Verbatim report of proceedings

Monday, 12 March 2007 - Strasbourg

17. Social services of general interest (debate)

  President. – The next item is the report (A6-0057/2007) by Joel Hasse Ferreira, on behalf of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, on social services of general interest in the European Union (2006/2134(INI).

  Joel Hasse Ferreira (PSE), rapporteur. – (PT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, it was an honour and a great responsibility for me to draw up the report on social services of general interest (SSGIs). My aim was to draft an initial report setting out, on the one hand, the broad outlines of my analysis and, on the other, the proposals on the subject. I sought the agreement not only of the parliamentary group of which I am a Member but also, on account of the report’s structure, style and overall approach, a broader agreement. In other words, this agreement was aimed not only at the debate in the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, but also at the debate in the plenary of the European Parliament. It was also intended to obtain the support of the majority in the Council and in the Commission. I would also like the majority of social organisations, which helped me so much in drawing up this report, to view it as a useful instrument for legal clarification in the social sector and a means of giving fresh visibility and impetus to SSGIs at EU level.

In November, I wrote that the explanatory statement and report put forward were intended to help strengthen the social aspects of the process of European integration, guaranteeing the necessary legal certainty for social players and public authorities and ensuring financial transparency, the requisite compatibility with the internal market rules applicable and improvements in the quality of services provided in accordance with the subsidiarity principle, and taking account of the need to lend practical shape to the Lisbon Strategy in the social area. The latter therefore requires significant support from Parliament for this report and needs involvement from the social organisations at European level and relevant support in the Commission, the Council and in the Member States.

The report submitted for your vote today mentions a great many important issues for SSGIs to function appropriately. I should like to highlight the following: SSGIs are an appropriate means of strengthening the social dimension of the Lisbon Strategy, of fulfilling the aims of the Social Agenda and addressing challenges such as globalisation, industrial change, demographic change, migration and changing social and employment patterns, thus contributing towards the development of a social Europe.

In this report, Parliament calls on the Commission and the Member States to respect the diversity of the methods of organising and managing SSGIs, of their resources and of the methods of funding these services. Parliament also points out that in some Member States the decentralisation of power, whereby regional or local authorities take greater control of providing SSGIs, was not accompanied by the budgetary resources needed for the appropriate level of service provision. Parliament therefore calls on the Member States to ensure the complete transfer of powers to the regional or local authorities so that the provision of SSGIs can be given the appropriate budgetary resources.

The report also recommends the convocation of a forum, under the auspices of the European Parliament, which would bring together European social organisations and representatives of the Council and the Commission to guide the way this process is handled.

Ladies and gentlemen, this process will, with your support, make progress towards strengthening the EU and the social dimension of Europe. I feel that the political conditions are in place to ensure that the Commission, the Council, the social organisations and the Member States are closely involved in this process, and that businesses, the unions and the social partners also participate usefully and appropriately.

With our strong commitment, the necessary steps for the legal situation of SSGIs to be clarified precisely will certainly be taken, which, from my point of view, should be brought before Parliament at the earliest opportunity.

I am convinced that, starting this week, we will be able to move further down the road towards clarifying the role of the SSGIs and strengthening the EU’s social aspects.

  Vladimír Špidla, Member of the Commission. (CS) Madam President, I wish to thank Mr Hasse Ferreira for this report and for his efforts in reaching a broad consensus. I am pleased that you have largely adopted the approach put forward by the Commission in its communication of April 2006. Parliament’s contribution to our discussions is very important in defining systematic access to social services of general interest (SSGIs). This approach should clarify compliance with the Community rules on SSGIs and contribute towards modernising these services within a fixed and predictable framework, which will in turn ensure and underpin their main social objectives.

Mr Hasse Ferreira’s report especially highlights the vital role played by SSGIs as an important part of the European social model, the importance of these services to the Lisbon Strategy, the particular nature of SSGIs and the need to clarify the legal framework regarding these services so as to make it clearer and predictable. In this regard, I fully agree that this is not about implementing economic rules that conflict with the ideas of general interest and social cohesion. Our steps form part of the effort to achieve cooperation between the economic and social fields, as emphasised in the report. In the event of dispute, however, general interest must however prevail over the rules of the internal market and economic competition, as Commission President Barroso recently reminded Parliament.

