Proposition 51K2679

Projet de loi portant des dispositions diverses en vue de la création du service de médiation pour le secteur postal et modifiant la loi du 13 juin 2005 relative aux communications électroniques.

General information ¶

Submitted by

PS | SP MR Open Vld Vooruit Purple Ⅰ

Submission date

Sept. 7, 2006

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

mediator postal service

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 ¶

Nov. 23, 2006 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. De Coene is a reporter.

Mr De Coene refers to his written report.

The Minister was asked. The Ecce Mulier. Your timing is excellent. Ms. De Bue is registered in the general discussion. Mr Deseyn is?

I have another question about the written report. It is not so insignificant. It is a pity that Mr. De Coene is not here.

He is there. The timing is very good tonight. The Minister arrived on time. Mr. De Coene is on time. Mr De Coene, you have been referenced to your written report through your group leader. Mr Deseyn now has a question about your report.

On page 7, I read this amendment. 4 is submitted by me and Mr Van den Bergh and that the amendment is adopted. Further on page 7, I read this amendment. 4 is submitted and that this amendment has not been submitted to vote. I would like to remind you that the Minister agreed with the last amendment described at the bottom of page 7. The amendment is mentioned twice. 4 is A further reading of the report and the conclusions before the vote is problematic in this regard. On page 7 is the amendment. 4 is adopted. On page 9 there is the amendment. 4 is not submitted to vote.

I know that the Minister had given its approval to that amendment. So it would be good to find a way out of that today. I would also like to submit it again. If not, we will have a problem with the coordination of the text.

I am looking in the report. Are you referring to article 5bis or 5ter?

At the top of page 7 are Articles 4 and 4bis. The following is the amendment no. 4 is submitted. Three paragraphs further stated that the article and the amendment are adopted unanimously. At the end of page 7, however, amendment no. 7 is again mentioned. 4, then the discussion is described and on page 9 in the first paragraph that amendment no. 4 is not submitted to vote.

Mr. De Coen, what is the problem? Was it misrepresented in the report?

Mr. Speaker, in the worst case, it will be a poor numbering of the amendment. It can only be that.

It also has to do with the numbering. However, there is more than that happening.

There was also confusion about the actual amendment. 4 is The report states that the amendment is not submitted to vote. This amendment has been discussed.

Mrs. Minister, you will remember that it was about whether or not submitting complaints in writing and by telephone. You agreed. I suggest that we correct the words described in the amendment no. 4 to add. Could the Minister reaffirm her agreement, just as she did in the committee then?

You need to distinguish two things.

I have no problem with improving the report if necessary. However, no amendment can be attached to the text, otherwise a second reading is required.

It is about removing the word “non-written”.

In order to make complaints challenging – which is quite important in this case, as the funding of the system also depends on the number of complaints submitted per operator – it seems desirable to request a written reflection of each complaint, even if the complaint was initially submitted by telephone. Therefore, the complaint does not need to be submitted immediately in writing. You should not understand it this way. You must understand from the text that, in order for the complaint to be registered, there must be a written presentation. The way of funding depends on it. At the last stage, every complaint is made in writing.

This is the case with every Ombudsman’s office. When the service effectively deals with the complaint, it must be written down and confirmed. The fact that complainants can initially contact a Ombudsman’s office in other ways speaks for itself. I will clarify it in this way.

I would not follow the amendment. In that case, it gives the impression that the complaint does not have to be made in writing, which, however, is necessary for the objectivity. Mr. Deseyn, I understand – I want to express this with my words – that no one has to submit his complaint immediately in writing. In the final stage, however, this seems necessary.

Mr De Coene, can I know from you as a reporter whether the text of the bill of 20 November 2006 with the new title is the correct representation of the vote held in the committee? I need to know.

Mr. President, do not apologize to me. I am faced with certain things here.

Mr. Deseyn, we are not going to start improvising here. I would like to read from the two versions, namely the version proposed by Mr. Deseyn and the version we have here.

