradual liberation. That was nota bene a proposal of liberals, not only of me, but also of other liberals in Europe, because one cannot liberate a market without giving the society in a monopoly situation, often a public company, at least the time to adapt to those new market conditions.

Second, in all examples of market liberalization, the total economic activity after liberalization is greater than before. This is so in all markets. I am therefore pleasantly attached to my position that the liberation of a market is a social given because it increases the economic activity in question. The difficult thing in the debate is not whether or not to liberate the market, but how and within what time frame it should be done.

What have we done here and what does colleague Lalieux refer to? There was – desired – uncertainty at the time of the 2001 Directive because there was disagreement on the date of 2009. Did that date mean that the letter under a weight of 50 grams would also be put into competition or not? That was a desired ambiguity, which we have resolved here because by closer look, after date, it turned out that the timing to go below 50 grams was too fast for a number of postal companies, including the Belgian postal company. That is all.

So the two go perfectly together. The liberation of a market remains a good economic, thus social given, because the economic activity is greater after it than before. The debate we are holding here – and that is one of the reasons why Mrs. Vautmans in the committee agreed to the final result – is a debate about the timing and the circumstances, not about the principle of liberation, which will come anyway.

I have one last consideration. If at some point in this Parliament we do not realize that this market will be liberated sooner or later, with or without us, then at that moment our postal company, like a bird for the cat, will see the competition out of itself and it will be destroyed. Therefore, it is wise to have a debate in Parliament and to try to determine the timing, but not without losing sight of the end point, namely that liberalization will soon come.

Madame Lalieux, you are registered in the discussion after Mrs Vautmans.

The [...]

I don’t know where the home is the biggest.

I would like to make a small comment on what Mr. Daems just said.

Point 7 of the resolution speaks of questioning, within the European Council, the draft directive and the deadline. Therefore, we talk about two things: the deadline and the draft directive in its principles.

Mr. Lavaux, I really wanted to say that I also agree with you. You say that the abolition of the Monopoly of the Post is not an end in itself, but a means. I of course totally agree with this. Just as Mr. Daems said, I also think that De Post has adapted under the pressure of competition and has started to work more market-compliant. I think the liberalization of the postal services, with the picking up and sending of the pieces above 50 grams, has caused the then PTT to undergo a commercial metamorphosis.

The fact that the liberals are favorable to a gradual decomposition and eventual abolition of the monopoly, provided that the universal service is ⁇ ined – which is very important – does not mean that we have no questions about the present proposal, Mrs. Lalieux.

First, I would like to briefly address some of the myths that still exist in this House about liberalization, and which, in my opinion, are not correct.

A first myth that is often heard is the fact that liberalization will lead to merciless price increases, which will especially affect the ordinary consumer, as Mr Van den Eynde has said. You referred to the report. Opponents of liberalization are very happy to refer to Sweden, where price increases of 90% have been observed. It is a fact that the price in Sweden is just a few centimeters above our Belgian price. I once went back into history. Do we know how much a stamp cost in 1993? It was 15 francs. Now that is about 0.52 euros or 21 francs. This is also a 40% price increase.

Among other things, State Secretary Tuybens opposes liberalization with the argument that the tariffs for private individuals will rise. I find that a very weak argument, especially when one sees that the prices for the private under the monopoly are still rising. Mr. Deseyn has already said that the non-predictable seal will be abolished in the middle of this year. All tariffs will be prioritized.

TestAkkup said last week that our country with the monopoly is at the forefront of the most expensive stamps in Europe. This is not under a liberalized market with a weight below 50 grams, but under the monopoly of De Post. I would like to point out this in order to overthrow the myth that liberalization automatically leads to a very high price rise for consumers. Even with the monopoly there is a price rise.

Mr. De Coene, you may interrupt, but keep it short.

Mr. Speaker, as State Secretary Tuybens and in fact also the Minister of Economic Affairs, asking questions about the price increase that can be expected is not because they take it over from some ideological entanglement, but because the study office of the European Commission itself has announced that the prices for both the SME sector and the small user will increase by factor 2.8.

We didn’t invent it, it comes from PWC. PWC was paid for the study by the European Commission. I say this based on that conclusion. You must be careful that you do not ride, because at the end of the ride you will still find that you cannot approve the resolution. You are really riding.

I will get there later, but of course I can’t go further if I’m constantly interrupted.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that Ms. Vautmans complains here about the current, too high prices of De Post. It is also used as an argument that there will be an increase soon. Mrs. Vautmans, do not blame me, but it does not indeed happen under liberalization, but under a liberal prime minister. Imagine that liberalization will continue.