The report emphasises quality, both in terms of social services for individuals and in terms of employment in the sector. Parliament is rightly adamant on this point. We must, however, strike the right balance between the protection that service providers expect and the quality that the users and the bodies funding these services are rightly seeking. On this point, too, Mr Barroso has reminded us of the importance of every framework relating to services of general interest at European level being based on targets such as high quality, the right price/quality ratio and universal access.

The Commission aims to launch this issue through consultation with the Member States and other interested parties. It will draw on the results of this consultation and also of course on Parliament’s views in determining the next steps. I will channel all my energies into securing the much-needed legal certainty and into enhancing the quality of social services, which will at the same time be compatible with the subsidiarity principle. In this spirit, the Commission is looking into the possibility of putting forward some draft legislation, as it indicated in its April 2006 communication.

I am aware of Parliament’s call to have clear timescales for completing the consultation announced by the Commission. I can assure you that the consultation will be completed by the end of June. I also welcome Parliament’s initiative to put together a forum which will accompany this process. I will gladly represent the Commission at this forum.

  Bernhard Rapkay (PSE), draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. – (DE) Madam President, while I am, of course, speaking for my group, I speak primarily as the person who prepared the opinion of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs.

I can do no other than agree with the rapporteur, Mr Hasse Ferreira, and endorse what he has to say in his report to the effect that services of general interest are not only an important element in social and economic cohesion, but also make a considerable contribution to the competitiveness of the European economy, and this is particularly true of those services of general interest that are social in character.

It is not for me to evaluate Mr Hasse Ferreira’s proposals in detail, but I am duty bound to draw your attention once more to what we in this House formerly resolved on the basis of my own report on the White Paper on services of general interest. I can do no other than confirm that Mr Hasse Ferreira has taken on board what our committee has drafted on this subject, and has done so in a manner that we find satisfactory.

Services of general interest are meant to be of high quality, accessible and universally available, while also being rendered at optimum cost, respecting social balance and on the basis of lasting security of supply. While it goes without saying that services of general interest can be rendered under conditions of fair competition, the principle of equal treatment for private and public enterprises must at the same time apply, although the rules of the market must not impede the performance of public services, and this is best guaranteed by targeted measures and regulations specific to individual sectors, which will require an ongoing assessment of public services in the European Union in order to determine where proposals need to be worked out to address problem areas.

We have already urged the Commission to do something about greater legal certainty in these areas and, where necessary, to draft a proposal for a sector-specific directive; all I can do at the present moment is to reiterate the need for that.

  Roberto Musacchio (GUE/NGL), draftsman for the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety. – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, as I have been a shadow rapporteur on this measure, I am speaking on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, which has adopted an opinion on it. I attempted to mark out an area for debate that was not just a straight copy of the area that characterised the Bolkestein directive. My group and I were opposed to that directive, since it aimed at commodifying services in general.

While remaining opposed, I attempted to define what Europe requires of its social and citizenry services, considering that they should be universal, accessible to all, democratically managed and thus genuinely for the citizens; in other words, they are different from market services, and therefore require a different, separate legal basis.

This opinion has the support of the Committee on the Environment and I believe it can also be of use in the context of the debate on the provision in general.

  Luisa Fernanda Rudi Ubeda (PPE-DE), draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection. – (ES) Madam President, I am speaking at this sitting in my capacity as draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection, which approved the opinion by a large majority.

Some of its content has been incorporated, either in spirit or more explicitly, into the report that Mr Hasse Ferreira has presented to us here this afternoon.

I would like to explain some of the ideas included in the report by the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection and some of the characteristics of what are known as social services of general interest.

All of these services unquestionably form part of what is known, broadly and in a manner that is difficult to define precisely, as the European social model, a model that they have helped to shape.

