Proposition 54K2694

Projet de loi relatif aux services postaux.

General information ¶

Submitted by

MR Swedish coalition

Submission date

Oct. 10, 2017

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

EC Directive public sector postal service

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V Open Vld N-VA MR PP

Voted to reject

PVDA | PTB

Abstained from voting

Groen Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP DéFI ∉ VB

Party dissidents ¶

• Siegfried Bracke (N-VA) abstained from voting.

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 ¶

Jan. 18, 2018 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

The rapporteurs are Ms Grovonius and Mr Flahaux.

Mr. Speaker, I usually refer to the written report but, at the insistent request of the Chair of the Committee on Infrastructure and Public Enterprises, I have to speak on the supplementary report to Mrs. Grovonius’ initial report.

Following the decision taken in the plenary session on 11 January last to send back to the committee the amendments that had been received, the committee met on 16 January. At that meeting, Mr de Lamotte presented an amendment no. 16 replacing amendment no. 9, stating that this new amendment took into account the three observations made by the Council of State concerning its amendment no. 9.

The Minister of Cooperation, in this case the Minister of Telecommunications and Post, reminds the members that this problem has already been discussed in previous meetings of the commission and that the aim pursued is to promote the competition of postal services on the Belgian market.

As regards Belgium, the European Commission stressed that the conditions for granting licenses were neither necessary nor justified. The Minister therefore considers that it is recommended to remove these grant conditions disputed by the European Commission, in order to remove the last obstacles to access to the Belgian market.

Then, Mr Laurent Devin initially submitted the amendments 11, 12 and 14 to Article 16. Amendment No. 11 intends to make technical modifications and corresponds, word to word, to amendment No. 15, subsequently filed and to which I will return. Amendment No. 12 is withdrawn by Mr. Devin, (which in the meantime has arrived) and amendment No. 14 comes into force after the opinion of the State Council. Mr. Devin considers that it is not the responsibility of bpost to decide on its own on matters relating to universal service. There is service to the population across the whole Belgian territory.

Mr Vanden Burre then commented on his amendment no. 13 which provides for the same amendments as the amendments no. 11 and 15 already mentioned. “It is unacceptable,” he says, “that the service offered is different depending on the place of residence.”

Mr. Clarinval, leader of the MR group, then presented the amendment No. 15 signed by the four heads of the majority group aiming to remove, in particular, the words "exceptional geographical conditions" and is part of the continuity of the examination of the bill: "It is important to respect the balance between the modernization of postal services in Belgium and the interests of rural areas."

Geerts, however, would like to know what the notion of “exceptional circumstances” means in the minds of the majority. This should be explained in the committee later in the report in the plenary session.

MM. de Lamotte and Devin also ask for clarifications regarding this word "exceptional".

Mr. Clarinval specifies that the four signatories of Amendment No. 15, i.e. the four heads of groups, want to prevent rural areas from being penalized compared to urban areas as a result of the effort to modernize postal services: "We should not create a two-speed post."

The minister recalls that he has always stated that he was not in the intention of the government to change the current service. The provisions of Article 16 of the bill constitute a literal transcription of the Postal Directive. The words "exceptional geographical conditions" are not intended to allow to differentiate mail distribution frequencies depending on whether the regions are rural or urban. The concept of "exceptional circumstances" offers sufficient flexibility and allows to ease the condition of distributing the mail five times a week in the future and that the State continues to finance this universal service.

The Minister does not object to the removal of the words "exceptional geographical conditions". The possibility of organizing discrimination is not ⁇ ined, as some assume. The distribution frequency will be the same everywhere. “Partout” is the important word in the report.

The current management contract provides for daily distribution and the next management contract will cover the period 2019-2024 and the obligation to distribute the mail every day will remain there.

In the next contract, “exceptional circumstances” will not be defined. Thus, they cannot be applied.

The concept of the qualification "exceptional" must be defined in the management contract. However, the price cap envisaged in the bill will allow a gradual decrease in the postal services as the public currently knows them.

The qualification "exceptional" does not refer to a decrease in the current pace, but to a significantly more accentuated decrease in the future. From 2024, the management contract that will be communicated to Parliament will be able to define the concept in question.

Mr. Laurent Devin returns to the powers of the King who, by deliberate decree in the Council of Ministers, and after the advice of the IBPT as well as of consumer protection associations and representatives of workers, should be able to decide whether or not to relax the rules of universal service. “This is after all,” he says, “a decision that affects 11 million people.”

The Minister responds that the specifications requested are not necessary, since the IBPT proceeds to verify the cost of the universal service. The easing of its rules and the net cost of that service are closely linked.

The IBPT is entitled to give opinions to the Minister at any time, on its own initiative, but the Minister may also request him in this regard. The Advisory Committee for Postal Services may also, on its own initiative or upon request, issue opinions for the attention of the Minister.

The management contract must be submitted to Parliament. Bpost will not be able to unilaterally change its obligations.

Mr. Devin, de Lamotte and Vanden Burre take note with satisfaction of the Minister’s response with regard to the volume related or not to exceptional circumstances.

The Minister, for his part, calls on the members to make it clear: the work of the factor is no longer the same as before. It also reaffirmed that the reduction qualified as exceptional is not the reduction currently observed, but the reduction provided for in Article 16, being understood that a reduction in the volume of postal consignments that endangers the financial balance of the universal service will, in any case, be considered as such a circumstance.

If the decline becomes so strong that the price cap cannot maintain the financial balance, the circumstance will be considered as exceptional.

