Political, unionist and economic forces calling for a European legal framework favourable to services of general interest (SGIs) have spelled out their broad guidelines. They did so at the conference/debate held last Thursday 26 February in Brussels, by the association "Confrontations Europe". Alongside Philippe Herzog, chairman of this association and EP rapporteur on SGIs, speakers represented notably town associations, the EPSU (European Federation of Public Service Unions) and CEEP (which represents public enterprises in the Member States), which have all played up the importance of a common front. In this column of 24 February, I took the opportunity to remark upon the European movement, in this dossier, towards recognition that SGIs "constitute a pillar of social cohesion throughout the Union" (the words of Competition European Commissioner Mario Monti) and, at the same time, the many aspects which remain controversial. The guidelines resulting from the conference-debate are, in my view, basically as follows:
Evolution has been basically positive for SGIs. The "Green Paper" of the European Commission, Court of Justice rulings, (especially the Altmark ruling, which legalised State aid to suppliers of SGIs to compensate the cost of the universal service), and the resolution approved on 14 January by the European Parliament (despite the ambiguities it contains, which result from the compromises which allowed it to be adopted by a large majority), laid the foundations for a European legal framework for SGIs.
The principle of subsidiarity should be widely recognised. Not everything should be defined in Brussels; considerable autonomy should be left to the national, regional, urban and local authorities to manage services of general interest: not just education and health, but also water supply, electricity, rail transport, postal services, telephone etc.
Evaluation is essential. The effects of liberalising these services and opening their markets must be analysed in depth and objectively.
The definition of the legal framework should not be left solely to the control and management power (European Commission) and the legal power (Court of Justice); political power should intervene directly. General texts must be approved by the Council and the European Parliament by the co-decision procedure, on proposal by the Commission.
Broad agreement. The debate was lively and interesting. MEP Pierre Jonckheer, Belgian Green, emphasised the theme of evaluation, based on the words of John Fawkner (Transport for London) who spoke out against extra costs and the increase in subsidies arising from certain acts of privatisation, and of Bengt Hedenström, chief CEEP adviser, who said that the privatisation of rail transport and telecommunications in Sweden had led to oligopolies responsible for price hikes, to the detriment of consumers. The question of the relationship between market liberalisation and competition rules was raised by several speakers, notably the representative of the Association of Austrian Cities, Simona Wolesa (who stressed the need both to defend the autonomy of local authorities and to put pressure on Community authorities with a real "rainbow coalition"), and the Eurocities representative, Eva Schulz (who also spoke of the need to guarantee quality of service). MEP Bernhard Rapkay, German Social Democrat (who played a major role in the adoption of the Herzog resolution in the Strasbourg plenary), however, emphasised the fact that competition rules remain indispensable; without them, there would be a free but unregulated market Philippe Herzog said that at the moment, those responsible for competition aren't the problem, it's those in charge of the internal market, with their a priori insistence on freedom of establishment everywhere, for all suppliers (real or potential) of SGIs, and with their new document on the general liberalisation of services. This document, by Frits Bolkestein, also came in for strong criticism from Carola Fischbach-Pyttel, Secretary General of EPSU.
Generally speaking, Mr Herzog said he was giving up on the idea of a framework directive on SGIs straddling all European legislation, because the sectors in question are too different; but provisions defining the relationship of SGIs with the market and with competition rules are vital. The powers present at this debate must act together on all the essential points still under discussion. The public and the unionists, not just sectorial ones, must be brought into play.
We are, of course, open to summarise positions in a contrary sense.
(F.R.)