Another aspect that everybody accepts is that these services must be fully subject to the principle of subsidiarity and that it is therefore for the States to define not just the field in which they are applied, but also the model and the system.

There is another issue which I believe has been fully accepted, and that is that we are in a dynamic environment in which both the demands of society and, consequently, the incorporation of new social services, are constantly evolving and changing.

Finally, as draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection, I would like to draw attention to the need also to make the provision of social services compatible with legal security and free competition.

We must not forget that each State has different models for applying services. In the case of public services, social services must be guaranteed by public administrations, though it is not necessarily they who have to provide them directly.

When private providers emerge, therefore, I believe that this Parliament and the Commission must be aware of the need, while respecting the specific characteristics of these social services of general interest — particularly in view of the jobs that they create — to guarantee the legal security of those service providers that wish to operate throughout the European Union.

  Gabriele Stauner (PPE-DE), draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs. – (DE) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the Committee on Legal Affairs has tried, through in-depth debate, to be consistent in setting out the legal problems that the services directive throws up, not least in relation to health services, and on which the Commission will no doubt also have something to say. The lead committee – that on employment and social affairs – has largely taken our proposals on board, and for that I have to say that I am grateful. We saw it as important that we should put on record the considerable doubts in the Committee on Legal Affairs’s mind as to whether a European regulation can actually improve social services for the public where they are, and we have the same doubts as regards its efficiency.

In any case, any regulation considered by the Commission must have an unambiguous legal basis, and we do not believe that Article 16 of the European Communities Treaty can serve as one in this instance, which is, in the Committee on Legal Affairs’ view, a classic example of where the subsidiarity principle should apply. At Member State level, social services take the most diverse forms, having developed in line with their own traditions and being funded in wholly different ways. Subsequently, the Committee on Legal Affairs decided that the subsidiarity principle meant that it was for the Member States alone to define what social services of general interest actually are, and this is another important point that was incorporated into the report.

The obvious consequence of this is that the Commission cannot claim any right to lay down definitions by, for example, pointing to differing interpretations of concepts in the case law of the Court of Justice and elsewhere. I also want to draw the House’s attention to the contradiction between paragraphs 12 and 16 in the justification, of which we have taken note and which we have therefore not incorporated into the text of the report.

  Edit Bauer (PPE-DE), draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality. – (HU) In the opinion of the Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality, the question of public services is of key importance from the perspective of attaining the goals of the Lisbon Strategy, and moreover, no adequate solution can be found to our demographic challenges without a strategy for developing such services.

I would like to stress two questions within this set of problems: the question of accessibility and that of quality. Since respect for human rights is a fundamental element of our expectations with respect to social services, no country is exempt from the obligation to tie these services and service-providers to appropriate authorisations and supervision. Those who make use of social services generally find themselves in a vulnerable position.

Another fundamental demand is that these services be accessible. Since the demographic crisis facing Europe cannot be resolved without an adequate social service network, we must emphasise that the financial burden for such services cannot be transferred exclusively to citizens, or even to the local authorities, who are carrying ever greater burdens.

Our experience in the new Member States is that the spiralling indebtedness of local authorities is reaching frightening proportions, since they lack sufficient funds to cover the services and areas of competence that have been transferred to them by the State. The business sector cannot be expected to bear all the costs either, but the proposal that the burden be shared is worth considering, provided the business sector receives sufficient support and incentives, such as tax breaks.

The fact is that based on the principle of subsidiarity, this responsibility falls naturally within the Member States’ competence, but the sharing of good practices and a system of open coordination can undoubtedly be extremely useful in this area.

  Iles Braghetto, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, it is fundamentally important to ask ourselves what social services of general interest are, how they are organised in today’s society, and what role they play in developing a Europe of freedoms and solidarity. They are part of the European social model that the European Union wants to have, and a priority objective of the Lisbon Strategy. It all comes down to the complex relationship that has to be established between the individual, society and the State, which has to conform with the principle of subsidiarity.

Social services of general interest must guarantee that every person has equal value and equal opportunities, while in practical terms ensuring the primacy of the individual over institutions and of civil society over political power. We must therefore eliminate any ambiguities and provide legal certainty, so as to develop a system of social services in Europe that meets people’s needs and makes the most of all the resources of civil society.