Finally, as regards amendments that have not been withdrawn, amendment no. 16 is rejected by ten votes against one and four abstentions. Article 6 itself was adopted by ten votes and five abstentions.

In Article 16, where a series of amendments had also been submitted, Amendment No. 11 is rejected by ten votes against four. Amendment 14 is rejected by ten votes against five. Amendment 15 was adopted unanimously. And Article 16, as amended, is itself adopted by ten votes and five abstentions.

The whole draft, as amended, was adopted by ten votes and five abstentions.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, on behalf of my group, I can only express our satisfaction with what finally comes forward today. In fact, many years ago, it was decided at European level to open the postal market, to give room to new ⁇ , to enable competition, which always strives for better services at lower prices, and to create new jobs, which new companies always bring with them.

Nevertheless, at the Belgian level, the same parties that approved liberalization and the removal of all possible accession thresholds at European level kept the door frighteningly closed to competitors, for new companies and for new jobs.

It is only today that this draft is finally ending the unreasonably high entry thresholds for newcomers. Apparently, one newcomer is not the other. As the rapporteur has excellently explained, this even required a breakdown order from the European Commission. And you don’t have to look at it with blinkers, because the European Commission is only implementing what was decided by all of us, including by the then-government parties, at European level.

The present draft provides opportunities for newcomers, but at the same time ensures that sustainable employment, including of low-skilled persons, in our public company bpost is ⁇ ined as much as possible with a mandatory employment as a servant, whether or not on a temporary basis, for the distribution of addressed mail and individual mail. This obligation also applies to potential competitors, of course in so far as it concerns the same thing, namely the mere distribution of individual postal documents delivered by others and addressed letters. This obligation must be interpreted strictly; it does not, of course, apply to services operating beyond that, which contain more than that.

This also allows bpost to continue to innovate, as it has done in a very good way in recent years, to compensate for the declining market of postal mail with growth in the package market thanks to e-commerce, as well as with the additional services that the company offers today and with advanced automation, such as in the high-tech sorting centers, which are no longer comparable to before. Bpost has recorded a solid track record.

And this, of course, also thanks to the pressure that liberalization brings. Liberalization involves the pursuit of better services at lower prices.

I am also satisfied with the radical choice for the general interest, the importance of the taxpayer. The universal service today allows, without input of additional tax money to the public company bpost, to provide a daily service to everyone, regardless of the place of residence. This is guaranteed, both by the law and by the management contract that is in force today. Of course, in highly changed circumstances, in exceptional economic circumstances, so only when it turns out to be absolutely necessary, this future law allows to protect the taxpayer and no longer provide murderous in a service for which there is insufficient demand because of the citizen.

Yesterday an amendment was adopted, to remove the word "geographical" from the exception, in my opinion rightly. Geographical criteria should not be used a priori. The criteria that should apply are, of course, the economic criteria, the demand of the citizen for a particular service. Of course, this will be correlated, at the macro level, to geographical elements. But the correlation is not necessarily a priori the case; it is merely about the economic conditions, to the market demand. We provide that only with one purpose in mind, in particular to maintain a service that is in demand for as long as possible, but at all times to avoid that if that demand falls further sharply, or if there is no more demand for it, a service is ⁇ ined, with the invoice for the taxpayer. This is something that can absolutely not be for us. The intervention of the taxpayer is for us absolutely out of the wrong. This is reflected here in the design.

This satisfies our group. My group will therefore fully support the bill as a party of the general interest, as a trade union of the taxpayer.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Deputy Prime Minister, Mrs. Speaker of the Commission, dear colleagues, allow me first to thank our excellent rapporteur, Mr. Jean-Jacques Flahaux, who has well stated our numerous exchanges in committees for months.

When the draft postal law arrived on our banks, the PS group saw several sources of concern: weakening of universal service, rising stamp price, privatization. So, let us recognize it from the beginning, the work of the opposition has partially reduced our concerns. Excellent work by the opposition. And if you have rightly applauded Mr. Flahaux, I will also ask you, dear colleagues, to applaude Karin Lalieux, David Geerts, Michel de Lamotte and Gilles Vanden Burre who, week after week, month after month, have made the majority and Mr. Deputy Prime Minister hear right – partially.

It was not won in advance. Three months ago, the MR did not see this project as a threat to our rural areas. Mr. Clarinval, I have seen you on television say the opposite afterwards; I am delighted and congratulate you because it is never too late to be right! But the submission of amendments, the second reading, the referral to the State Council, the interpellations and threats of conflict of interest from Namur have brought our colleagues back from the majority to reason.

Mr. Speaker, I was questioned by the courtesy of our excellent speaker citing many of our colleagues who, through their hard work, allowed the project to evolve, but Mr. Devin himself forgot about it. And I would like to highlight this.

The amendment voted on Tuesday in the committee, word for word, virgule for virgule, Mr. Deputy Prime Minister, guillemet for guillemet, is the same as ours. The adaptation of the universal postal service cannot be done at the expense of rural areas. Thanks to the work of the opposition, there is no universal second-zone postal service in Belgium. The equality of citizens in the public service is preserved.

This is a great thing, because a universal service only makes sense if all citizens benefit from it in the same way across the entire territory. Therefore, the concept of "exceptional geographical conditions" had to be removed from the project to avoid any risk. Indeed, the declarations of intent of Mr. Deputy Prime Minister, however reassuring, did not make us forget those of the N-VA, the first party of the majority, passed through the mouth of Mr. Dedecker, for whom the principle of territorial solidarity was not acceptable. I mentioned it on Tuesday.