A second myth is the universal service. The Commission proposal, which amends, but does not replace, the first Postal Directive of 1997, leaves the article on universal service intact. The mail should be picked up and delivered every working day and Member States should ensure that the density of the service points meets the needs of the users. The VLD is very positively opposed to this. The VLD, like our socialist colleagues, also wants the preservation of a quality universal service. The mail must be ordered for us at least five days a week, at affordable prices, throughout the territory.

A third myth that is often pushed forward concerns the quality of the postal services, which would be at risk. As a result of the previous postal directives, since the 1990s, the Belgian Post has already come into contact with market forces in various fields. These developments have prompted De Post to better develop its services and thus convince consumers to choose De Post. The quality of our postal services has increased. The supply is also better aligned with demand. Think about the different posts. Just think about selling stamps in our supermarkets. I think these are very good developments. Further liberalization can further strengthen these positive developments.

A fourth myth — Mr. Deseyn has already talked about it later — is the social role of the postman. It is said that this role is completely endangered by liberalization. The social role of the postman – which has been shown very clearly in the resolution, in the discussion and with all political parties in this hemisphere – is important. For us, however, this task of general interest must be distinguished from the universal service and is therefore actually outside the current discussion. The costs of that social role must be able to be calculated for us and can then be charged to the State as a service of general interest. However, the financing of the universal service must be removed from this.

In this way, the social role of the postman can be safeguarded. The Commission does not prohibit this.

Finally, this is the last myth. Sometimes it is argued that liberalization will cause a social massacre at De Post. Colleagues, it is a fact, the employment at De Post has already experienced a decline in recent years. However, this is not so much due to the European postal directives. The Post, however, struggled with a surplus of personnel as a result of a historical monopoly.

Furthermore, technological developments have increased the number of automated processes, and the traditional mailing sector is no longer a growing market. We all recognize that we work more and more by email and SMS. The only thing that now grows through online purchases via e-Bay is the delivery of those products. We see a very clear increase in the package services.

Colleagues, one must especially not forget that when liberalization comes, new companies will enter the market that can compete with De Post and thus create new jobs. A lot of people — I think it was Mr. Deseyn or Mr. Lavaux who said it — say that this will happen with children, with non-regular workforce. Of course, the VLD is also against this. However, it is there the task of the social inspection to act and ensure that both players or the dozens of players on the market will move on that market with the same rules of play.

If I overwhelm those myths here, I must confess that I find the principled rejection of liberalization strange. The European Union has done well at the time to eliminate the monopolies in the telecommunications sector. Everyone here in the hemisphere now agrees on that. However, it was the then minister responsible for the RTT, Marcel Colla, who traveled throughout Europe to convince his colleagues to abolish the telecommonopoly of the RTT. Fortunately, his colleagues did not listen to him.

Even in the postal sector, countries that are not directly governed by liberals are ahead. In the UK, the post-monopoly was abolished last year by Labour. In Sweden it was the Social Democrats who brought about the restructuring of the Swedish post and the abolition of the monopoly. In Germany, it is the government of Christian Democrats and Social Democrats that calls for further liberalization. By the way, the man who started all this, Jacques Delors, is that not a socialist? Nevertheless, none of these individuals or governments are a symbol for carrying out bloodbaths.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, let it be clear, even the liberals cannot simply accept the proposal of the European Commission. We also have questions. Mrs. Lalieux and Mr. De Coene, you said then that I must be careful not to get caught. I am not driving. We also have questions about this directive.

In our view, there is a lack of a framework within which liberalization can be made beneficial for all stakeholders – all consumers, the other service providers, The Post and the State. The next passage—I keep reading them here before—explains the essential concern of this Chamber. Mr. De Coene, we have been negotiating this for hours. “In the European Council, including all preparatory meetings, to question the draft directive of the European Commission, as well as the deadline for the full liberalization of the postal market, until the time of adoption of a final position, given the effects that the draft could have on consumers, on employment in De Post and on the Belgian government.”

Why is it necessary, according to the liberals, to question the current draft? In our opinion, this is not to organize additional studies. There are many and they all point in the same direction: liberalization is possible but flanking measures are needed because there could be adverse effects on consumers, employment at De Post and the government. In addition, there is a lot of uncertainty about those flankering measures. It should be intended, inter alia, to open up the postal market within a framework that focuses on consumer protection. In this context, some argue that in the case of liberalization the consumer will have to pay twice: on the one hand through an increase in tariffs and on the other hand through government intervention to maintain the universal service. This intervention must, of course, be removed by the taxpayer. For the VLD, it is clear: this cannot be done!