Parliament is certainly the best place to conduct a thorough reflection on these issues. The report on which we are going to vote is the result of a compromise endorsed by a majority in this House. It is the starting point for a debate that looks expectantly to the legislative proposal that the Commission will be putting before us.

  Jan Andersson , on behalf of the PSE Group. – (SV) Madam President, I want to begin by thanking the rapporteur, Mr Ferreira, for the constructive work he has done and for having succeeded in obtaining a broad majority in the committee for his proposal. Social services of general interest were excluded from the Services Directive. There was a reason for this. They are of a quite special character that differs from that of commercial services and were excluded for that reason. Their special character means that they are often publicly funded, either in whole or in part.

They are not aimed at groups, primarily on an ability-to-pay basis. Instead, certain services – for example, child care in my own country, Sweden – are aimed at everyone. A number of such services are aimed at people with special needs, for example elderly people with special needs in terms of care or disabled people with their own special needs. The aim is that people should be treated as equally as possible.

How they are organised differs from country to country in Europe. Often, they are organised locally. They are managed democratically, often in proximity to the people, and are also often run as part of the public sector by public employees. However, the arrangements may also be cooperative and sometimes involve private companies as well. The organisations themselves take decisions locally on how they want the activity to be run.

Social services are important for Europe. They are important for quite a few reasons and, of course, are mainly important to all those who use public services. They contribute to equality, including gender equality. As Mr Rapkay said, social services are important for the economy – without social services in the various parts of Europe, the rest of the economy would not function – and they are especially important for employment, since large numbers of people, especially women, are employed within social services.

When it comes to the importance of these issues for Europe, we can debate what we need to do at European level. I share Mr Rapkay’s view and the view of the majority in my group that we need some form of sector-specific directive, precisely in order to be able to highlight the distinctive character of these services and to distinguish them from commercial services. We need such a directive not for the purpose of withdrawing social services from the local level or of bringing about a situation that is in conflict with the principle of subsidiarity, but with a view to protecting such services on the basis of the activities that they at present engage in and that reflect the diversity of our Member States.

  Sophia in 't Veld, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (NL) Madam President, I am growing a little weary, and am getting the impression that we have gone over the same ground a thousand times and that each time, the same arguments are dredged up. We have been doing this for years now. We are of one mind where the importance of social services of general interest are concerned. That much is beyond dispute. I do not, however, share the automatic conclusion that is drawn that, because something has the label ‘social’, market rules should not apply.

We are all in favour of subsidiarity, but what does it actually mean? Does it mean that countries or local governments – and this is how I see it – can decide for themselves how they organise their services, or does it mean – as some people believe – that market rules, the rules for fair competition, should not apply?

I am not in favour of legislation where it is not needed. We have to carefully identify the problem areas and tailor our solutions to them, with legislation if necessary. There is no need for a general call, which I have been hearing for years in this House, for a legislative framework and sector directive. We should first of all create legal clarity, and I would in that respect refer to the contribution made by the Committee on Legal Affairs, which I unconditionally endorse.

Moreover, many people believe that if something has the label ‘social’ on it, this always involves small-scale services that are not self-sufficient. It goes without saying that we should support services of this kind, and, in fact, the Treaty also provides for this. Council housing, for example, is a multi-million business. It may be situated in the social sector, with a collective objective, but it does involve stacks of money and have the same interests at stake, such as those of corporations, trade unions, employers, politicians and the like.

The only aspect that is lacking right now is the interest of the citizen as a consumer and as a buyer of services, which should, in my view, come first. Competition has, in many cases, led to a better provision of services and better rates, and where necessary, the government can always help out or protect. This is how it is enshrined in the Treaty and I cannot see why a general adjustment should be made at this point in time.