I would like to point out the following. We have been here for hours now. Mr. Deseyn could have informed me of his intentions, at least in the event of a technical correction, in anticipation of the discussion, so that we could have amended the provision already before and could have immediately announced the amendment here.

I am therefore available to look at the two variants. However, I would like to be careful that we do not approve an amendment here in a sluggish way for which there was no political majority.

There are two possibilities. We can solve this. If there are words in the report that may be incorrectly noted, we can correct that: that is not a problem. What I need to know as a Chamber Chairman is whether the text that comes from the committee and which I will submit later in the article-by-article discussion is correct. You can submit an amendment to the text, which is no problem.

If I now submit the amendment again, we can discuss it and vote on it.

That is good. If you submit a new amendment, I will address it in the articles.

Mr. Speaker, this approach is different from what Mr. Deseyn said in his first intervention. His first intervention showed that we had only made a technical mistake here. Now he says he will submit an amendment with a text amendment. This is something different from the technical error announced by him in a report.

That is his right.

Mr. Speaker, I propose that we consider Mr. Deseyn’s proposal to submit his amendment. The House will then judge in plenary session.

I just wanted to know if the text that came from the committee was correct.

Mr. Speaker, I remember, and it is important that the colleagues know this, that in the committee, following the two amendments, there was a little confusion about what exactly was approved: which amendment to which article? This confusion is now shown in the report. The amendment I just cited was actually not put to the vote, but I remember that the minister then said that he had no problem with removing the words "or not in writing", as this is also the case for other notification points common in the telecommunications sector. Therefore, I thought that if my interpretation of the course of the debate could be shared in the committee, we could definitely add it. Indeed, we do not need to debate anymore: I propose that I now submit the amendment. I would like to remind you that there was consensus about this at the time.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker. One of the most well-known aspects of this evolution is the gradual decrease in the weight of shipments whose processing is reserved for historical operators, with us La Poste.

This also leads to some changes in the relationship between the consumer citizen and the different service providers – since La Poste is no longer alone. And the situation will continue to evolve in two years, as envisaged in the proposal for the Third Postal Directive. So it is now time to adapt to the new situation the structures, the appeal bodies: it was no longer logical to keep a single mediator within – or more precisely in margin – La Poste while a number of operators are active in Belgium.

Indeed, if a consumer has a dispute with a service provider other than La Poste, his only remedy is to go to justice, with all the consequences that this entails (heavy formalities, costs, deadlines,...) while the customers of La Poste have an appeal instance, which could be qualified as an appeal.

We had also submitted a bill that, like this bill, created a mediation service for the entire postal sector within the IBPT. Therefore, as he did in the committee, the MR will support this bill that perfectly corresponds to his expectations. I thank you for your attention.

Mr. President, Mrs. Minister, colleagues, CD&V almost fully supports the content of the bill. Only the amendment remains to be discussed. The draft law is in fact entirely in the extension of a bill I have submitted earlier to regulate a postal ombudsman service whose responsibility is wider and is not limited only to the company De Post. The Ombudsman’s service in the postal sector is currently an ombudsman’s service at the public company De Post and not for the entire sector.

Let me illustrate the difference. The Telecommunications Ombudsman’s Office controls the entire telecommunications sector. Any customer who is dissatisfied with his telecom operator can request the Ombudsman service to intervene free of charge. However, the Ombudsman’s office in the postal sector can only intervene if the problem occurs with De Post.

Colleagues, due to the increasing liberalization in the postal sector and the associated increased number of postal and parcel companies, the citizen, the consumer, is increasingly in contact with other companies than De Post. With regard to these competitors, the Ombudsman’s office at De Post has no competence. Often the contact of the citizen with the company De Post, which is often responsible for the final delivery, occurs after the letter or the package has already gone a long way through other operators. If something goes wrong early in this chain, the Ombudsman’s service at De Post has no competence.