This notion was to disappear insofar as there is no geographical condition in Belgium which is sufficiently exceptional to justify a difference in treatment between parts of the territory. We do not know the exceptional geographical conditions of Sub-Saharan, nor those of Kilimanjaro.

Our first amendment was taken textually; we therefore hoped that the majority would continue on this launch and would also resume our second amendment, or even the vote. Indeed, the possible adaptation of the universal service cannot be the result of a simple accounting calculation. This is a political decision that must be included in the notion of general interest.

Mr. Deputy Prime Minister, I said it to you on Tuesday and I repeat it to you: our amendment would allow the decision to return in the last resort to “politics”. This is not a big word. I mean the Council of Ministers, of which you are currently the Deputy Prime Minister. In addition, this decision would be subject to the opinion of the users and employees of the company, in particular.

For my group, modernization must not be synonymous with a reduction in services. Modernization is the adaptation to the new needs of citizens. Thus, at a time when our population is ageing and human contacts give way to virtual exchanges, the passage of a representative of the community to the home of isolated persons is every day a little more of the general interest. It is in this perspective that the social role of the factor must be revalued, even though the volume of the mail would decrease.

In addition to the question of the frequency of factor passage, the committee work was obviously marked by the opinion of the IBPT. A scheme on the potential increase in stamp price has ⁇ caught our attention. In view of it, how can we ignore that this bill offers a greater freedom to bpost to fix the stamp price over the years to come?

This is all the more likely as the IBPT loses much of its control over the stamp price. From there to see a retaliatory measure against the IBPT in the face of its unprecedented refusal to increase at the beginning of 2017, there is only one step that we will not take.

We are aware of the risks posed by this document. Certainly, Mr. Deputy Prime Minister – and this is important – Bpost, the country’s first employer and successful company comes out reinforced from this bill; I pay tribute to you in this sense. Certainly, public service tasks will still be assumed exclusively by workers under employment contract and not by fake self-employed, as demanded by private competition.

For us, socialists, this project presents an opportunity to further support services to the population and to carry out ambitious social and environmental policies. But we do not ignore that, in this government, some rejoice that the same law values a business, in order, ⁇ , to better sell it tomorrow.

In conclusion, the abolition of discrimination on a geographical basis is a crucial step forward. The majority and Mr. Deputy Prime Minister have heard the opposition, done rarely enough to be emphasized. Mr. Deputy Prime Minister, I also note that in the committee, you repeated your intention to confirm the five-day distribution principle in the new bpost management contract. You also assured us that the decision to adapt the universal service will belong to the Council of Ministers, on the opinion of the IBPT. These words are important. We would have preferred to see them listed black on white in this bill.

The risks of privatization, the increase in the price of the stamp and the adaptation of the universal service remain, without a broad consultation. So many reasons that, despite the positive aspects of this project, require us to be vigilant. We are scheduling an appointment for the management contract and, in anticipation of this management contract, the Socialist Group will abstain.

Mr. Deputy Prime Minister, dear colleagues, the House is today preparing to vote on an important text, delivered by our Deputy Prime Minister, Alexander De Croo. With this bill, which also takes into account the objectives of the Government Agreement, continuity with the current legal and regulatory framework will be ensured, while, of course, providing more flexibility to enable universal service providers to respond to the evolving needs of users.

In other words, this bill – we must congratulate – aims to improve the transparency of the legislative and regulatory framework of the postal sector, while codifying into a single legislative text the legal provisions that have so far become a completely unreadable fatras. We welcome, my colleagues, the objectives pursued by this bill, which responds to the evolving needs of postal service users, but which also ensures a quality universal postal service at the lowest cost for society. As you know, bpost’s current designation as a universal postal service provider ends on December 31, 2018. It imported and it is therefore important to ensure the continuity of the provision of the universal service after that date. To this end, a stable framework should be created for the designated provider of this universal service.

Mr. Deputy Prime Minister, you reassured us on several points that I consider very important and which I would like to recall. First, the new postal law ⁇ ins the obligation to distribute mail at least five days a week. This is very important. Secondly, the management contract 2016-2020 provides for the payment of pensions and a post office per municipality. Therefore, we should not worry about these two points in particular. Thirdly, the Minister has repeatedly repeated that the reduction or differentiation of the distribution frequency is absolutely not on the agenda. This has been said and repeated many times. The Minister does not intend to propose such a reduction in the management contract concerning the universal service which, if I do not say a mistake, will cover the period 2019-2023. As a result, mail distribution will therefore always be ensured, both in rural and urban areas. This is not to be questioned. It is a service of general economic interest but also of service to society.

Finally, I will address the quality of employment. The bill guarantees it in the postal sector. He was the first employer in Belgium. Like others, he moves and will have to adapt to the evolutions of his time.

As my dear colleague said, a few moments ago, bpost comes out reinforced from this new postal law. That is why the MR group will support it unreservedly.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Deputy Prime Minister, my colleagues, I thank you.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues and colleagues, Mr. Flahaux has delivered a very good report. Mr. Dedecker and Mr. MR’s colleague held a good speech.

Since 1991, the old Regie der Posterijen became a modern, publicly listed public company. The postal mail declined significantly, while the number of postal packages increased. The market was liberalized, the future was embraced. Just think of Bringr, or the app that bpost released and which now allows you to digitally take a photo and send it as a ticket to the personal mailbox of the destination. This is already possible with movies.

