Mr President, after the postal services market was opened up to competition – a process that began in 1997 – the Commission put forward new proposals in 2000 with the aim of achieving deregulation by 2003 and with a view to bringing about full liberalisation by 2009. I would reiterate that the Commission proposed, in particular, to reduce the weight and price limits, from 350g to 50g and from five to two and a half times the basic standard tariff, to establish special services with high added value which would be open to competition, the gradual liberalisation of outgoing cross-border mail and direct mail, and to set specific deadlines for full liberalisation. At first reading, a large majority of the European Parliament refused to fully support the Commission. Parliament proposed that reductions in the weight and price limits should not go below 150g and four times the basic standard tariff; it rejected liberalisation of cross-border mail and direct mail; it dismissed special services, put back the final deadline for liberalisation and lastly, requested a comprehensive impact study. The position of the Council of Ministers – regardless of what a number of Members are saying – differs considerably from the compromise reached by a majority in the European Parliament. Although the compromise also abandons the idea of creating special services – a move I welcome – it takes up the Commission’s original proposals on reducing the thresholds and, despite the fact that numbers evened out with the announcement of the deadline, I feel that the compromise will put full liberalisation of the sector at risk. It is therefore hard for me to understand why what we saw in a negative light yesterday is now something we regard positively. The Council and the Commission have not taken Parliament’s opinion into account. They are introducing a significant new stage into the liberalisation of the postal sector. Mr Ferber’s report – whose work I would also like to commend – as adopted by the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism, falls in line with the Council’s position, although, admittedly, several amendments have been added, which I believe to be quite inadequate and which will certainly not require conciliation. As expressed in the minority opinion of Members of the Confederal Group of the – , the Group of the and the Group for a Europe of Democracies and Diversities in the parliamentary committee, no guarantees have been given on social and economic consequences or on social cohesion. Contrary to the spirit and the text of the Langen report, no serious, transparent and pluralist preliminary study has been undertaken. Important issues such as conditions of access to networks of new operators or conditions for the financing of universal service remain ill defined. I must say that these proposals cause me, as they do my fellow Member, Mrs Flautre, a great deal of concern as to the effects they might have on working conditions, jobs and the quality of services provided with equal access for all, in other words, on the very future of public services. My group will therefore demand that the Council’s common position be rejected by a roll-call vote and, furthermore, will propose introducing a specific amendment for a study to be undertaken.

Political group: GUE-NGL