L'eurodéputé Ferber se dit "optimiste" sur la libéralisation postale d'ici 2009[en] 

We've already had two reforms in the postal sector in the past decade. Why do we need further liberalisation? 

The truth is that we started in 1997 by opening the market for letters above 350 grammes. But, in fact, everybody knows there are no such letters. 

We then opened up the market in 2003 for letters weighing more than 100 grammes and now the limit since the 1 January 2006 is 50 grammes. But the truth is that by far the biggest volume of letters weighs below 20 grammes. 

So, if you look at just the weight limits, it looks like a huge opening, but when you see the volume of letters, it's nothing. We have opened around 4-5% of the volume and that shows that we have seriously not liberalised the postal sector. 

So, the main question we have to ask is whether liberalisation is possible or not. We have the experience in some member states that have already opened that it is possible – like the United Kingdom, like Sweden. Next year, more countries will do the same, such as Germany and the Netherlands. Estonia is also thinking about it and there are more member states that are planning to open in 2009. 

So there's already a move in member states towards more liberalisation and I therefore think it's important that the European Union takes that on board. 

So what are you and the Commission proposing? Are you in agreement? 

The Commission is proposing that from 1 January 2009, there will be no reserved area – that means that there will be no monopoly. 

To safeguard consumer rights, the Commission is proposing a strong universal service – consumer protection, complaint procedures and things like that. 

Those are the two main issues. 

On the side of the European Parliament, I have huge support for the necessity of opening up postal markets. But, firstly, we want to strengthen the universal service as a consumer-protection service. 

No one has any doubts that we will continue to receive a lot of letters – especially a lot of letters that we never asked for – but where we need protection is for any person to be able to deliver letters into the system. And that is universal service - are there enough letter boxes available? Do we have post offices available? Things like that – not only in the big city centres, but also in rural areas. That is something that the European Parliament is fighting for. 

And the second issue we are discussing in Parliament are the social circumstances of employment in the postal sector. 

There are fears among colleagues that, in a liberalised area, social security will decrease. Therefore, we are trying to invent something, like we did in the services directive, to give a standard or minimum protection on social rights for the people employed in the postal sector. 

As regards the universal service, you say you want to strengthen the consumer protection side, but you also seem to be trying to limit the protection of businesses. Does this effectively mean that you wish to limit the scope of the universal service obligation – contrary to what the Commission is proposing? 

I'm not reducing the scope. If you look at the existing legislation carefully, you will find that bulk mailers can already be excluded from the universal service. 

The question that I am asking is: "Who needs the protection of the universal service?" 

Big companies that are sending a huge volume of letters will always have someone to deliver these. 

The problem is ensuring that we – as private persons, who have just a few letters every month – have the chance to bring our letters into the system. That is what being protected by the universal service means. 

Concentrating on that, it is not a reduction. But it does show that the costs of the universal service need not be as high as people are arguing. By concentrating on those persons who really need the protection of European legislation, universal service can be fully maintained in a liberalised area. 

We do not have to protect telecommunications companies. And we do not have to protect insurance or credit card companies. That will always function in the market. We have to protect normal people sending one or two letters a month. They have to have access to the system. 

You're talking about limiting the cost of the universal service obligation. Are you saying it would be possible to provide universal service without additional funding mechanisms? 

The Commission's proposal creates four possibilities for funding the universal service. These solutions are in line with the treaties and I think that's a serious approach. 

There's a fifth possibility which is in place for the moment – a monopoly – and we want to get rid of it, it cannot function anymore. 

But I do think that, if a postal market is well operated, then, even in a fully liberalised area, the costs of the universal service obligation can be earned in that area. 

For example, we are strengthening the system of the uniform tariff (ensuring that sending a letter from Paris to Paris costs the same price as a letter from Lyon to Marseille even though the costs differ). This system offers the possibility of cross-subsidisation and, at the same time, it is also a consumer protection issue: guaranteeing affordable prices, especially for the normal people – for you and me for our private letters. 

So we are strengthening this system of a uniform tariff – the 'single piece tariff', as it is called – so that companies can finance the cost of more expensive services with surpluses earned on less costly services. 

In a liberalised area, this kind of cross-subsidisation becomes possible. We can avoid all the problems we have for the moment with the Commission's Directorate-General for Competition. 

At the moment, there are a lot of complaints at the Commission's door, regarding whether such and such a company has been using money from the monopoly area (letters under 50 grammes) to invest in the competition area (parcel services, for example). In a liberalised area, cross-subsidisation will be a company decision that cannot be considered as an attempt to decrease competition by using monopoly surpluses. 

And, at the same time as such mechanisms, I think the question of creating a compensation fund or of making tenders, to help guarantee that a universal service is maintained, shows how things can be organised. 

If the traditional operators are saying: "I don’t like Massif Central," then the French Republic would be obliged to make a tender and it would pay those that can deliver to that region at the lowest prices for doing it. So I believe La Poste will never say "I will not deliver in the Massif Central," and that shows that they are creating more problems than are really necessary. 

The possibilities that the Commission is proposing are sufficient, we do not need to invent any more. Those who have liberalised are showing us that it is possible. Look at Sweden. It is not a country where everything is concentrated like in the Netherlands, where you have a lot of people in a small area. Sweden is a huge country with a lot of rural zones and they have organised postal liberalisation without compensation. 

Look at the United Kingdom too – Scotland, Wales…Not everything is Greater London in the UK and yet it works without additional funds. That shows we are on the right path. 

And 2009 as the target date for full liberalisation in all EU countries? Do you agree with this or could you imagine a longer implementation period? 

I think that the proposal from 1 January 2009 is serious. Everyone knew that 2009 would be the date. If you look to the existing directive, it expires at the end of 2008. There is a sunset clause and it is clearly stated that the Commission will make proposals for full liberalisation by 2009. 

So everyone could read it – it was not a secret. Even those who only joined the Union after 2004 had negotiations on the postal area within their accession talks, so they knew what the acquis communautaire was. 

And if you look to those that are fighting against the date, the majority are not new but old member states. It is very interesting to see how old member states are using – or misusing – the argument that new EU members need extra time to adjust their infrastructures. 

If you look to the first directive, you can find some derogation proposals and I think there are chances to include similar provisions in this directive as well for some member states, which really need additional time. But that is Council work for the last round of discussions, not Parliament work. 

However, I can't accept that those who founded the European Union, who fight for more integration in a lot areas, see the postal sector as something that does not need any development. 

There are huge possibilities for the development of new products, of new jobs, of better quality as well – especially in the cross-border area. And I think we should use these possibilities. That is what I'm fighting for. 

How difficult do you think it will be to pass your report? Obviously national divisions exist in Parliament too… 

If you look at the history – and I do this now for the second time as rapporteur (in the first directive, I was shadow rapporteur) so I am well experienced in dealing with postal issues inside the Parliament – it was always hard stuff. But, in the end, we always achieved good solutions...

No-one believed that we would open, in the last period, letters over 250 grammes. And yet we achieved it. So I am still optimistic.