The Post, as a universal service, can of course only count on subsidies if the conditions are met, in particular keeping the service affordable. By the way, this is already happening, colleagues, for other categories of users, for example, the publishers of daily newspapers. They can enjoy special rates for which the State comes between them. For us too – which is one of the reasons why we will support this resolution in this plenary session – it is essential to know whether a public intervention for De Post is acceptable for the European Commission and whether it does not conflict with other European regulations. It would be good to provide the necessary clarity on this.

For this reason, the VLD has approved the resolution in the committee and we will do so today in the plenary session. But there needs to be something from the heart. I would like to ask the other parties something explicit. If the European Commission provides the framework for liberalization under optimal conditions, I hope that intellectual honesty will be exercised to stop this liberalization and to choose a brave government.

Before I leave you to speak, I would like to point out to the members that you do not necessarily have to be long to speak well.

I am rarely long.

I hope that this “rare” will apply to this debate.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Ministers, dear colleagues, the vote on the resolution that will take place tonight, if it confirms the unanimous vote that took place in the committee, will be a proof that the future of La Poste is a priority for all.

It is a pity that Ms. Vautmans and Mr. Daems are no longer present in this auditorium because I had some answers to give them

Mr. Speaker, you prevent us from interrupting the members who intervene from the top of this tribune and, when we are there to answer them, they are absent. This is not very pleasant!

Of whom are you talking?

Ms. Vautmans and Mr. by Daems.

Mrs Vautmans is present.

In this case, please apologize, but I had not seen it.

You have not seen Mrs. Vautmans!

Mr. Speaker, I thought his bench was lower in the chamber.

This will come!

In the context of general liberalization that characterizes the European Union, and more specifically the European Commission, this is a very strong signal that we are sending both to citizens and to the government with the vote on this resolution.

The universal postal service is not a chimera. It is for us an instrument of social cohesion – this has been said and repeated – and of economic cohesion, a public service that cannot be sacrificed to the laws of the market alone.

We are all – I think – supporters of a quality universal postal service available on the same terms across the whole territory. It is essential – Ms Vautmans noted – to receive her mail five times a week, to pay the same price in all areas, whether urban or rural.

Madame Vautmans, in the idea of the European universal service, the tariff equation no longer exists. This is not the case with Price Waterhouse Coopers. Indeed, if one liberalizes completely, it is clear that one cannot guarantee the same price on the whole territory. Therefore, we do not have the same concept of universal service!

For me, this universal service is essential for every citizen, but also for every small and medium-sized enterprise, as representatives of the middle class have explained to us.

No one here doubts the necessity of this universal service. Everyone claims how important it is to guarantee it. The European Commissioner’s representative said this loudly and loudly in a committee meeting. The European Commission has planned to fully open the postal market by 2009.

The Coué method – I mean the Commission’s method in relation to liberalization – does not guarantee the existence of a high-quality universal postal service at an affordable price across the whole territory.

All the auditions proved this. The only guarantee of being able to deploy such a service is solid and secure financing. Madame Vautmans, I haven’t heard of you about financing!

In this regard, it should be noted that the European Commission addresses the question which is, for us, fundamental, in a way more than light, not to say caricatural and dogmatic. She explained to us first that the system could self-finance. I think that we are all reasonable and that none of us could imagine self-financing of universal service, given the costs of postal offices, distribution and sorting centers.

Then, in a committee, by the voice of the delegate of the European Commissioner, she made us two other proposals: on the one hand, state aid and, on the other hand, a compensation fund. There is nothing else in the EU Directive.

When it comes to state aid, I smile when I’m told that the Commission would accept them. In fact, we know that this is the number one target of the European Commission’s competition services. It is now that state state aid would come to the rescue of the universal postal service! This system is based on annual authorisations that must be obtained from the Commission and that do not provide any legal certainty for the financing of the universal service of tomorrow. Moreover, it is hardly compatible with the requirements of the Stability Pact. That is why, in my opinion, state aid can be forgotten due to total legal uncertainty and an annual demand.

The other line is based on compensation funds. No one so far, except the Commission, has been able to prove that a compensation fund works. Imagined for the telecommunications sector, we wanted to double it for the postal sector. In the telecommunications sector, we know the Belgian saga: the compensation fund has never been activated until today, we will see if it will be tomorrow! But from theory to practice, there is one step, which Italy has also taken. With what result? A total failure!

