Brussels, 30/11/2006 (Agence Europe) - “Can you hear me, Brussels?” was the title of the first panel of the public hearing on the future of the internal market, which took place in Brussels on Wednesday 29 November, as part of the specific consultation process launched by the Commission in the spring (see EUROPE 9193). Several civil society organisations used the opportunity to criticise consultation methods within the Commission. And they highlighted the need to improve this process, particularly by drawing up a single consultation framework to be used by all the institutions.
“The consultation process is not well liked because each Directorate General in the Commission consults in its own way. There is no single consultation model,” said Patrice Pellegrino of Eurocommerce. Speaking for the Belgian “Test Achat” association, Hugues Thibaut called on the Commission to ensure proper balance in the way interest groups are represented within representative bodies: the consultative panel on bank current accounts has fifteen banking organisations and only four consumer organisations. He said he supported the idea of a single framework for consultation. Andrew Cave of the British Federation of SMEs concentrated on the excessive regulation weighing down small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). He highlighted the “complexity” and “lack of transparency” in the consultation process, and, agreeing with the Eurocommerce position, argued for the Commission to set up a “one-stop consultation shop”. “Even if we give our point of view, we have the impression that it never comes to anything,” said Bernadette Ségol of UNI-Europa, a network of European Works Councils. Using the drafting of the directive proposing the full liberalisation of the postal sector (see EUROPE 9289) as an example, she felt that Commission “impact assessments” - which must accompany all legislative proposals now - “are not robust”. And she warned against “the loss of (citizens') confidence” in European integration. “We are concerned, the Commission is moving away from the social objective of the internal market. The EU is being criticised from the inside by workers,” she said. A representative from an organisation defending the interests of social economy players argued for greater account to be taken of minority opinions and a European Foundation Statute. “It is very difficult to make the Directorates General of the Commission work together,” said a financial sector lobbyist. The American Chamber of Commerce sought consensus: “Let's sit down and talk things through with all the Directorates General and consumer organisations!” he said. Mr Fontaine, one of nine private” citizens who responded to the Commission's consultation exercise, asked about respect for the subsidiarity principle. On behalf of the Federation of European Producers, Cécile Despringre criticised the Commission's approach on private copy compensation. “The recommendation being prepared is not relevant. Member States and the EP have to be involved to open out the debate. More work should also be done on impact studies,” she said. A representative from the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) said that the EESC would announce its opinion of the future of the internal market in January.
Introducing the debate, Internal Market Commissioner Charlie McCreevy emphasised that priority had to be given to citizens in the review of the internal market. “The future is about using the internal market as a means - a means to advance the interests of European citizens in the new world - rather than as an end,” he said. He spoke of some positions taken during the consultation exercise which felt that the Commission's efforts were too focused on the market and “not enough on people”. “Citizens must be able to understand, seize and invest in the many opportunities the Single Market can bring them,” he said. (mb)