Basic principles. Despite disagreements expressed in plenary and areas of ambiguity in the final resolution, I see the debate at the European Parliament on services of general interest (SGI) and its conclusions as something positive. I do not think that the discontent of Greens and the French section of the Socialist Group detracts from this. Both the European Commission (whose President, José Manuel Barroso, was at pains to personally set out its views and plans) and the vast majority of MEPs have reaffirmed several broad principles which can now be considered as agreed, such as:
The provision of services of general interest (water, electricity, education, healthcare etc) is at the heart of the European model of society. The existence of a single European model is partly challenged today, but as far as SGIs are concerned, all the Member States are in agreement;
In the event of conflict with competition rules, it is general interest obligations which prevail. Universal access to these services is the priority and state subsidies to ensure this are authorised;
The EU has to ensure the legal security of SGIs through 'appropriate juridical initiatives';
Each Member State is entitled, under subsidiarity, to organise SGIs in line with its own traditions, history and the mentality of its people. This covers the degree of autonomy granted to local and regional bodies, which play a vital role in several countries.
Two reasons. Why is reaffirming these principles important right now? For two reasons. Firstly, Europe has a long history. The principles quoted above were reached following a long battle in which figureheads like Jacques Delors, Karel Van Miert, Philippe Herzog and others played a key role. The second reason is that the failure of the constitutional treaty has prevented laws from being introduced into the EU which would have definitively affirmed the role of SGIs in terms of social and territorial cohesion, along with the non-application of competition rules when the latter would prevent (either legally or in practice) the carrying out of their special mission. During the debate surrounding the constitution in France, some supporters of the no votes were less than honest in this connection, so it is important for the principles of the constitutional treaty to be made explicit, as far as possible.
Framework Directive or sector-specific regulations? The European Parliament has not decided either way over the controversial question of whether 'appropriate juridical initiatives' should take the form of a Framework Directive covering all SGIs, or separate sector-specific legislation. The question remains open - Mr Barroso has said that it will be clarified in the communication to be unveiled by the Commission at the end of the year, commenting that the Parliament itself was divided over the issue but recognising that the time had come to 'consolidate the SGI framework' and announcing 'legislative initiatives for some sectors'. The Green group and the French Socialists reject this ambiguity and are calling for a Framework Directive, noting lack of progress with regard to the draft constitution (but wasn't the no vote in France on the draft constitution determined by some of their members?) The term 'democratic wisdom' came from Belgian Green Pierre Jonckheer - since there is no majority in the current European Parliament for framework legislation,, it is necessary to fight to ensure that the election results in 2009 lead to a different majority. The President of the United Green group, Francis Wurtz, admitted that the question of this was open in his group.
Contents and form. Is it really not possible to reconcile the two options? This is not the opinion of the body representing social services and healthcare, which says that the 'horizontal approach and the sector-based approach complement each other and have to be used together to ensure a coherent framework and legal security for all SGIs, taking into account sector-specific issues.
Former EP rapporteur on this question, Philippe Herzog, has called for priority to be given to the actual content of legislation. Whether it's a single legal document or several, the important thing is for a) common principles to be defined and public service obligations clarified; b) the question of agreed public funding needs more explanation because the current formulation (whereby payment for public service must not be higher than the costs of a well-managed comparable company) is ambiguous in his opinion; and c) the definition of 'universal service' has to be made more ambitious, in line with the sustainable development and social and territorial development objectives, protecting what was won in 2004.
While these broad principles have been agreed upon, most of the operational options are still an open question. (F.R.)