This means that a very clear regulatory framework is needed for this sector in transition. Through this new post law, the government will ensure that. On the one hand, it makes clear the role of bpost, which will ensure the universal service for the next five years with a clear, predictable and stable price control mechanism, as just explained by our colleague. On the other hand, it also reflects on the changing market conditions. After all, it seems to us natural that the government must handle the taxpayer’s cents responsibly. If the financial balance of the universal service can no longer be guaranteed, we must also intervene.

Some colleagues in this hemisphere see this as an attack on rural services. Some find it necessary to scare the population with dumb images, as if they would soon no longer receive post at home. That is a pity, because this government just makes the choice by stating that the universal service as now defined can be revised in the event of major changes in the postal market. Send the postman daily with empty pockets through the country, which is held to yesterday, which is nostalgic, naive and conservative.

For the Open Vld it is clear that this postal law provides the guarantees of good service to all citizens in this country, regardless of the place of residence, as colleague Dedecker said. We corrected this with the amendment, without being blind to the changing market conditions, as was the case with the closure of the post offices and with the post offices that came in place. In other words, there is much more service to the citizen.

Fear and polarization do not help the new and rapid evolution forward, common sense, an open vizier and legislation that is evolutionary proof do. That is why we will approve this bill soon.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, this is an important topic, which we have debated long over the past few months. This issue concerns all citizens. It is fundamental because it affects their daily life and the quality of the public service offered to them, in this case in the distribution of mail.

At the beginning of the discussions in the committee, we had, given the importance of the subject, requested hearings. I regret that this was not possible. The debate lasted very long, the opposition did a hard job and went through several mechanisms to force the hand of the majority. Per ⁇ with bpost hearings, staff representatives, the Belgian Institute of Postal Services and Telecommunications (IBPT) – whose members regretted yesterday, when presenting their annual report in a committee, that they had not been heard – we could have been more effective.

At the level of the Ecolo-Groen Group, we wanted to highlight three elements during this debate. The first is the revision of the conditions for obtaining a postal license, following the order of the European Commission that required Belgium to review three obligations with regard to the granting of a postal license: the obligation, within two years, for any new arrival outside the universal service, to distribute the mail twice a week; the obligation, within five years, to cover the entire Belgian territory, and the obligation to have a uniform tariff across the whole country.

These conditions are removed in the new version of the bill. However, we feared that these barriers that were to be lifted would at the same time open the way for new actors who would behave in the way of cowboys, as are currently doing some companies that benefit from more favourable conditions offered in certain markets, in particular in the distribution of mail. We were afraid that they would come to compete unfairly bpost. In this regard, this text contains a primary paragraph, which was already included in the previous version and where it is specified that "the workers performing the collection, sorting or distribution of correspondence will be employed under a regime of employment contract". This provision seems to us essential – and this is specified in the draft – in order to combat social dumping and false independent workers. We look forward to ⁇ ining this goal.

To link with the discussion we had recently with Minister Peeters on the delivery of packages, such a measure allows to guarantee in some sectors quite respectable social conditions. It could be inspired by other activities.

I come to the second part of my speech, to recall that the debate has crystallized on the issue of universal service, in particular through the changes or, in any case, the conditions allowing to derogate from it contained in the bill. In fact, in its original version, it allowed to suspend, depending on exceptional circumstances and geographical conditions that were equally so, the obligation, in force throughout the whole territory, to distribute the mail five days a week. In this view, the factor could have passed two, three or four times a week, but more than five. This was of course the subject of the discussion. I rejoice in the sense of my colleagues in the opposition by pointing out that our joint work has yielded fruit. It was indeed unthinkable for us, ecologists, and several other members of the opposition, that geographical areas of our country were treated differently in terms of public service, so that, to put it concretely, people living in rural areas would be considered second-class citizens.

It is impossible to imagine that the factor occurs three or four times a week in rural areas, while it occurs every day in Brussels, Liège or Antwerp, in urban areas. This differentiation was unthinkable for us. We have, along with other opposition colleagues, submitted amendments to the plenary on this subject in an attempt to move the majority. It was the case. So we can welcome the work of the opposition and the fact that the lines moved on the side of the majority, the MR. The amendment was submitted to the committee on Tuesday and we obviously supported it. This amendment removes any geographical reference in the text. We are pleased that the text does not affect the absolute equality between citizens, regardless of their place of residence.

But the third point, which is connected, is that the exceptional circumstances remain, that is, that tomorrow, the number of passages of the factor could decrease for a reason that the minister explained in the commission, namely the reduction of paper mail today by 5% per year. The very likely acceleration of the decrease in paper mail is an exceptional circumstance. In the next ten or fifteen years, the volume of paper mail will most likely decrease. At that time, the text provides that the number of factor passages can be reduced but uniformly across the whole country, without making differences between regions.

I would like to address another important aspect of this discussion. Mr. Minister, on Tuesday afternoon in the committee, I asked you under what precise circumstances one could imagine that such a situation occurs because the management contract must be taken into account. You then specified that the present management contract expires at the end of this year and that you are negotiating the next one. You have confirmed to us that, in the management contract 2019-2023, that is until 31 December 2023, the daily passage of the factor was guaranteed, concrete.

In other words, until December 31, 2023, the frequency of the factor passing five times a week across the entire territory is guaranteed. This is a satisfaction for us. But as I said, what will happen next?