IN THE CHAIR: MR DOS SANTOS
Vice-President

  Jean Lambert, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Mr President, I would like to pick up on a point that has been raised by one or two colleagues – that many of the users of social services are not, as it were, everyday consumers. They are people in particular social need and therefore, that is why we look at social services as having a different mission, and possibly a different organisation, to general consumption. It is one of the reasons why we took these services out of the Services Directive, because we did not consider that they operated to the same market rules as travel agencies, construction companies or anything else in the general services sector.

It is true that we talk about subsidiarity in connection with these services, and many of us were very happy that they stayed with the Member States who have the right to decide how they will organise them and what they will deliver. But those services are under pressure from at least two directions. Firstly, they are under pressure internationally through GATS, and that is why we have retabled an amendment which came from the Committee on Internal Market and Consumer Protection. Secondly, they are under pressure from market pressures within the European Union, which gradually begin to erode and undermine the rights of Member States to decide exactly how they will organise and finance their services.

That is why many of us in this House think that not only do we need legal clarity, but we also need to look towards legal protection, because at the moment, all that Member States can operate with is the Treaty. At times, because they have chosen to operate their services in a particular way, they find unintended consequences through market pressures.

As regards this report, my group feels that the original built a very beautiful frame for social services, but we feel that at the moment all it contains is a sketch rather than certainty and a clear picture, or a clear view, from this Parliament. We have basically said that we want to continue consultation for a further three months and then Parliament will have to decide what it wants to do: whether it wants to maintain decisions that we have taken in earlier reports such as that by Mr Rapkay, or whether we are going to row back and deny a legal protection that many of us believe our social services need.

  Kyriacos Triantaphyllides, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (EL) Mr President, there is a problem of interpretation in connection with the activity of services of general interest. Both the European Commission and the Court interpret the systems of compulsory and additional social insurance, which cover fundamental concepts such as health, old age, occupational accidents, unemployment, pensions, disability and services provided directly to persons preventively or for social integration, cohesion and so forth and which include social housing, the integration of people with disabilities or health problems, drug addiction programmes, training programmes for vocational reintegration and other such services, as an economic activity, thereby allowing the Commission to raise the question of opening these services up to undistorted competition.

It is a fact that, instead of recognizing the role of such social services of general interest as fundamental and necessary services in a society, the Commission is reversing the terms and trying to open them up to commercialisation by giving third party providers the right to exercise them in return, of course, for a fee. This will result in pressure being exercised on the public-sector aspect and economic aspects of such services.

At the same time, it aims to make it harder for public-sector providers of these services by citing the principle of non-discrimination or the articles of the Treaty on European Union. This serves private individuals, given that the alleged lifting of discrimination and the fact that these services are wide open to competition, will allow them to provide social services using corporate methods. If we take account of the fact that social services of general interest and health services are exempted from the Bolkestein directive, then it is easy to see that the Commission is looking for other ways to bring these services within the framework of full liberalisation, thereby enabling multinationals to provide them under a more beneficial regime.

This being so, I believe that we must defend the right of the Member States to define social services of general interest as they wish, to maintain their public-sector aspect and not to allow them to be transferred into private hands via a directive as a commodity. These services are vital to society and they cannot be treated as an economic activity in the narrow sense of the term; they must be treated as a social necessity.

  José Albino Silva Peneda (PPE-DE). – (PT) Mr President, I should like to begin by congratulating the rapporteur on his excellent report, to which I lend my support. Social services of general interest (SSGIs) are today an important instrument that can contribute towards greater social, economic and territorial cohesion and can be seen as a vital component in achieving the objectives of the Lisbon Strategy.

These services play a crucial role in addressing certain social deficiencies that the market is not always capable of addressing satisfactorily. SSGIs have certain characteristics – namely, their target public, management, organisation and financing – which set them apart from traditional services. SSGIs have gained great momentum in the way they have dealt with fresh challenges and have altered Europe’s social perspective, meaning that SSGIs nowadays have to adapt to tougher demands. There are cases of SSGIs that can be held up as a good example of flexible management in the labour market. We should look at these very carefully, because there have been some very positive experiences.