This is not a joke since even Price Waterhouse Coopers, who is one of the Commission’s advisors and who helped prepare this directive, believes that the compensation fund is not a relevant means of financing universal service. Yet, despite all this, the Commission keeps this means in its proposals!

The three forms of financing – self-financing in which no one believes, state aid and compensation fund – are absolutely not credible, unreasonable, and unreliable compared to universal service.

The Coué method that the Commission applies in this Third Postal Directive is therefore obviously not solid.

The only solid foundation is the current funding, which works well. What is the current funding? This is the reserved area.

You will agree with me. This is a reserved area of 50 grams. In reality, a minimal share of the market is left to the reserved sector, part which serves to finance the universal service. Does this pose so many problems? How far will the dogmatism of liberalization go? I do not understand the logic of always wanting to go further. I refuse to compare this with telecommunications because it has nothing to do with it. This sector presented an enormous potential for technological advancements when this market was liberalized.

If we follow the proposal of the Commission, we will no longer be able to finance the universal service unless an amendment that had been deposited by the MR, I recall, is voted. This amendment provided that the state budget would fully finance the universal service. The government is unable to provide this funding. On the one hand, this is contrary to the Stability Pact, on the other hand, it will not advance for the future government.

We have not answered the fundamental question. In any case, I have not heard you answer it either with regard to the future.

The socialist group considers that it is necessary to stop liberalizing to liberalize. Indeed, liberalization becomes the ultimate goal, the Grail to be conquered, which is profitable only for certain ideologists.

It will not be beneficial for the citizen, nor for the postal sector, nor for the postal officers, nor for the public authorities. No one will gain anything if this sector is completely liberalized! I remind you that during the hearings, only one person considered that something would be gained, that was the representative of the European Commissioner.

With such a proposal for a directive – others have said so and the rapporteur also – we will first experience an increase in prices. Contrary to what you said, Commissioner McCreevy himself did not deny such an increase. He also did not deny the loss of jobs.

As for the quality of employment, he even claimed that the quality would decrease. In the PWC report, it is well stipulated that the statutes of our postal officers should disappear if we were moving towards a total liberalization, not only that of the statutory but also that of the contractual. In order to be able to bear the cost of complete liberalization, one then had to head toward fake independents as the government tries to fight them.

We must not forget the decrease in consumer satisfaction since, although the price of stamp has not risen so much in Sweden proportionally to Belgium – I have heard you – consumer satisfaction has fallen dramatically there since liberalization.

Why to liberalize? This question was asked to the representative of Commissioner McCreevy who answered very clearly: because it is necessary! It was a time when Mr. Bellot and I attended. I don’t know why, but I need to. We replied that citizens would not benefit from it: he said that yes, but in the long run, we do not know when exactly.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, I consulted two dictionaries to verify the translation of "to question" and therefore, I can tell you that the resolution we are going to vote today challenges the proposed European directive, as well as the date of total opening of the market. This resolution recalls expressed concerns and raises questions to the European Commission; it also calls for more extensive studies. Indeed, I do not think that the studies conducted so far are sufficient or that they allow to support such a proposal.

With the vote on this resolution, Parliament asks the Belgian government to join without any reservation the Member States asking the Commission to review its copy and to advance serious pistes rather than dogmas. Belgium cannot under any circumstances support the 2009 date for the opening of the postal market or endorse the approach of the European Commission that forgets that La Poste is a public service. Maybe tomorrow, when the government and parliament have examined the answers given by the Commission, we can change our mind.

But in the meantime, we ask the government, its various representatives as well as the Permanent Representation to question this proposed directive and the existence of a deadline for the opening of the market, whether 2009, 2015 or I do not know when, and this in all meetings, whether bilateral or multilateral. There is no possible confusion in the various points of the resolution.

We all know that the decision will be made by a majority of the 27. It is therefore from today, gentlemen ministers, that we must influence the balance of forces to convince the European Union that the universal postal service and the public services in general deserve an exceptional treatment because they are there first to meet the needs of citizens and guarantee them equal access.

Since there are two ministers with us, I hope that this resolution will not remain a dead letter and that the government will take great inspiration from it to shape its own position at the next meetings of the European Council.

Thank you, Madame Lalieux. I now give the word to Mr. De Coene. Mr Bellot will then be given the floor. I have already collected the speech time of the interventions of Mr Van den Eynde.

The [...]

Yes, yes, you can sell your intervention in small pieces, Mr. Van den Eynde.

This is a debate, Mr. Speaker.