Governance is predicting. So, our request is also to have, at some point, this debate in relation to the “inevitable” decrease in paper mail. During this debate, one could imagine, for example, expanding the roles of the factor – and in particular its social role – to compensate for the decline in paper mail. It’s not about loading your boat; it’s known how well the tours are done today with a very tight timing and under a lot of pressure.

I repeat, for tomorrow we must imagine another role that would compensate, totally or not, for the decline of paper mail. We think in particular – and the subject has been discussed in a committee – of positive pilot experiments conducted in several CPAS, including those in Ostende, Roulers or Antwerp, where factors participate in urban planning surveys, air pollution measures or services to CPAS users. We find it interesting to be able to consider their extension in order to be able to expand the social role of factors. I also cited, in the discussions, the example of the French Post that launched in May 2017 a project called "Watch on my parents", targeted in particular on the isolated elderly, where the factor, through a service, passes more regularly to play the attentive neighbor, the family being sometimes distant, and provide a whole series of services related to the well-being of these isolated elderly people. It would be interesting to be able to consider such services in Belgium, with bpost.

We would like to look at these pistes. Not by nostalgia for the role of the factor, as you understood, it is not the nostalgia for the factor that stops, passes every day, drinks a drink in every home of the villages or municipalities. The idea is not to go back to the time of "Welcome to the Ch'tis" but rather to take advantage of this opportunity from the drop in paper mail to expand the role of the factor, specific cases existing today.

In conclusion, I repeat that we welcome the maintenance of the conditions guaranteeing the quality of employment and the fact that every worker must have a labor contract for as long as he distributes, sorts or collects the mail.

We also welcome the surge of the majority on geographical discrimination and discrimination between rural and urban areas. The lines have moved and this is quite rare only to be emphasized. We supported the majority amendment on this subject.

However, we remain on our hunger regarding the possibilities of reducing factor passages. Somewhere, alternative solutions are not considered enough. I think that by the end of 2023, we will see that the volume of mail has decreased so that the factor will pass only three or four times a week. We do not want to solve this fatality and prefer to be able to explore alternative solutions.

We will abstain from this text.

Dear colleagues, I ask you to be careful. I know that when speakers are longer, your patience breaks down quite quickly. You need to find a balance between your ability to listen and the concision of the expression!

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Deputy Prime Minister, colleagues, first of all, I would like to thank the rapporteur for today’s additional oral explanation.

As the other colleagues have already said, on 25 October last year we dedicated a first discussion to the draft in the Infrastructure Committee. In my opinion, the Minister, when he came to Parliament with his draft, thought that it would be a walk in the park and that it would be voted in the plenary session very soon after the explanation. It took a little longer. That’s not because the opposition has melted out procedures or would have used procedures merely for the procedures. However, it is due to the fact that the considerable concerns of the opposition about the text were subsequently shared by the majority.

These concerns, as repeated today, were mainly fueled by Mr. Dedecker with his statements in the debate and his proposal for a resolution in which he wrote down his view on the postal landscape.

Mr. Dedecker, we differ in view and with this I have no problem. However, through your draft resolution, the opposition was able to determine what possible reality hides behind the bill and how far the government could go in organizing the postal market. In particular, I mention your statement that in rural areas the stamps could be more expensive. You also suggested that local procurement files could vary. According to us, this opened the door for a cherrypicken to the extreme. Even today, in your speech, you remain with that vision. With your proposal for a resolution on the completion of the postal market, you aim nothing more or less than a debate on the blind liberalization of the postal market. Furthermore, I think, if I can finish on her speech, that you have found a fellow in Mrs. Lijnen.

As a result of the Minister’s response during the committee meetings, I had a little more confidence in him, but today Open Vld, on behalf of Mrs Lijnen, has taken a different position. I don’t know which open field I should listen to.

Thus, the concerns we had in advance about the design remain.

The question is to what extent we can distinguish between urban and rural areas. Without a doubt, you find this of little importance, given the fact that according to studies, an average family spends 25 euros a year on stamps.

I’ve been following the posters for over 10 years and I acknowledge that the market is evolving and the number of pieces is falling. But the higher price for, among other things, stamps is paid not only by SMEs but also and above all by municipal governments. Local authorities are obliged to send a lot of documents by mail. Therefore, the local authorities are presented with the higher bill, which we absolutely want to avoid. I think, Mr. Dedecker, that even the mayors of N-VA would not be delighted if they saw the bill for sending their mail increased by 10 % over a one-year period.

During your discussion, you called for the liberalization, because it would lower the price of the stamp and therefore it would be cheaper to send mail but I have to formally deny that. According to several studies, a stamp cost 72 cents in Belgium at the end of 2015 and 79 cents now, while the EU average was 75 cents. In countries where the postal market is privatized, in particular Denmark and the United Kingdom, that is the highest.

You can now state that we have to compare with the Netherlands. It is true that the stamp has become cheaper there, but what it is due to is found in the reports of the Second Chamber: in the liberalized postal market, wages and working conditions are miserable; they make profits on the cap of the ordinary man who delivers the mail by the wind and wind.

I will then return to the core of our discussion today. With the second reading of the text because amendments were submitted in the committee and in the plenary session, amendments for which the opinion of the Council of State was requested, the majority apparently still saw the light and decided to approve the amendment to eliminate the geographical exceptions on obligations. At the committee meeting, I asked for a brief explanation of the amendment, so that its interpretation was clear and clear. I must admit that the Minister has answered this very correctly, which removes some of our concerns.