Given that the issue at hand is services that are close to service users, I feel that the regional and local authorities, in conjunction with civil society, could play a role in providing SSGIs. I am convinced, in other words, that it is at local level that these services are at their most effective. Indeed, regardless of adopting best practice and the healthy exchange of experiences between the Member States, I feel that the different cultural standards that exist in the EU must be respected and that the development of SSGIs should be structured and driven forward in accordance with the characteristics of each community. Consequently, in accordance with the subsidiarity principle, I share the idea that the diversity of models of organising, managing and financing social services in the Member States should be respected.

  Anne Van Lancker (PSE). – (NL) Mr President, first of all, I should like to congratulate our rapporteur. Let me start by saying, as some fellow Members have already done, that it is because of this House that a wide range of social services have been excluded from the Services Directive, the reason being that for a majority in this House, it is inconceivable that social services should be put on the same footing as commercial ones. Social services guarantee citizens' fundamental rights and they also protect the most vulnerable. They are clearly expressions of solidarity in a society.

That is why it is good, Commissioner, that the Commission should recognise this specific trait of the social services, although it is obvious to me that this recognition is not, of course, enough in itself. Subsidiarity, too, ceased to be the answer a long time ago, as was very clearly illustrated by Mrs in 't Veld, and by the Commission’s communication in which it explains how the internal market and the competition rules apply, not least to social services. This is not always a favourable situation.

So, in order to create legal certainty and to determine the extent to which the internal market rules could apply to this broad area, we need a sector-specific directive which, as someone said before me, protects subsidiarity and safeguards the communal task of these social services. This was already mentioned in Mr Rapkay's report. Today, in Mr Ferreira’s report, we are asking the Commission once again to table a proposal by June of this year.

I happen to know that the Portuguese Presidency is particularly well disposed towards the social dimension of European policy. Protecting and safeguarding social services fit in perfectly with this aspiration. I therefore hope that this parliamentary report will enjoy broad support in this House and that the Commission will be tabling a constructive proposal by the summer.

  Danutė Budreikaitė (ALDE). – (LT) Last autumn we were discussing the European Commission's White Book on services of general interest. It is a pity that so far the liberalisation of the services market has been very slight, and the definition of the actual services is unclear.

Today we encounter Social Services of General Interest, which are defined as services to which the criteria of general interest are applied – universality, transparency, continuity, accessibility, etc. These services help to ensure a high rate of employment, a high level of social service and healthcare, gender equality, and economic, social and territorial cohesion.

These are just general assertions though. The rapporteur has pointed out that the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality must be applied to Social Services of General Interest. However, in applying the principle of subsidiarity, countries will themselves define what the Social Services of General Interest are (that is which Social Services are of General Interest), and thus we will never have free movement of services, which is currently one of the most important EU strategies for increasing economic competitiveness. The market protectionism still remains, which not only decreases economic competitiveness, but also prevents consumers from being offered timely services of suitable quality.

When discussing services, including Social Services of General Interest, we first need to define what they are.

  Elisabeth Schroedter (Verts/ALE). – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, the social services are means whereby the ends of social policy are achieved; in that they serve the common good and help everyone to avail themselves of their fundamental social rights, they constitute the social pillar of European society, and it is for that reason, and by reason of their particular character, that Parliament, a year ago, took them out of the services directive. By trying, through this communication, to make these services again subject to the laws of the market, the Commission is going down the wrong track.

The Commission’s hesitancy when it comes to demanding a legislative framework for general interest services of this particular kind is damaging to the European Union. We need an affirmation, in the shape of a law, of the fact that social services are part of the general good, and we need it right now. All MEPs who believe that that sort of affirmation is needed now, should refrain from endorsing the Commission’s woolly compromise and instead vote for this House’s resolution on the White Paper on services of general interest – and hence for our motion.

  Jean Louis Cottigny (PSE). – (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like, first of all, to thank our colleague, Mr Hasse Ferreira, for the work that he has done. Dealing with social services of general interest (SSGIs) is not an easy matter, but he has demonstrated his listening skills throughout our meetings.