Right, but what you say in the debate, you should not say more in your presentation afterwards.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, Mr. Secretary of State – you have been in the meantime –, respectable colleagues, whether we are happy with it or not: on the table is a proposal from the European Commission that wants the postal market in Europe to be fully liberalized, by the year 2009 at the latest.

I think, if we want to act a little more usefully and efficiently, that we should take the attitude we take in the present resolution. That is an attitude in which this Parliament – and we ask the government to do the same – has serious questions about this liberalization. Moreover, we question the liberalization. At the same time, we are waiting for the answers that will be provided by the Commission. However, we keep a stick behind the door. In the amendment in point 7 at the end of this resolution, we said that the responses will be assessed by the government and by the Parliament. In other words, that discussion will come back in Parliament anyway.

Some speakers use doomscenarios here, others say that nothing will happen. There are a lot of different opinions to read. I must say that I personally am not at ease. However, I can imagine that other people are very reassured about it, and I respect that opinion. However, I do not believe in some arguments.

For example, I heard Mr. Daems later say that every market that is broken up creates an increase in volume. I would, however, say: an aántal of markets that are broken open, cause an increase in volume. However, the postal market is an atypical market. In Europe, it has been established that the postal market is suddenly a shrinking market. They must already be punitive men who, liberalized in a shrinking market, can increase market volume. We have to see that first.

In addition, if we look at the study of PWC commissioned by the European Commission specifically concerning the Belgian postal market, we find that PWC says that the Belgian postal market is saturated. Therefore, we should not expect to increase volume. That market is as well as saturated, and there are ⁇ many postoperations in relation to the population. This, of course, has to do with the structure of our country: we are one big city. It also has to do with historical matters. But in fact, that study states that we should not expect that in Belgium the postal activity will increase much more.

I would therefore like to relieve the argument of Mr. Daems a little. By the way, I understand Ms. Vautmans when she says that it is a little too easy to push forward all sorts of doomscenarios if one does so in the empty air, if one simply invents something and scares people. This is not the matter here.

What we need to do here is the result of the commission commission itself has given to PWC, read well and then ask the committee why it remains so furious for full liberalization as this is the result of the study. This study shows some things very clearly. Only the big clients, the so-called bulk customers of De Post, get better off the full liberalization and thus get better rates. For example, financial companies, financial institutions that send tens of thousands of letters every day.

For all other customers of De Post, the prices will rise greatly. Those other customers of De Post are not only individuals, but also small and medium-sized enterprises. I have noticed, however, that during the hearing in the committee of the House, the representatives of the middle groups were ⁇ hesitant about this proposal of the European Commission.

In addition, the study states that there is a ⁇ high risk of tension on the Belgian labour market between the current employees of De Post and future competitors. In fact, we are, of course, with an extreme, especially the statutory employment. The European Commission says that one really needs to intervene in taxation, parafiscality and the construction of the social system.

Well, with permission said, that the committee complies with its mandate. Under the European Treaties, the Commission shall not interfere in the tax system of a Member State, in the parafiscal system of a Member State, or in the social system of a Member State. The European Commission, which does not dispose of certain matters in the Treaty, cannot recommend that a Member State adjust certain matters in its system.

What will we get now? There was yesterday the message of the Deutsche Post, known as a great advocate of full liberalization because the Deutsche Post looks at Belgium with great interest because it is adjacent and as I said very tightly structured. Walter Scheurle, the great man of the Deutsche Post, stated that the Deutsche Post is already unable to compete with private companies in the part of the market that has already been liberated because of systematic social dumping, where the competing companies pay 30% to 60% less than the Deutsche Post.

And then I would like to hear that it is so formidable in Sweden. This, of course, depends on the source. We have more nuanced views on this. I also know that in Italy the liberalization, and the creation of a compensation fund, is a drama. It is a drama! It does not work!

One can predict that it will also be a drama in Belgium, because I remember that during the hearings, when we asked the dome of free postal organizations whether they were eventually willing to contribute to a compensation fund, they literally said: “This is not our responsibility, we do not participate in that.” In this sense, it is right that the ordinary consumer pays twice.

I have noticed – and, by the way, I have searched it through the search engine of the Parliament’s website – that here in the last weeks and months – and I have gone back for some time – almost 100 questions have been asked in the committee and in the plenary session on closures of postal offices. Nearly 100 questions. Now, one may assume that if that liberalization continues, we will get a particular number of questions about a loss of employment or at least about an erosion of the social level of that employment.

If one looks at it just as pragmatically – if one does not look at it ideologically, saying that for the sake of its ideology one is against liberalization or against full liberalization, or saying that one is not for liberalization for the sake of its ideology – then one still asks what we are actually doing, what is the goal we want to ⁇ .