Nevertheless, given the delegation powers regarding the Minister’s management agreement, it remains difficult for us as the opposition to be able to approve the draft today. We do not know what will come. Especially when I hear the statements of colleagues Dedecker and Lines, I think that the opposition should be cautious and keep an eye on those parties.

First, let me talk about the advice of the BIPT. The BIPT statement that a five-day delivery no longer applies in our country is worrying. The Minister immediately noted that this is not his vision. But that vision still lives, witnessing the reference to Italy and the question of whether this is still needed in a declining postal market. In 2024, we will have to effectively re-debat this issue, but today I think it is too early.

You talked about a decline in the postal market. If I look at the latest figures – those are the figures from the end of 2015 – then there are still 162 letters per Belgian and 12.5 packets per year. This is a huge discrepancy. The market is evolving. It is said that the letters are only bills and that today no more love letters are sent. Everything is now done by SMS or e-mail. Certainly at the end of love it is usually about e-mail and no more letters will be sent. Ultimately, these figures demonstrate the importance of something.

Let me put it down to the number of employees. Mrs Lijnen, you have forgotten in your speech that bpost today employs 25 000 full-time equivalents and thus approximately 26 000 employees.

If we would take very abrupt measures, for example a transition for the packages, then you should also have the culot to say that to all those people in that company. I wish you good luck if you have to tell all those people, the second-largest employer in this country, that one wants to go to a blind regularization.

Sp.a does not want this for all clarity. We know that the market is evolving. We are not going to stop that, absolutely not, but I think a transition period until 2024, as the minister in the committee has said, is wise. This debate should be held.

There is also constant reference to the damned past. I don’t know if you know who was the minister at the time, Mrs. Lijnen, at the time the license conditions were approved in Parliament. Your colleague, Mr. Van Quickenborne, was then the competent minister. At that time, a number of measures were taken to maintain employment and quality services.

Precisely because those measures were taken in the past, bpost is still a performant company today that has been able to respond positively to that evolution in the market, by the management as well as by the employees who have had an incredible flexibility to think out day after day to strengthen their business in order to maintain a certain form of employment.

Let that be a lesson. Now, if you want to push forward all sorts of loose flooders, you should look at all the measures taken in the past. Ask your colleagues in your group. They can explain how the debates went on at that time.

We think we need to organize a new debate on e-commerce, as you said, but also on the salary and working conditions of the people employed there.

This week we learned that after the New Year, 15,000 packages had to be returned. Those people have to do it for free.

The costs of doing so were provided by the ordinary workers who had to perform additional work without any compensation. This is what I said yesterday during my speech on the BIPT. If we look at the organization of the market, we should also look at the salary and working conditions of the people who are employed in it, also for the people who organize these activities at bpost. However, you know the new players in the market and also know that bpost’s market share here is much smaller than the historical monopoly on the letter market.

Our group considers it important that we find a new role for the postman, a social role. Even in the municipality of Brakel there are initiatives in this regard, unfortunately always paid by the local government, in which the postman gets a social role. In other municipalities such as Oostende and Geraardsbergen there are similar projects as well. In our society there are certain needs in this area and bpost can play an important role in that.

Mr. Speaker, I am going around. I acknowledge that the amendment submitted by the majority group leaders is an improvement, but our group will still abstain, due to the government’s delegation power and some elements of the management agreement that are still unclear. Given the statements made by Mr. Dedecker and Mrs. Lijnen today, the reservation we make to the present draft is ⁇ and firmly correct.

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. Bpost is a major public company (although it is seen flying under other skies through cooperations) and one of the country’s first employers.

I would like to pay tribute to all bpost workers whether they are factors or are employed in sorting and distribution areas. I would like to tell them how important their role is over time.

Mr. Deputy Prime Minister, dear colleagues, admit that (and allow me the expression) we are coming back from far away! Yes, we go a long way between the first presentation of your bill in October, with a first general discussion, a second reading, amendments returned to the State Council and a process that leads us to do a real parliamentary work to try to improve your text.

We go back from afar when we see the original text and the one that is deposited on our tables today! With regard to the CDH, our action has always been driven by a single line of direction: equal service wherever you live in Belgium, the maintenance and consolidation of the universal service, i.e. a postal postal service for all citizens, everywhere in the country and at the same rate. The "five days a week" was to be realized everywhere and it seemed unacceptable for us that there were two weights two measures. There could not be second-tier citizens in the country.

These were the fears we had when reading the document.

Second element, Mr. Minister, and I reproached you in the committee: the European Commission had issued a letter with a number of arguments against which you did not fight. You did not argue with this type of mail. You did not try to highlight the inconsistencies of this mail, while the European Commission quoted you from other countries completely different from the Belgian landscape. I am talking about licensing conditions.

I obviously remain attentive to everything that could be the English notion of cherry picking to evoke the fact that other operators could come to the Belgian market by decimating it in relation to urban areas and without serving rural areas in the same way. For us, the defense of universal service was imperative. The risk of depletion of everyday mail, I will say, is therefore important and it risks playing on the costs of universal service. I agree that large packages are put on the side, but we risk having operators who, with distribution centers in the Netherlands, for example, would only ensure the market of Antwerp or Liège and neighboring cities or operators established in Luxembourg and covering only Arlon or even in France and covering only the major cities along the French border. In this way, they would demolish the market and leave no longer enough mail for rural areas. In this case, Mr. Minister, an intervention of the State would prove indispensable to finance this distribution of the mail.

The third element I would like to return to in this debate: the increase in the price of stamp in the future. An article of this bill allows, outside of any norm, to increase the price of the stamp. Bpost would have wanted to do so as soon as possible, and already in January 2018 probably, but the handling of the file did not allow it.