The key point in our colleague’s report is the launch of a consultation of the parties concerned, the aim of which is to better cater for the characteristics of SSGIs in the application of Community law. Social services are characterised, among other things, by the fact that they are personalised, that they implement basic social rights and that they help increase social cohesion, by protecting the most vulnerable. As such, they are an integral part of the European social model because, in their current form, they are specific to Europe and they contribute to the European growth strategy. They represent a dynamic economic sector and they create jobs, while being distinct from the other services of general economic interest. The services are operated on the basis of the solidarity principle and of their proximity to users.

The problem today with the great majority of SSGIs is that they fall directly within the scope of the Community Treaties; in other words, they are subject to the rules of the internal market and of competition. The issue of the application of these rules therefore arises in view of the need for the public authorities to continue intervening regarding arrangements for providing services. This objective to regularise public services fulfils legitimate objectives to do with maintaining the quality of services and making them accessible in urban and rural areas, and with protecting the users and vulnerable people who benefit from them.

Our social model, which we want to promote as an alternative to ultraliberalism, must not fall victim to our own Community rules.

  Karin Jöns (PSE). – (DE) Mr President, I would like to start by congratulating the rapporteur. Social services of general interest are a core element in the social Europe. Being part of public services of general interest, they are meant to ensure that someone in need of support or help actually gets it, and, moreover, irrespective of where they live or of what they earn.

Social services must not only be generally accessible and affordable, but also of particularly high quality, for – as has already been pointed out – they are personal and serve the common good, and that is why they must not be exposed to unfettered competition. What is needed instead is particular protection for them and for competition to be put within an unambiguous legal framework.

What I would like to do right now is just to point out – taking the care of the aged as an example – that demographic change is presenting us with ever greater challenges. After all, in our society, everyone ought not only to have the right to, and a claim on, a dignified old age, but also the certainty of enjoying one.

  Harald Ettl (PSE). – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, if, failing to put social services on a sounder foundation, we make them more and more subject to the rules of competition, we will certainly end up with sand getting into the European works.

We may well, in 2006, have enjoyed good economic growth, with more jobs being created, but there was a further increase in poverty, and so it is only good that enterprises, too, should discharge their social responsibilities and join in providing social services, or that the Member States should involve the social partners more in working out how these should be structured.

Good social services must be one way whereby poverty in Europe may be fought against. There is no comparison between social services and a car repair shop; they are not the same thing. The fact that social services need to be viable and affordable calls for a European legal framework, a sector-specific directive, and not only official solidarity on the part of the Member States, but also, on the part of the Members of this House, for a great awareness of responsibility rather than platitudinous speeches.

  Anne Ferreira (PSE). – (FR) Mr President, I should like to begin by congratulating Mr Hasse Ferreira on the quality of his report and on the crucial points that it contains. I should also like to recall how the people of Europe joined forces, a year ago, when the vote was held on the Services Directive. Their action led to the text being developed and to our institutions changing position in terms of their willingness to liberalise all services, irrespective of the missions and needs that they represent.

We now need to echo these citizens’ opinions and the values that they hold dear and that we share and to which our rapporteur is giving substance. The tasks fulfilled by SSGIs serve human rights, human dignity, the general interest and social cohesion and, hence, are fully in line with the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Refusing to acknowledge that and perpetuating the confusion between the notions of economic service and market service, as the Commission is doing, means giving up on Europe’s special social quality and on what it represents for millions of Europeans. Specific legislation is required in order to ensure that people’s right to these services is respected and that they are indeed carried out.

  Alexandru Athanasiu (PSE). – Nu voi mai relua aici tot ceea ce s-a spus, foarte corect, legat de poziţia serviciilor sociale de interes general. Aş vrea doar să fac câteva scurte aprecieri. În primul rând, solidaritatea socială şi coeziunea socială reprezintă marca de calitate a Uniunii Europene. În al doilea rând, serviciile sociale, sunt prin definiţie, bazate pe un acces nediscriminat, pe durabilitatea serviciului şi pe protejarea celor vulnerabili. În al treilea rând, este o responsabilitate a instituţiilor europene, astăzi, să găsească soluţia cea mai apropiată şi cea mai potrivită pentru a rezolva aceste probleme. Personal, consider că avem nevoie de o directivă-cadru pe care Comisia s-o prezinte instituţiilor Uniunii Europene şi, în primul rând Parlamentului European astfel încât principiile din acest domeniu să fie bine sistematizate.

