|
Public
Hearing, Services of General Interest, Carola Fischbach-Pyttel General Secretary European Federation of Public Service
Unions
In the time available I will phrase my points as responses to the "issues to be raised", as advertised for this hearing. This should allow me to contrast our position on each issue with how they have been addressed in the Green Paper. The first question of today's hearing asks about the legal and political basis for a European concept of SGI In studying the Green Paper in preparation for today's hearing, I was looking for one word that would describe the overall tone of the document. One word which would give an instant summary, and illustrate our opinion. It may come as no surprise, but the word I have chosen is cynical. The Green Paper is an exercise in cynicism because it gives the illusion of addressing the issues, and is a caricature of consultation. The two main aspects of this issue are not directly addressed. Those aspects are: · How services of
general interest should be anchored in the draft constitutional treaty It is true that oblique consideration is given to the treaty dimension in the last sentence of paragraph 40 of the Green Paper. This states that: "If Community legislation (in) such sectors is considered desirable, an amendment of the Treaty might be the best way of providing an appropriate legal basis". From the wide consultation that EPSU has taken, in conjunction with European Trade Union Confederation, and with CEEP, through the Charter on Services of General Interest, it is absolutely clear that an amendment of the treaty is not a question of might provide an appropriate legal basis, but MUST. However, the Green Paper does not even clearly reference the above point as one of the official 30 questions. Instead it is buried as a tentative suggestion in the section 2.2, "Sector Specific Legislation". This is not the correct section for so fundamental a question. This reference in paragraph 40 is in the section after the question as to whether the development of high-quality services of general interest should be included in the objectives of the Community? (Question one). What makes it doubly confusing is that clear acknowledgment is made in paragraph 29 of the Green Paper, that the existing reference to SGI in Article 16 of the Treaty of the European Union, is not sufficient, stating that: "it (Article 16) does not provide the Community with specific means of action". Reference is then made in Paragraph 37: "whether a Common European framework should be developed in order to ensure coherent implementation of the principles underlying Article 16 of the Treaty at Community level". This is an inherent contradiction. There can be no framework to implement "underlying principles of article 16" if those principles are universally recognised as being non-actionable. The contradiction is even more starkly phrased in Paragraph 40, which states that: "Article 16 does not provide the legal basis for the adoption of a specific instrument". Therefore we have Paragraph 37 looking to base a framework on Article 16, and Paragraph 40 stating that this is by definition impossible. Two diametrically opposed positions are presented in the space of three paragraphs! I remind you of the one word I use to describe the paper. The only solution is a firmly anchored reference in the Treaty. SGI as a component of the Internal Market and the European development model · First and foremost the European Union is more than the Internal Market. SGI should not be seen as a component of the Internal Market but rather as a counterweight. Paragraph 4 of the Green Paper makes reference to SGI: "safeguarding the general interest, in particular the satisfaction of citizens' essential needs and the preservation of public goods where the market fails". This recognition by the Green Paper that Markets do fail is at least an honest admission by the European Commission. However, Paragraph 12 of the Green Paper talks of "ensuring a harmonious link between the objectives of maintaining high-quality SGI and the rigorous application of competition and internal market rules". This is not SGI as a counterweight. Instead this reference advocates SGI being exposed to competition rules, thus losing the raison d'etre for SGI's existence. How to have a positive subsidiarity? The issue of subsidiarity
has been referenced in section 2.1 of the Green Paper. Paragraph 80 of the paper makes reference to "in-house service providers" being subject to competition provisions of the Treaty. For EPSU/ ETUC this is not only a major attempt to extend the reach of competition law, but is a direct attack on how democratically elected Public Authorities wish to provide services. Yet another example of where the Commission is overstepping its authority is the proposal of the Commissioner for Internal Market to introduce competition in Europe's Water Sector. It is not the task of the Commission to introduce competition into new sectors. Clarification of the concept of Services of General Economic Interest (SGEI) Paragraph 32 attempts to
draw a distinction between three categories - SGEI network/ SGEI
non-network/ SGI non-economic services and services without effect on
trade. Which Treaty Changes are necessary? In the objectives of the treaty article 3, paragraph 3, ETUC has made the submission that a further sub-paragraph 5 should be added which reads: "It shall promote universal access to efficient and high-quality services of general interest". To make this principle operational, the ETUC has submitted a detailed outline of how SGI should be referenced in the Treaty. SEE submission on 5 June suggestion for: Part III - Suggestion for amendment: for a new Section 3a in Title III, Chapter III - "Policies in other specific areas" (annex 1). Is there a need for framework directive? As referenced in detail above, a framework directive would be a welcome mechanism of clarification, but only if there is a firm legal basis in the treaty. Conclusion The deadline for submissions of 15 September is not welcome: For the European Commission to be asking for detailed submissions on such a complex and vital topic, over the European summer period, does not strike me as genuinely transparent or consultative. This begs the question as to what EPSU sees as essential for the Green Paper to be a worthwhile exercise. EPSU/ETUC Calls for SGI
to be anchored in the Constitutional Treaty in the objectives and
activities of the European Union thus providing a solid legal base for
secondary legislation, which is similar to the Social Working Group
recommendations to the Convention. In contrast to the assertions of Commission Directorate General for Internal Market, it is a fact that liberalisation has led to massive market concentration and job losses, for example in the electricity sector. Paragraph 6 of the paper claims that one million jobs have been created by "the liberalisation of the network industries". The reference for this claim is the Internal Market - Ten Years without Frontiers, a report that is not even a study of network industry liberalisation. EPSU supports the idea of a European Observatory for the monitoring of Services of General Interest. This should be explored in more detail. However the home for this observatory should certainly not be DG Internal Market. To conclude, there are three steps we should now take: One - a moratorium on
further liberalisation Annex
one ETUC submission to
European Convention (Submitted to Convention
Secretariat Suggestion for: Part III Suggestion for amendment:
for a new Section 3a in Title III, Chapter III - Policies in other
specific areas By: General Secretary
ETUC Amendment: following Art. III-115 Add a new Section after 'Section
3 - Economic, social and territorial cohesion': Article III-115b [Competences
and procedures]
|
|