Brussels, 04/05/2006 (Agence Europe) - The communication on social services of general interest (SSGI), adopted by the Commission last week (see EUROPE 9177 and 9180) has been subject to criticism from within the ranks of the European social partners. The Secretary General of CEEP, the European Centre of Enterprises with Public Participation and of Enterprises of General Economic Interest, Rainer Plassman wondered why the Commission had ruled health care services out of the communication and concentrated solely on social services. He called on the Commission to reconsider its position and recognise health care services as services of general interest. Believing, however, that the communication was a “positive signal from the European Union towards its citizens”, Mr Plassman said the CEEP was relying on the full cooperation of the social partners to ensure the follow-up of the communication. On the Unions' side, disappointment was more marked. The communication was “a necessary but inadequate first step,” said the European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC), adding “The Commission must go further with its proposal in this regard, in order to establish greater legal certainty, through a framework directive on services of general interest (SGI), which should also make it possible to take account of the specific character of social services”. The ETC pointed out that social services were not provided only to the poor or the excluded, they often had to meet the needs and expectations of all individuals, hence the need to expand the definition given by the Commission. The European Federation of Public Service Unions (EPSU) also expressed disappointment, saying the communication represented “yet another example of the European Commission's policy of delaying and prolonging the debate on Services of General Interest”. “The proposed timeframe of a 'study' over the next 18 months to assess the impact of Community rules on social services is impractical. While the research is being carried out, the European Court of Justice will by default continue to extend internal market obligations into the social services sector,” said EPSU. Agreeing with EPSU on this last point, the Platform of European Social NGOs (Social Platform) also thought that “the Commission should have taken bolder steps towards advancing legal instruments in a context of urgent modernisation of social services in Member States”. The Social Platform said it also expected action to be taken in the health services sector, which was not covered by the communication on social services. It considered that some social and health services were closely linked and should be debated in future consultations.