Rămâne însă în sarcina fiecărui stat membru să definească, să organizeze şi să finanţeze serviciile sociale de interes general. Noi trebuie să stabilim o dată în plus faptul că au prioritate misiunile sociale asupra regulilor de concurenţă ale pieţii. Aş vrea să închei spunând câteva cuvinte pe care le-a spus un mare francez, un mare european avant la lettre, şi pe care o să le spun în franceză. Este vorba de părintele lui Emile şi părintele contractului social, Jean Jaques Rousseau. El spunea cu multă raţiune că: L'ordre social ne vient pas de la nature, il este fondé sur de conventions. Avem nevoie de convenţii.

  Jean-Claude Martinez (ITS). – (FR) Mr President, as everyone has said, the report by our fellow Member, Mr Ferreira, brings us once again to the heart of this European social model, which sets us apart from the United States.

Behind this report, of course, there are children, there are the elderly, there are the sick, there are those excluded from society, there are disabled people and, finally, in the end, if we are not careful, there will be euthanasia, with the Netherlands, Belgium and, soon, France.

We are therefore in the realm of what we, the people of France, have for over a century – in thousands of books, lessons and university theses – been calling ‘public services’. That is why, on 29 May 2005, the people of France rejected the constitution of private services. Indeed, with the magnificent word ‘public service’, we are saying that, in a society of women and men, there are shared dimensions of what is owned by a nation as a whole, and that it is within these shared dimensions, such as hospitals, schools and health care, that services are provided to the public. This terminology is superior to that of services of general interest, a term that creates ambiguity and problems in terms of the boundaries between the private sector and the general interest, and between the commercial market – with the competition between overriding interests – and public goods, something that St Thomas Aquinas, back in his day, already used to call the common weal.

It is precisely because of this problem of boundaries that we are drafting legislation: what are these services, where do they come from, what budget should be allocated to them, which powers fall under the Union, on the one hand, and subsidiarity, on the other, what geographical boundaries are there between Mrs Thatcher’s Europe and social Europe, what boundary is there in terms of housing, employment, childcare, hospital care, between the rich, who can go private, and the poor, who cannot?

One US President had a sign on his desk that read: ‘The buck stops here’. This is the definition of social services of general interest: ‘The market stops here’.

  Vladimír Špidla, Member of the Commission. (CS) Honourable Members, I would like to thank you for this debate, which has been very thorough and extremely interesting. I should like, if I may, briefly to go over some points that emerged in the debate, which I feel are particularly relevant and important.

It is quite clear that social services of general interest (SSGIs) are, according to the majority view in the debate, very much a unique issue. They are not ordinary services, as they guarantee rights and as they are geared towards people who are, or who may be, too weak or vulnerable to look after themselves and their rights. There was also clearly a strong emphasis on the subsidiarity principle, and on the fact that proposals for different solutions were coming in from all sides. It was also clear that there is a degree of uncertainty regarding the legal definition of these services, in particular concerning the principles governing the internal market.

Honourable Members, I feel that all of these issues are important and that we must continue to pay attention to them. The Commission intends to take the following steps: to draw up a European strategy on SSGIs, which will be adopted in the autumn of this year. In this communication the further steps that the Commission intends to take will be put forward. The Commission is assessing legal feasibility and the right political opportunity to propose legal instruments in this area. The communication will be issued in conjunction with the two-year report on SSGIs. The purpose of this report is to provide an overview of the situation of SSGIs in Europe. It describes progress in modernising these services, emphasises the significance of the sector from a socio-economic perspective and describes the development of legal measures at this time.

Honourable Members, I share your view that social services in the public interest are a fixed element in our social model, that they are set to develop very rapidly, that fresh challenges lie ahead and that debate is needed. Thank you.

  President. The debate is closed.

The vote will take place tomorrow at 12 noon.