Mr President, the postal sector continues to be an area in which old, outdated monopolies are allowed to operate regardless of the requirements of competition. And, in the absence of any energetic action by the Commission, the situation has gone on for far too long. The EU’s competition authority has intervened in all other areas, but not in the postal sector. We have now been waiting in vain for 18 months for the Commission to put forward proposals, so I should be grateful if the Commissioner could let me know today when we are likely to have a new, modern Europe-wide postal system. One of the EU’s most important tenets is the need for a common internal market. We are currently working hard to enlarge this to include ever more Member States. That requires greater efficiency which, in turn, is dependent on competition. Today, one area after another is being compelled to introduce deregulation and liberalisation, an exercise in which the EU often leads the way, while the Commission's determination to make progress serves as a model. The Commission is committed to liberalisation because experience has shown that the old monopolies are unable to provide the efficient service which a modern society expects. It is also because liberalisation is necessary in order to be able to keep up with technological advances and, moreover, because it will lead to lower prices. All that, we are assured, will be more easily attained in a free and competitive market. It has been done in a number of different areas but, unfortunately, the postal sector has remained the one major exception until now. It can hardly be because customers are satisfied. We are all familiar with the much-criticised price hikes, and delayed deliveries are a constant topic of discussion. If we really want a functioning internal market, we cannot go on constantly making an exception of the postal services. A number of countries have been in the forefront of introducing more competitive postal services. The Netherlands, Finland and Sweden have travelled furthest along this road. During the 1990s, they were able to show the benefits that could be achieved. Moreover, Sweden has introduced the changes gradually in a climate of political consensus. The process should be allowed to continue and be given the necessary encouragement. Experience has shown that the old monopolies cannot provide the type of efficient service which, as customers, we are all entitled to expect. Prior to this discussion, a letter was sent out by supporters of the old monopolies. They hold up Sweden as a warning, which might be appropriate in certain instances, but not as regards postal services. It is alleged in a circular that the price of postage has gone up by 59 per cent since liberalisation in 1993. That is true as long as account is taken of the 20 per cent of the total postal services market where, in practice, there is still a monopoly, that is where the state is the only player. However, for the 80 per cent of services where there is a competitive market, prices have fallen. That shows that competition really is working. My conclusion is therefore: make sure that there is competition in the remaining 20 per cent of the market, too. It is against just such a background that more and more people are calling for ... (The speaker is interrupted by Mr Markov) I thought I had the floor. Perhaps we can discuss this later on. However, I should like to affirm that it is exactly as I said, namely, that prices have fallen in areas where there is competition, whereas they have risen where there is still a monopoly. That is usually the case. That is why I should now like to see a Commission that takes the necessary initiatives and sees to it that there is effective competition in the postal sector.

Political group: PPE-DE