I can perfectly imagine that liberalization is used as a tool to increase the market volume – but here it will not be the case – so that as a derivative of it one could realize job creation, but this is also not the case here.

And if one still sees that the consumer, or even the majority of the total consumer market, is getting worse, one still asks what problem is being solved here. No problem can be solved, because the financing system – probably still to be improved – already works fairly well, but the introduction of full liberalization actually creates new problems. We are now in such a situation.

In our Resolution 7 or 8, we have now asked very relevant questions to the European Commission, questions to which we have at this stage received at least some informal answers but where we are still waiting for both substantially satisfying and formalized answers. And then we are still not sure where we are going to land.

I agree with the assertion that in the European context one does not hit if one thinks that one can limit himself in Belgium to no and merely no. It is therefore useful to ask the question first to the European Commission, so that both the German Presidency and the Commission realize that negotiations need to be held. Furthermore, we need to find some allies in Europe, who also have questions.

The resolution has a certain relevance. Parliaments, and not only ours, tend to approve resolutions that often shone out in vagueness and deal with major social issues that no one can oppose. Often they have the merit of being unanimously adopted. This resolution is one of the rare – Ms. Lalieux has rightly stated that this happened four years earlier – which tells the government what position it will take in the European Council of Ministers in the meantime. Why did we ask for this? Until now, it was as if Belgium had some questions in the margin, but in fact was not an opponent of the current Commission proposal. With the current texts we are much clearer and that is a good thing.

In the European co-decision process, I notice – not only in this matter and not only in our country – how the European Parliament is fully dealt with in the first reading, in the second reading and then in conciliation, while the national parliaments are barely heard or know what is being said, let alone that they would give instructions to their national governments. It is rare that a parliament, hopefully unanimously, recommends the government to say “no” to liberalization, given what we know today. Assuming that there are answers, we, as parliament and as government, will demonstrate the sportivity and correctness of examining them and determining our position. Today it is a no, tomorrow it may be a yes.

Mr. Bellot, we know your concisions and we appreciate it.

Mr. Speaker, it has been more than an hour since you asked everyone to be brief but the session is eternal. This is a very important topic!

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, as everyone knows, the postal sector is in full evolution, not to say “revolution” for several years.

The opening of the market began about ten years ago with the first Postal Directive. Today, we are on the eve of the full opening of this market, long planned for January 1, 2009.

At the end of last year, the Commission submitted a proposal for a Third Postal Directive confirming this deadline. According to our information, Merkel, who holds the EU presidency, wants to force the march towards the approval of the directive by the Council, from 7 June 2007.

It cannot be denied the favorable effects of the gradual opening of this market. I think, among other things, of the following aspects:

- The announcement of the future opening of markets to competition forced, several years ago, historical operators to improve their operations, the quality of their services, the range of their services and their profitability.

- The partial opening has allowed consumer citizens and ⁇ to have more choices, in particular for express mail, while seeing the price of a number of services fall.

- Several advances are due to the competition of La Poste: its awareness of the needs of consumer citizens who are working and need more extended opening hours (in the evening or Saturday), the opening of postal points which, when located in nearby shops, offer a range of postal products during wider hours (early morning, later evening or weekend). Let us also think of the trend towards the generalization of shipment tracking systems (recommended and package).

- At the level of small packages and express mail, the consumer citizen has been offered a wide range of services from which he can choose by making the competition play, which has had a positive effect both on the quality of services and on the prices.

Certainly, all transitional periods create uncertainty resulting in tensions, a certain redistribution of jobs – the least performing actors disappear, of course, to leave the place for new ones – but, in the long run, once the sector is restored, we want all economic actors to find an interest in it, in all regions of the country and for all the actors clients of La Poste.

For this reason, the directive does not reassure us, far from it! While some oppose liberalizations and market openness for purely dogmatic reasons – for example because of the need for a prevailing influence of public authorities – it is quite clear, however, that these are generally positive. I will cite three examples.

The first example is telecommunications. Anyone who remembers what RTT was can only look forward to the opening of the telecommunications market in terms of service offering: choices for the consumer citizen, a dramatic reduction in costs. Thus, in the early 1990s, a call to another continent could cost 2.25 euros per minute, while today, the cost of such a call was divided by 10 or even 100 in some operators. And the quality of customer service has been improved. Only a black spot in Belgium, the broadcasting sector is not yet really open and there are a number of monopoly-related problems, such as unlimited grid of programs, even though a start of competition has emerged for TVs.

