9. We have given further consideration to the following on the basis of
further information from the Government. We maintain our opinion[19] that it raises questions of political importance, but now make no
recommendation for its further consideration:--
Department of Trade and Industry
(17451)
9623/96
COM(96)412 |
Amended draft Directive on establishing common rules for the development
of Community postal services and the improvement of quality of service. |
| Legal base: |
Article 100a; co-decision; qualified majority voting. |
Introduction
9.1 On 2 December the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Department of
Trade and Industry (Mr Page) informed us that Member States remained divided on the content and
timing of the second stage of liberalisation of postal services to be written into this Directive.
A Franco-German compromise was rejected by the 28 November Telecommunications Council and the
Commission was asked to consider the matter again. Further developments were unlikely before the
Dutch Presidency, the Minister said. Meanwhile, the Commission had suggested that it would start
to process complaints of anti-competitive behaviour using its powers under Article 90.
The Minister's letter
9.2 In a letter dated 20 December the Minister tells us that the French raised the
matter at the Dublin European Council and that a Telecommunications Council was arranged at short
notice for 18 December, at which political agreement was reached on the proposal. He described the
main features as:
"-- direct mail and cross-border mail to stay in the reserved
area for the time being;
-- the Commission to come forward with a proposal for further liberalisation by
end 1998 with decisions to be made by the Council and European Parliament by 1.1.2000. The text
implies that the objective is the further liberalisation of both direct mail and cross-border mail,
plus a review of the price and weight limits, to take effect from 1.1.2003. Developments, in
particular economic, social and technological, and the financial equilibrium of the universal
service providers will be taken into account.
-- there is a clause to end the Directive in 2004 if no decisions are taken.
This will apply pressure on the Council and Parliament to reach decisions".
9.3 The Minister commented that the outcome was disappointing as the Government
"would have preferred a commitment to specific further liberalisation from a predetermined
date." He says he made strong and successful efforts to secure some significant improvements
to the Franco-German text, but he does not specify which these were.
9.4 The scrutiny reserve was maintained by the Minister, who expresses the hope that
we can now lift this so that, if the European Parliament approves the Directive, it can be adopted
without further delay.
9.5 We do not have the official version of the final text, but we have received an
unofficial text of what was agreed by the Council.
Conclusion
9.6 The UK had argued for the second stage of liberalisation to start in 2001 but
it is clear that the Government failed to muster sufficient support from other Member States to win
its case in the face of French determination. The Minister argues for making the most of the
situation and moving ahead to early adoption of the Directive. We are now clearing the
document.
19.(17451) 9623/96; see HC 36-v (1996-97), paragraph 2 (4 December 1996). Back
|
