This meeting was part of a project organised with the financial support of the European Commission
EPSU Social Dialogue Project: The European Semester and modernisation of public administration
Report of first project meetiing
Twenty-five participants from 14 countries took part in the meeting, the first in this EPSU project to discuss the implications of the theme of modernising public administration as promoted in the European Semester. As part of the project EPSU has appointed the European Social Observatory (OSE) to provide research and briefings and a number of OSE researchers attended and contributed to the meeting.
1. The European Semester – understanding the process
Noting that the current Semester was at the stage where Country Reports have been published and National Reform Programmes are now nearly all available in each national language, Sebastiano Sabato and Bart Vanhercke of OSE explained how the various elements of the Semester work focusing initially on the three pillars:
- Europe 2020 (based on peer pressure);
- The Stability and Growth Pact (legally binding) based on legislation (“six-pack” and “two-pack”) with stricter enforcement of fiscal budgetary rules that synchronise budgetary procedures and allow Commission to give non-binding opinions budget plans; and
- The macroeconomic imbalance procedure, with basic indicators in an alert mechanism that can lead to in-depth assessments of national economies.
The division between the three pillars is not necessarily so clear as the various European Council committees may dispute under which pillar a country specific recommendation falls, e.g. pensions can be considered a financial issue, but also raise issues of social adequacy.
Recommendations are non-binding (no sanctions are involved), but the impact of peer pressure is considerable.
In the macroeconomic imbalances procedure, there is some debate over the role of social indicators. At the moment some social indicators are included on an auxiliary basis. There are arguments that more social indicators should be included in a more binding way but then some concern about how this would impact on the role of labour and social ministers in the process.
With a very short period between publication of the National Reform Programmes and the Country Specific Recommendations, the issue is where to intervene in the Semester process and in some ways more lobbying around the country reports (published in February) might be more appropriate.
Sebastiano and Bart reacted to comments and questions from colleagues from France, Denmark and the Netherlands.
- Some indication of a shift in in the new European Commission with priorities shifted more to efficiency and promotion of growth (‘business environment’);
- Acknowledgment of problem of euro-jargon in making Semester more democratic;
- Recognition of need to get in contact with European Semester Officers as part of process in intervening in Semester;
- Some dispute over Business Europe’s claim that less than a third of Recommendations have been implemented in nonsense – but generally a problem that data is not reliable and Recommendations are too vague;
- Social investment was identified as one area in which trade unions could potentially make progress;
- It was suggested that EPSU affiliates could be proactive toward their governments and trade union confederations as opposed to awaiting invitations from their respective governments.
- It was noted that EU structural funds include stronger clauses about social partner involvement and there is a firm intention to link them more closely to the priorities of the European Semester.
2. Stakeholder involvement in the Semester
Chiara Agostini of OSE outlined the extent of social partner involvement and raised some questions about how might be improved.
Richard Pond of EPSU explained how the federation was currently trying to get involved in the process through the consultation over the Annual Growth Survey; as a participant in the macroeconomic dialogue; in discussions over the investment plan with the employers as proposed in the cross-sector social dialogue work programme; and as part of the European Semester Alliance (group of non-governmental organisations, anti-poverty groups etc.) which is coordinating lobbying and other activity.
Christine Jakob of EPSU outlined the work being done in the federation’s Local and Regional Government Standing Committee and the Local and Regional Government Sector Social Dialogue Committee. EPSU has looking into a joint framework of restructuring with the employers and hasd also proposed a joint statement following the High Level Summit on Social Dialogue. However, is set on hold and the employers are now more concerned about the better regulation agenda
There were a number of issues raised in the discussion:
- the question as to the scope of European Social Dialogue in the projects is raised. It is noted that the project will mainly focus on the national level, but that the perspective of European social dialogue can be added in addition.
- the double standard of the Commission is raised in the promotion of social dialogue, while at the same time reducing the social dialogue meetings.
- the stress on “efficiency” over “quality”;
- the experiences of trade unions being ignored by their governments (regardless of political background); but also
- the fact that some Recommendations, like those on childcare are positive, and this is an area on which EPSU is working.
There were several contributions highlighting national experiences:
- Austria: social dialogue is still experienced positively by trade unions who are involved in the process even if there is some conflict over financing key tax reforms;
- Estonia: the new government is launching a tax reform to current flat-rate system;
- Denmark: so far no challenging recommendations and limited consultation;
- Spain and France: formal consultation but unions are not listened to;
- Sweden: unions are consulted and benefit from having a prime minister with a trade union background; and
- Cyprus (north): continuing pressure of austerity on pensions and pay.
Bart Vanhercke briefly went through the contents of a proposed survey to gauge EPSU affiliates’ involvement in the Semester. It was agreed to add questions that highlighted the potential role of national trade union confederations and that a revised version would be sent to participants for comment before distributing to all EPSU affiliates in the European Union.
3. Modernising Public Administration
Ramón Peña-Casas of OSE explained how the theme of modernising public administration had been dealt with in the various Annual Growth Surveys and the kinds of issues that could be examined further within the EPSU project. He also proposed looking in detail at five countries: France, Italy, Ireland, Finland and the Czech Republic. This choice allowed for a good geographical mix as well as countries that faced a range of challenging recommendations.
Colleagues from France, Denmark and the Netherlands raised a number of issues:
- The Commission’s investigative capacity has increased extensively over the last years improving the content of the country reports;
- However, still a feeling that speed is still prioritised over quality.
- Important to understand what kind of recommendations other countries are facing as these are likely to spread to other Member States sooner or later;
- Argument that certain recommendations made to countries with relatively small governance problems is due to small recommendations being easier to implement than huge changes.
- There was concern about some recommendations, e.g. to decentralise government in France that is very extensive and will bring about considerable uncertainty.
- It was suggested that EPSU could cooperate with other trade unions federations, particularly from the private sector, that were also critical of elements in the Semester as this may help put pressure on the Commission.
- Further consideration could be given to any interaction between free trade agreements and the European Semester.
4. Next steps
The project was planned with three meetings scheduled. However, there was some concern over the practicalities of this and the delays in originally getting confirmation of the project. The timing had shifted and the meeting in March already delayed to May. A meeting in June to discuss the Country-Specific Recommendations was seen as too soon and difficult to organise.
EPSU had approached the Commission for an extension of the project and it was agreed that rather have a meeting in June and one in September that one larger meeting would be organised around mid-October. This would also allow for more time for the background research and survey and a email consultation could be carried out on reactions to the Country-Specific Recommendations.
- Draft programme
- Log in to post comments