Mr. Deputy Prime Minister, yesterday, in the commission, as my colleague recalled, the IBPT came to speak on the subject. The current formula in the text is based on a projection of future volumes of distribution and not on the actual cost of universal service. Thus, bpost may, in the future, increase its prices due to a hypothetical projection of a decline in volume. Therefore, the price increase could be much higher than the actual increase in mail processing costs. This risk is inherent and exists in this text. In doing so, this is an element on which we must work.

This is a note about the increase in price, because I would not want that in the future we have to regret a price increase much greater than that of costs and thus make the bride more beautiful for other operations.

The work we have done is a real parliamentary work with amendments, arguments, debates. And I truly regret, as my colleagues have already pointed out, that we did not have the opportunity to organize hearings which, without slowing the debate, could have given the committee some light on a number of points.

Finally, we had to wait for a fourth committee to finally see a clarification in this bill through the removal, through an amendment, of the words "exceptional geographical conditions". The majority had to submit this amendment, because the amendments that had been returned to the Council of State were quite justifiable. At least that is what he says in his opinion. The State Council gave us the right.

However, the text under consideration is only partially satisfying because if it "shifts" the notions of "exceptional geographical circumstances", it does not change the problem of "exceptional circumstances". Therefore, concerns remain, especially with regard to volumes, even though, I project myself here in 2024, Mr. Deputy Prime Minister, since you have had the elegance or you have taken the time to confirm us that the 2019-2024 management contract will be ⁇ ined with a universal distribution service five days in five.

We do not want a differentiated service at the disadvantage of rural areas. Ms. Lijnen said recently in her speech that "they had, by this amendment, rectified the bill." "Rectified," that means that there was a concern, a hidden intention, something unclear. I really wanted to say that this was not about stifling the debate about discrimination in rural areas. We absolutely want to maintain this universal service for everyone, everywhere in the country, at the same price.

What I say is not evasive, it is quite real. Mr. Dedecker explained his position to us recently. In a committee, he had said, during the discussion of an amendment (this appears on page 31 of the report): “It is unacceptable that the choice of people who decide to settle in the most remote places affects the cost to be paid by all taxpayers and by other consumers.” There was a level of appreciation that makes that only profitability matters and that, if you unfortunately live away from a center, so bad for you!

Mr. Dedecker, rurality is not necessarily a choice, it is also a professional fact, a family fact, a historical fact. It is not because we live in a less centered place that we should not have the same service. This is the difference in what concerns us, it is the difference of solidarity towards the regions that are more distant from the centers!

Based on this, Mr. Speaker, I announce that we will abstain, just as we abstained in committee for the two elements that I took back in my speech: "exceptional circumstances" beyond 2024 and then, the possibility of fixing the price of the stamp without necessarily taking into account operating costs and no longer having control of the IBPT, the postal regulator.

This bill on the postal services has a clear objective. The Minister has repeated this several times. It is about putting the last hand on the project of complete liberalization of the postal market. It is about removing all remaining barriers and allowing private actors to invade this market and thus fragment the postal service in our country, while eroding the guarantee of universal service.

We can already guess the outcome of this liberalization. It will not be, as the majority claims, a better service at lower prices. It will be the opposite, as has been seen in other liberalized sectors: a deteriorated service at higher prices.

Three criteria had to be met so far to obtain a license: guaranteeing two passes per week, covering the territory at 80% within five years, practicing a uniform tariff for all of Belgium. Apparently, there were too many criteria for the European Commissioners and the government, who would like to see these criteria disappear.

A study by PwC, sponsored by the European Commission, indicates that in Belgium, during this complete liberalization, private companies will take the best shares of the market and leave the rest, like low-density regions, to the historic operator. This is what is called scraping. When it is known that a large part of the revenue comes from the most important customers, bpost slashing seems inevitable.

In this hypothesis, we come to an anarchic landscape of several companies whose territorial coverage, prices and passage frequencies we will have to know, potentially different for each of them. We will see an increase in the number of unnecessary vehicles crowding the streets and polluting the air.

As the Minister said in his presentation, currently bpost offers a quality universal service at rates below the European average. This is unacceptable for liberals. The bill aims to revise the price cap system and allow the universal service provider to raise prices, taking into account the costs incurred by the provider and for one year, without prior control of the IBPT. The goal is clear: to pay the dividend to private shareholders as soon as possible. Liberals want to follow the example of countries such as the Netherlands, indicated as a model by the European Commission, where the stamp price has risen by more than 44% in just five years.

It is significant to hear colleagues, such as Mr. Dedecker, assert that this law will promote a reduction in tariffs, while at the same time asserting that prices must rise.

One of people’s biggest concerns is whether daily tours will be eliminated in areas with low population density. Certainly, as several colleagues have recalled, an amendment was voted to remove the words "or exceptional geographical conditions" in Article 16. The minister also guaranteed that “the possibility of organizing discrimination will not be ⁇ ined, that the frequency of distribution will be the same everywhere and that the next contract will maintain daily mail.”

We want to believe it. However, we remain concerned, especially when the minister explains that the notion of "exceptional circumstance" offers sufficient flexibility and will allow in the future to ease the condition of distributing the mail five times a week.

I would also like to mention a few other objective consequences of this law - if it passes. First, and fortunately, the N-VA failed to withdraw the project’s weak guarantees against social dumping and the use of fake independent workers. However, competition will lower wages and working conditions. Public or private companies will suffer even more.

