2. We have given further consideration to the following on the basis of a
Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum. We maintain our opinion[7]
that it raises questions of political importance, but again make no recommendation for its further
consideration at this stage:--
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
2.1 When we last considered this draft Directive, on 16 October, the Parliamentary
Under-Secretary of State at the Department of Trade and Industry (Mr Page) told us that a Working
Group had been given the task of looking for a compromise to present to the 28 November Council.
We asked him to give us further information before that Council.
The present situation
2.2 In a Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum (dated 2 December) the Minister says:
"The Government had hoped to provide an update prior to the Council meeting on 28
November but in the event it was unclear, until shortly before, the approach the Government would
take to the various compromises that were emerging. The Government was clear that the Parliamentary
scrutiny reserve remained.
"Member States remain divided on the content and timing of the second stage of
liberalisation. France in particular opposes any commitment to further liberalisation in 2001.
"At the Council a compromise, proposed by France and Germany, that would have delayed
any decision on the second stage of liberalisation until 2001 with implementation two years
thereafter was considered. The UK, a number of other Member States and the Commission opposed this
compromise and it was rejected. Our concern was that it would have forced the market to wait a
further seven years, at the minimum, for liberalisation of direct mail and/or cross-border mail.
None of the other compromises on the table attracted enough support. The Council therefore made
no progress and the Commission has been asked to consider the matter further. Further developments
are unlikely before the Dutch Presidency. In the meantime the Commission has said that it will
start to process outstanding complaints of anti-competitive behaviour using its Article 90
powers."
Conclusion
2.3 We note the Minister's undertaking to keep us informed and do not clear the
document while negotiations continue.
7.(17451) 9623/96; see HC 51-xxix (1995-96), paragraph 12. For a draft Notice on
competition rules in the postal sector, see (17589)10972/96, paragraph 13 of this Report. Back
|
