The EU's attitude to Services of General Interest (SGIs) continues to divide European political forces. Early next year, it will be the subject of a new parliamentary debate in plenary, and it is easy to work out that the differing views and sensibilities will collide headlong. But:
A. There is no question of starting the dossier from scratch. What has been achieved over years of discussions involving governments, political parties, the EP political groups and a large dose of public opinion remains achieved. Some fifteen years ago, incomprehension was total, the very notion of "public services" meant different things in all the languages of the Union, and opinions on them differed radically. Today, the principle behind SGIs (education, health etc) and SGEIs (Services of General Economic Interest: water, electricity, postal services, telecommunications, public transport, etc) represents one of the pillars of the European social model, their importance is enshrined in the Treaties in force and even in the Charter of Fundamental Rights (which recognises the "right of access" of citizens to these services), and the draft Constitution reinforces their presence still further by its specific provisions. Furthermore, several rulings of the Court of Justice have established an important jurisprudence (even though it fluctuates at times).
B. The parliamentary debate on the implementation of the principles acquired is far from opening. The European Commission's "Green Paper" gave rise to an enormous consultation by political powers and interested parties. Parliament asked its economic and monetary committee to draw up an initiative report (together with two other committees), and Philippe Herzog (European United Left) was appointed rapporteur. The parliamentary committee has now discussed this four times (1 and 7 October, 4 and 25 November), and will continue its work in December.
If I'm talking about this today, it's to stress the extent to which differences of opinion subsist within the EP, and what this means. The committee's vote is scheduled for 16 December, the debate in plenary for 14 January. To say that discussions are lively is putting it mildly. Herzog's first draft report was roundly rejected by the "shadow rapporteurs" of the two main political groups, Werner Langen and Alexander Radwan for the EPP, and Bernhard Rapkay for the PES. According to an article by André Ferron in the "letter of confrontations", in the very first meeting, Werner Langen said to Philippe Herzog: "this draft needs changing from the bottom up. Either you do it, or we will". And Mr Rapkay said, "there is no point reinventing the wheel": we have to stick by the resolution the EP adopted in November 2001. The tone of the debate astonished several observers, and even quite a few MEPs. Things calmed down a bit for the second one, and several MEPs supported the Herzog draft (which had, meanwhile, received the support of certain communal networks in Germany and Austria).
Philippe Herzog agreed to re-write his report, removing the request to transfer extra competencies to the EU. He hadn't changed his mind on this, but he recognised that a clear majority of the Parliament "did not want additional competencies for the Union just yet". He did, however, retain his support for four controversial choices: a) establishing a framework directive, setting principles to be valid in all Member States (he pointed out, maliciously, that the 2001 Langen report had come out in support of such a directive); b) the definition of specific provisions for services of general interest, as opposed to "the pure and simple application of single market and competition rules"; c) for services provided by networks, the sectorial Community directives should have precedence over the general rules; d) in line with the Court of Justice rulings, "compensation" under public service commitments should not be considered State aid.
The draft report does not define SGIs and SGEIs, but covers several other economically important aspects, such as the concessions regime, and public/private partnership.
In the meeting of 25 November, a few compromises were mapped out, notably in favour of the principle of a framework directive, on condition that this be adopted by Parliament/Council co-decision, and that it recognises "freedom of choice" for the communes in the management of the SGEIs. Differences of opinion subsist on other points, particularly respect for "subsidiarity" (the EPP defending Member States' autonomy on this). The Liberals have shown their hand: their "shadow rapporteur", Karin Rijs-Jorgensen, presented a series of amendments which would denude Philippe Herzog's guidelines of all substance.
You will have gathered that my aim today is neither to take position nor go into detail, but to flag up a debate which is essential for the European social model, because how the broad principles already agreed upon should be put into practice remains wide open, and opinions differ. (F.R.)