Furthermore, in this new legal context, bpost will be allowed to raise prices and will even be forced to do so, as private companies will seize the best market shares. In the end, it will cost more to the population, private shareholders will earn even more and, finally, the future of bpost will be endangered.

With the new Georoute, thousands of additional vehicles will circulate on our streets. And it will be even worse when several postal companies will establish themselves. Enclosures and air pollution guaranteed!

In addition, the social or social functions of the factor will decrease. In fact, the public postal service also involves rendering necessary services to the elderly and/or illiterate. It is clear that, for this majority, only the logic of the market matters.

There is also the issue of the privatization of bpost. The bill represents a new step in this direction, especially since the minister refuses to discuss it in a transparent and democratic way.

In short, dear colleagues, it is impossible to ensure a high-quality postal service at reasonable prices through privatization and market liberalization, especially if they take place without any shutter. Therefore, the PTB will vote against this bill.

Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, the bill submitted to our examination and which aims at a rational codification of the legislative and regulatory framework of the postal sector liberalized since 2011 has two objectives: to meet the evolving needs of the users of postal services and to ensure a quality universal postal service at the lowest cost for society.

Article 9(2)(1) of Directive 97/67/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council allows Member States to provide for authorisation schemes, such as the granting of individual licenses, for services covered by the universal service, to the extent necessary to ensure compliance with the essential requirements and the provision of the universal service. In this regard, the State Council, in the most recent opinion of the Legislative Section on several amendments to the bill, considered legitimate, in the light of that directive, the conditions relating to the territorial coverage and the frequency of distribution to which the granting of an authorisation may be subordinated.

We support the analysis that the phenomenon of market decomposition in Belgium, so called in the jargon, is real by the fact that operators would be active exclusively in urban areas where the postal service is more profitable. Due to the liberalization of the sector, it is clear that the coverage of large urban centers, such as Liège or Mons, can be provided by cross-border operators without covering the nearby more rural areas. It is regrettable that the bill, article 6, did not take into account these necessary conditions to make the cost of covering rural areas be borne by operators who benefit from the coverage of urban areas. Indeed, with regard to the provision of mailing service, a royal decree deliberated in the Council of Ministers can now permit the license.

Furthermore, it is equally damaging that a decrease in the volume of postal consignments endangering the financial balance of the universal service can be considered de facto as an exceptional circumstance allowing a derogation from the provision of the universal service in the management contract.

Nevertheless, in parliamentary work, Mr. Minister, you commit not to touch the universal service that guarantees a distribution five times a week. As a mayor of a rural municipality, you told us that you are very attached to it.

Despite the fact that the Legislative Section of the State Council has considered that it was up to the legislator to reserve in the future the definition of what would constitute an exceptional circumstance or a geographical condition, the House of Representatives cannot in the future decide on a possible derogation from the obligation to ensure, at least five days a week, a collection and distribution of mail across the entire national territory, the derogation being the enforcement of the management contract, which, in addition, constitutes an interference with the regulatory function.

Given that the equal treatment between rural municipalities and urban areas is likely to be compromised and the authorizations, both of the executive power and of the holder of the management contract, which do not allow parliament to exercise full control over the application of the universal service justify our abstention on this bill.

I would like to thank you for this discussion, which has been very long in the committee and here too. Many things, in fact, were discussed in a rather constructive way with the opposition.

To believe some, we have the impression that everything has changed from the substance of this discussion, but let’s not exaggerate anything! There is, however, one element that has been taken back, namely geographical coverage or non-discrimination. This is something I have always emphasized in discussions. I have always said that this is a literal transposition of what is being done at the European level, but I do not intend to introduce discrimination at the geographical level. But I understand that removing the law makes things clearer and more permanent. However, to say that, on the basis of parliamentary work, we started with something and came out with anything else, I think it’s a bit exaggerated!

What is important, compared to universal service, is that the best guarantee of its maintenance is that there is a financial balance. We will still not pay the factors to travel around Belgium five times a week with empty postbags. The entire existing mechanism is therefore a mechanism with a price cap that takes into account a decrease in postal volumes. When it comes to exceptional circumstances, in fact causing a potential change in the daily distribution, it must be very clear: we are talking about a decrease different from that currently observed. This decrease endangers the financial balance of universal service. Even if at some point the volume should drop much more, without compromising the financial balance, this is not a reason to change the daily distribution frequency.

As to the fact that I would not have made any effort to refute the arguments of the European Commission, my predecessor has done so several times and has always received the message that the arguments made little impression.

If Mr. de Lamotte finds that I should do the same thing as Mr. Vande Lanotte, who has failed to do so, despite a fair effort, it seems to me a bit double.

As for the risk of cherry picking, new players can indeed do cherry picking, but bpost has had the time to prepare for it. We have ensured that there should be no tariff uniformity in relation to bulkmail, the sector where the competition will play the most.

I come to the answer of the State Council and to the argument of Mr. de Lamotte. The State Council said that the argument was admissible. He did not say that he was completely credible. The European Commission has a different opinion on this issue.

I think that after the many work and discussions we have come up with a balanced proposal, which takes into account the specifics of the postal market and the fact that we with bpost have a strong player who is a very large employer. In addition, we ensure the right balance, i.e. a balance in which competition is possible, but in a way that does not jeopardise the universal service.

I would like to thank everyone for the many efforts and for the fact that we have come up with a solution that I hope almost everyone in this Parliament will be able to find.