The second example is that of electricity and gas. This market opening, the most recent in Belgium, raises a number of criticisms:

If the prices are slightly higher, it is necessary to look for the cause in several factors that are not related to the opening of the market. Thus, the fuel price has risen and producers have been allowed by the CREG to raise their tariffs.

New entrants discover the market and do not know what their profitability will be. Prudent, they do not announce their best entry price, but the competition will gradually do its job.

The time of subsidized cheap energy, driving overconsumption, is over. The consumer will have to pay the “true” price for the energy he uses.

The consumer citizen holds the fate of the planet in his hands. He can finally make his company choices, decide whether he wants to pay cheaper for nuclear electricity or a little more expensive for green electricity. This last reason alone would justify the opening of the markets. Today, electricity prices are lower in Flanders than in Wallonia, because competition has been faster in Flanders and it is beginning to show its effects.

The third example comes from the air transport sector. No one can deny the positive effect for consumers of opening the European sky to competition. From a costly means of transport reserved for the most natives and ⁇ , the aircraft has become a convenience, that is, a means of transport at the reach of all, thanks, among other things, to “low cost” airlines that have forced companies to revise their tariffs down.

These examples in the telecommunications and air transport sectors are evidence that the opening of markets to the broadest competition can have very positive effects in terms of service supply, service quality and lower prices: some telecommunications prices were divided by ten.

With regard to the European Commission proposal we are dealing with today, we have a number of fundamental questions, in particular with regard to the aspects of financing the provision of the universal service which, in addition, must be subject to formal guarantees at both European and national levels.

We also hope that the upcoming opening of the postal sector will not be accompanied by the dismantling of the postal access points. We therefore ask the government to guarantee at least what was agreed with La Poste in the framework of the fourth management contract.

We therefore demand the guarantee of equal access to postal services throughout the country, with a guaranteed distribution of at least five days a week and a single tariff per category of shipments in the reserved service.

For the MR, this is a minimum below which we ask that the government does not accept to descend. That is why we will support the long-debated resolution in the committee.

Finally, I will now address Mr. Lavaux, I dare to hope that we will all have the heart to contact respectively the European Parliamentarians and the Commissioners whose alternative majority – of which he spoke just recently – holds precisely the majority in the European Parliament and the Commission to stop this third postal directive, of which I observe that the lance iron is the Christian Democrat Chancellor Angela Merkel, associated with the Social Democrats in her will to impose the third postal directive before the end of June 2007.

Mr. Speaker, it is no longer common in this Parliament, but you should allow me to congratulate Mr. Delizée, the rapporteur on the work on this matter in the committee. This report was compact, objective and comprehensive. It does not happen so often that we get a report of this quality, especially considering the much work that was spent on this resolution.

Having said this, I have had to conclude – and that is why I just took the word – that since the debates in the committee, which, in my opinion, have gone serene – despite the discussions that were there of course – are behind, the climate surrounding the liberalization of De Post in this country has completely changed.

I will not look for those responsible for this climate change. I note, however, that there have been a number of conflicts, I also do not want to exaggerate them, between the Flemish liberals – the French-speaking liberals have taken on this subject a completely different attitude, which was just defended by Mr. Bellot – and the secretary of state.

I don’t know if this has to do with the urge to profil in the wake of the upcoming elections or with the painting of one’s own ideology. It can all. Mrs. Vautmans, you shake your head, but you will agree with me on one matter, in particular that the climate was very different when this matter was discussed in the committee.

I do not know what happened. I do not know if the Flemish liberals should have consulted a sort of ideological master who has said that they were deviating from the current doctrine. In any case, it only became much sharper afterwards.

It is not my job to defend the Secretary of State here. I will not do that either. However, I must note that that ideological attitude, which I would almost dare catalogue as a kind of free market fundamentalism, has become much sharper in the meantime.

I think, and I address to all the factions in this Chamber, that when we have to investigate a problem, such as that of De Post, for the coming years, we should not be dogmatic in particular.

It is not the position of my party that every liberalization and every privatization is necessarily wrong. However, it is ⁇ not the position of my party that only liberalization and privatization can be beneficial. I think it was Mr. Bellot who then gave a few examples. There have been privatizations that have yielded a lot of results. However, there have also been other privatizations that have become a huge flop. The privatization of railways in Britain is a disaster. To stay with The Post, the privatization of the postal services in Britain, which was introduced by the Labour Social Democrats – at least, the name indicates that they are Social Democrats – was also not a success.