In order to channel the disadvantages of liberalization, in particular the reduced opportunities for citizens to resort to a mediation body, it was urgent to extend the Ombudsman’s office’s competence to all companies in the postal and parcel sector. The CD&V Group has long been asking for the extension of the powers of the Postal Ombudsman Service. In several of my questions, the Minister of Consumer Affairs confirmed his support for this. It is also good that Minister Verwilghen is present here because from the VLD corner there was some opposite at certain times. Thus, in May 2005, Minister Verwilghen stated, on one of our questions, that the establishment was not in question. Eventually, our group submitted a bill to speed up the case. We are pleased that the expansion of powers is now finally a fact. It could and should have been much faster.

During the discussion in the committee, we also expressed our support for the mechanism that will make the Ombudsman’s contribution of the different operators partially dependent on the number of complaints to be handled in connection with a particular operator. We regret, however, that the same principle was not applied to the Ombudsman’s contribution to the Ombudsman’s Telecommunications Service as we proposed in an amendment. It may be possible for us to wait a year or a little longer for the evaluation of this calculation system in order, if this proves feasible, to provide for the Ombudsman’s contribution to the Ombudsman’s telecom service. We sincerely hope that the system is operable but fear, because of the lack of a transitional arrangement, yet for a lot of disputes.

I will not return, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that the wrong documents – it was about the memory of the explanatory note and the preliminary draft, but it could also have gone about the draft itself and that we could not deduce – were submitted to Parliament. We could only have the actual documents available during the discussion. CD&V has, by the way, anticipated this situation through the Commission Secretariat. We have also informed the Cabinet of these errors so that this could be corrected even on the runway, just before the discussion in the committee.

Together with the corrections we have made through amendments and technical corrections, I think I can say that CD&V had a very constructive opposition.

Mr. Minister, I have an additional question. Yesterday, the Infrastructure Committee held a hearing in the framework of a new European Postal Directive. This was the Ombudsman’s contribution. The representation of the express companies stated that they would not contribute because they do not provide postal services. However, during the discussion of the present draft, you argued that the turnover in the package sector – this is an important distinction between the ordinary postal sector and the package sector – would also be included in the calculation of the contribution. Hence my question. What is the boundary between postal services and transport? The scope of the Ombudsman’s office is connected to this.

Can you tell me if the express companies will have to contribute? Universal Post Union would have set the limit for postal services on consignments up to 30 kilograms. Will the Ombudsman’s contribution be calculated on the turnover below this limit? Is this the limit of the Ombudsman’s competence? These are not insignificant questions in the light of the calculation mechanism. I repeat them briefly: the border between mail and transport, the situation of the express companies, the 30-kilogram limit and the scope of the Ombudsman’s office.

Mr. Deseyn, the boundary between mail and packages is fixed in international treaties. The limit is set at 30 kilograms. In short, anyone and any company that ships something weighing less than 30 kilograms falls below and will therefore have to contribute.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, I assume that this is immediately also the limit of the scope of the Ombudsman’s office. I see you confirm this. I take records of this.

As for the border of Universal Post Union, you refer to international treaties. In other countries the limit is 50 kilograms. In that sense, my question was important.

In the pressures of the discussion, the amendment – I refer to the discussion of Zopas – was not submitted for voting. This amendment was submitted on the basis of our question why telephone and oral complaints following a visit to the Ombudsman’s office are not valid. According to the present draft, these complaints are not admissible. The Telecommunications Ombudsman Service takes oral complaints into account. I repeat once again that you, in my opinion, did the same with my proposal for correction. Apparently, it is difficult to bear this today or accept it through technical correction. I am therefore repeating the amendment.

Mr Deseyn, your amendment relates to Article 4 not to Article 5. Articles have changed by number. If you agree, this is an amendment to Article 4. What you say is correct. “Article 43ter, paragraph 4, first.” It has become Article 4, not Article 5.

Mr. Speaker, even during the discussion, the memory also counted more articles than the final draft.

Another important point is the transition period. The calculation of the Ombudsman’s contribution depends on the complaints handled in the previous year. For the alternative postal operators, however, the previous year does not exist because they did not fall within the competence of the Ombudsman’s Office. Hence my last question. How and how will you manage the transitional situation?