|
Post Office |
|
Under EU directive 2002/39/EC the delivery of all items weighing more than 50 grams (less than the average letter) had to be opened to competition from 1 January 2006. Items weighing more than 100 grams (small parcels upwards) were opened to competition on 1 January 2003. Over the intervening years private companies have mopped the most lucrative parts of the market. This forms the background to Mandelson’s current proposal to part-privatise what remains of Royal Mail business. Compliance with the EU directive on postal services has gravely damaged Royal Mail’s finances and also its ability to sustain its pension fund—both put forward a reasons for handing over key functions such as sorting to the private sector. To add insult to injury Mandelson has chosen one of the private competitor firms, DHL from Germany, to undertake this work. Over a hundred Labour MPs have signed an Early Day Motion condemning this proposal. In France industrial action by postal workers has largely succeeded in protecting La Poste as a public service. |
|
Health Services |
|
The alarm was first raised by Labour backbenchers in December 2007 when the draft of an EU directive on health was leaked Thirty two Labour backbenchers put down an early day motion attacking the European Commission's proposal for a Directive on Health Services. The motion argues that "this directive would undermine the fundamental principles of the NHS, impose unnecessary burdens of cost and bureaucracy, over-rule clinical priorities and act to worsen health inequalities." MPs signing the motion include former Health ministers Frank Dobson and Gisela Stuart, Jon Trickett and Jon Cruddas, and Chair of the Parliamentary Labour Party Health Committee John Grogan. The motion called for the Government to oppose the directive, which was to be decided by qualified majority voting under internal market rules. In a press release Jon Trickett, who put down the motion, said: "This Directive could well mark the beginning of the end of the NHS." On 18 December the Times featured the Commission's draft of the EU directive on cross-border healthcare, which obliges the NHS to fund outpatient treatments in Europe , provided that the patient has been referred by a medical professional and is suffering delays. The draft is to be published tomorrow. UK ministers are reportedly concerned that the directive could lead to great losses for the NHS and undermine Whitehall 's control over the British healthcare system. Keith Pollard, Director of Treatment Abroad, a British company that places patients overseas, said: "The whole idea is to make an open market for healthcare throughout the EU. The NHS faces the prospect of losing revenue to hospitals overseas." In face of the scale of opposition, and fearful of the impact on the Irish referendum vote, the EU Commission withdrew the draft. However, in 2008 key parts of the Directive reappeared within the Renewed Social Agenda (the full document can be accessed on the documents page) THE PROCESS OF CONSULTATION On 26 September 2006 the EU Commission began formal consultations on the Health Services Directive. The Commission has committed itself to finalising the directive in 2007 – partly in light of the exclusion of health services from the Services Directive and the call from the Competition Commissioner, Charles McCreevy, that this omission be rectified as soon as possible. The Commission document ‘Consultation regarding Action on Health Services’ notes that the Directive will have to be framed within the rulings of the European Court of Justice and the Commission document issued on 26 April 2006 ‘Implementing the Community Lisbon programme: social services of general interest’. Taken together, these will require the opening of virtually all services to private sector competition. ECJ decisions in 1998 and 2006 are deemed to entitle patients to seek re-imbursement from the NHS for non-hospital health care abroad without prior consultation and for hospital health care abroad with prior consultation if this cannot be provided within a medically acceptable time limit. Internal Market Rules The ECJ ruling on 16 May 2006 made this obligatory within all member states. The EU Commission document states that it intends to widen this from health services to healthcare generally and to make provision for the establishment of permanent establishments, such as local clinics, in other member states. It specifies the need to clarify ‘internal market rules’ across the EU and the application of this to medical services such as laboratory services and logistics. The document Implementing the Lisbon Programme clarifies the role of the market still further. It cites the Sodemare ECJ judgement as ruling that a ‘not for profit’ condition of a service ‘could be compatible with the principle of freedom of establishment’, that is the right to establish operations within another member state (page 4). It also notes that ECJ rulings mean that even if an individual does not pay a service themselves, but that it is paid for by the state, it is still involves payment and it ‘therefore follows that almost all services offered in the social field can be considered “economic activities” within the meaning of Articles 43 and 29 of EC Treaty. Modernisation The document highlights the need for efficiency and modernisation involving ‘the outsourcing of public sector tasks to the private sector, with the public authorities becoming regulators, guardians of regulated competition and effective organisation’ and that ‘this more competitive environment .. creates a climate favourable to a “social economy” characterised by the importance of not-for-profit providers but faced with the need to be effect |
|
Pensions |
|
“The government has proposed an increase in the normal pension age of public sector schemes from 60 to 65” The quotation comes from the UK Government’s ‘National Reform Programme’ published in October 2005 by the Treasury (www.hm-treasury.gov.uk). It represents the UK government’s response to the Integrated Guidelines package endorsed by the EU Council in June 2005. This section of the National Reform programme is headed ‘Extending working lives’. It notes that there will be a 2.9 million increase in the number of people in the UK aged 50 to 69 and a consequent need to ensure that a bigger proportion remain at work. The same section of the UK response also reports that from 2010 the earliest age at which a company or occupational pension can be taken will be increased by five years. ‘Suppression of early labour market exit’ This UK response document is designed to meet the requirements of the updated Lisbon Action Plan issued by the Spring European Council 2005 [SEC (2005) 192]. Under the heading ‘Develop active aging strategies’ it requires member states to ensure the ‘suppression of early labour market exit’ The original Lisbon summit was held in 2000. It marked a major milestone in the development of a neo-liberal agenda for EU and was strongly influenced by the UK and its allies. It adopted a raft of recommendations designed to enhance the EU environment for business investment (see opposite). These included proposals for an expansion of privately-managed occupational pensions on uniform lines across the EU very similar to those already being pushed in the UK - generally with highly detrimental consequences for pensioners. These proposals were later incorporated in the proposed Directive on Occupational Pensions. Following on from the Lisbon agenda the EU adopted in 2001 a more general strategy for coordinating national policies on pensions which includes a list of eleven objectives. Member countries were required to report at three yearly intervals on progress towards meeting these objectives. The 2005 UK response is available on the DWP website: www.dwp.gov.uk/resourcecentre/policy_strategy/nsr2005.asp. The UK response supplies detailed answers on steps to increase the working age and ensure more workers contribute to private pension schemes. There is no mention of any increase in the state pension. It continues ‘the UK has recognised that they have not solved the problem of future imbalance, but are actively seeking ways of addressing this now for the future – Pensions Commission’. |
|
In 1957 the newly-founded European Commission established a plan for a common transport market run on the basis of "free competition" and the "principles of the market economy" as written into the Treaty of Rome. · operational autonomy for railway operators · separation of the infrastructure from service operations (as an absolute minimum - although not exclusively - for accounting purposes) · open access for international undertakings · introduction of track access charges and a sound financial basis for railway operators This was exactly the basis for John Major's Tory privatisation of British Rail in 1996. The Railways Regulation 1992, which began rail privatisation, was introduced under Section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972 to comply with directive 91/440/EEC. This EU-sponsored rail 'liberalisation' model has proved disastrous in Britain. Privatisation of rail infrastructure maintenance directly led to the catastrophic deterioration of track, causing the deaths of many passengers and rail workers. Private train operators' record profits are siphoned directly from public subsidy, there is a perpetual squeeze on rail workers' pay and ticket fares continue to rocket, making Britain's railways the most expensive in Europe. |