So we need to look at what it is about and see what is happening in the countries that are privatizing or have privatized. We must also dare to make conclusions.

The most liberal country is the United States. No one in the hemisphere will dispute that. In the United States, the postal services were not privatized at all. Even the mailboxes are owned by the postal services and the postal services are a state institution. The Belgian Post is now much more privatized than the US postal services.

In other words, if even in a country where the dogma of liberalization has penetrated so deeply into society, the measure of privatization was not taken, then that has a reason.

There is also a country where the privatization of the postal services was a formidable success and where it was a huge success story. This is Finland. Colleagues, the privatization in Finland succeeded because there was no competition. Finland privatized the market, but everything remained the same. After all, no one wanted to build a private postal service in Finland because it could not be profitable.

What we are now facing is that, if I can put it very simply, privatization will bring the following. The burden of universal service, which we must bear and which belong to the duties of the State – it is the right of every citizen in our country to receive a letter daily or at least five days a week – will continue to rest on the shoulders of the taxpayer. However, the lusts, which are the profits that can be derived from the Post, will be in the hands of private companies.

Colleagues, you will undoubtedly remember the examples given during the committee hearings. I even thought that Mr. Thijs, though not a champion of socialism, told us that sending letters between individuals does not even account for 10% of the workload of De Post. 90% is mail from very large companies, very large customers, who are based in large cities. The privatization could mean that the old-fashioned factor, so to speak, will still be allowed to carry a letter to Lotenhulle or Simsonplattegem, but that the large postal packages between companies will be delivered by private firms when it comes to mail that must be delivered from Brussels to Luik, Antwerp and ⁇ to Gent.

That is the problem. I am not comforted in this story. When the European Commission then says that the State will be allowed to subsidize, I find that quite strange. The European Commission has been conducting a crusade against all subsidies for years, but now comes to tell us that we can subsidize. However, the subsidization of the Post by the State is done with the money of the taxpayer. Therefore, we will put more money from the taxpayers in fewer posts. In the meantime, we deliver the less losing part to the competition. There is the error.

From that point of view, not from an ideological or dogmatic point of view that I do not believe in privatization or only in state companies, we have made our analysis. We simply rely on reality.

Mrs Vautmans, you are referring to Sweden. I repeat that on page 25 of the report it is stated that there is 30% job loss in the post in Sweden. This is a social massacre. This is Volkswagen. This is Renault. If you say that there have been too many officials at The Post, that will be true. When you say that rationalization is necessary and that we must ensure that a company like De Post is not managed from a political point of view, but from the point of view of business leaders, then we agree on that. That every privatization and every liberalization is blissful, I do not believe in that. I think the Post provides a too important service to the public to simply follow the directive of the European Commission.

Finally, Mrs. Vautmans – I also do not understand the Flemish liberals – the resolution not only requires that privatization be carried out in a humane, defective, responsible manner, but it also challenges liberalization. Really true . I think other speakers have said that before me. I think you may be wrong in your arguments, but equally in your voting behavior.

Will the government say a word? It is a parliamentary work, but if you wish, Mr. Minister, you can get the word.

Of course, the Government has listened carefully to the various statements. We also took note of the draft resolution that is being submitted for voting.

However, I would like to remind you of one of the most important principles for the government, in particular that the universal service must be of high quality. A quality universal service of course also means that the necessary funding can be provided for it. This is the central issue addressed in the Third Postal Directive. With the Third Postal Directive, the Commission provides a number of pistes to solve the problem of financing, which raises many questions.

These questions do not date from today. After a consultation within the government, we also sent a letter to the Commission asking very precise questions to which we have not yet received adequate answers. In this sense, I believe that this resolution has added value for government work.

We will therefore, in the course of the coming months, critically evaluate those pistes and we will, I think, by addressing questions to the Commission, but also by means of technical discussions with the Commission as well as with the other Member States, and by eventually – we absolutely do not exclude that – formulating counter-proposals, do what is necessary to reach an acceptable result for Belgium. In this context and with this thought-making process, we will ⁇ and firmly take this resolution.

A petition, signed by 2,057 signatories, for a quality postal service was introduced.

A petition, signed by 2,057 signatories, was submitted on a quality postal service.

In accordance with Rule 142 of the Rules of Procedure, the petition shall be submitted to the Office of the Chamber in order to be attached to the debate on proposed resolutions aimed at ensuring a high quality of the universal postal service.

In accordance with Rule 142 of the Rules of Procedure, the petition shall be submitted to the Chamber in order to be included in the debate on the proposed resolutions on the guarantee of a quality universal postal service.