Sudden change in fortune puts consumers first

Date: 27/03/1997

IT TOOK the most catastrophic health scare the EU has ever known to do it, but the BSE crisis could well ensure that consumer affairs - so long Europe's 'Cinderella' policy area - finally gets to go to the ball.

In response to howls of protest from the European Parliament over the Commission's handling of the issue - including threats to sack President Jacques Santer and his entire team - the EU executive earlier this month announced a massive shake-up at the Directorate-General for consumer affairs (DGXXIV).

The department, it was decreed, would take over responsibility for food safety issues, with a four-fold increase in staff from roughly 70 to over 400.

Consumer Affairs Commissioner Emma Bonino, who also has responsibility for fisheries policy and humanitarian aid, has been pushing to raise the profile of her least-known portfolio since she arrived in Brussels two and a half years ago.

When the fiery Italian first set up shop in the self-styled 'capital of Europe', DGXXIV did not even exist, with consumer affairs handled by a humble Commission 'service'. Things have improved a little since then, but the topic has had to wait until now for a dramatic transformation in its fortunes.

“We did not ask for this, but good things do sometimes come out of crises. Having DGXXIV with some weight behind it means we can finally really push consumer issues,” said a close Bonino aide.

Yet matters are not necessarily as rosy as they may seem at first glance. The first hurdle for Bonino is to secure the big increase in funding needed to run the new service. Last week, she told the Parliament's environment committee she would be counting on their support for her new budget and MEPs are expected to vote at the end of April on whether to give her what she is asking for.

“The Parliament has criticised us and we have reacted. Now it must put its money where its mouth is,” said one official.

Horst Reichenbach, the incoming Director-General of DGXXIV, echoed that sentiment in a recent interview with European Voice when he referred to the forthcoming vote as “the acid test of the Parliament's own determination to improve matters”.

The consumer affairs lobby is currently in two minds over how to view the changes at DGXXIV.

“It is not clear how everything is going to work. We are very pleased at the higher profile, but we need to ensure that other important consumer affairs considerations are not completely sidelined by the food safety issue,” said Valerie Thompson of European consumer lobby group BEUC.

At present, the Commission has an absolutely minuscule budget of just 19 million ecu devoted to consumer affairs. That works out at around 0.021&percent; of the Union's total annual expenditure of around 90 billion ecu - equivalent to just 0.05 ecu for each of the Union's 375 million consumers.

Article 129a of the Maastricht Treaty makes certain very limited provisions for EU-level action on consumer policy, notably with regard to measures aimed at ensuring the efficient functioning of the single market.

But the vast majority of initiatives are covered by the principle of subsidiarity and tend to be carried out at member state or regional level, with the Commission attempting to play some sort of coordinating and advisory role.

Officials say their task has been made even more difficult by a definite 'north-south' split in European attitudes to consumer policy.

“In northern countries, such as the UK and the Scandinavian states, consumer protection organisations are highly developed and efficient and they tend to ignore us somewhat. In the south, people do not seem to care much. We appear to be caught between snobbery and indifference,” complained one DGXXIV official.

In addition to this, many critics argue that consumer policy initiatives are often overridden by commercial considerations when they come up for discussion by the full 20-member Commission.

Commissioners like Bonino or her Danish colleague Ritt Bjerregaard, in charge of environmental policy, often find proposals designed to protect consumer interests blocked by others, such as British trade supremo Sir Leon Brittan or the Commissioner charged with industrial affairs, Germany's Martin Bangemann.

There was a clear example of this two weeks ago when it became evident that Bangemann and Brittan had effectively scuppered a Bjerregaard proposal on the labelling of genetically-modified farm produce.

Despite these internal splits within the Commission, BEUC is quick to point out that it does not always find itself pitted against the interests of industry.

“Over issues such as the free market in spare car parts for example, we work alongside the independent component manufacturers,” explained Thompson, referring to BEUC's campaign against automobile manufacturers setting up what it regards as virtual private monopolies by forcing consumers to buy replacement 'visible' parts - such as radiator grilles or wing mirrors - from them alone.

BEUC believes the scope for EU-wide action on consumer protection has to be increased if Europeans are to benefit fully from the potential advantages brought by the internal market.

“It is no longer sufficient to only have national responses. You have to have European legislation,” argued Thompson.

She points to a raft of anomalies - ranging from the difficulties faced by consumers trying to shop across borders to differing rules on product labelling - as clear examples of why Union rules are needed to protect them.

Consumer affairs ministers will discuss proposals to rectify two particular bugbears when they meet in early April.

One is aimed at introducing EU-wide legislation on guarantees for consumer products. The current lack of such rules means that someone from Helsinki who buys a faulty video-recorder in Spain may well have to fly south to get a refund.

The other involves moves to harmonise differing rules on consumer credit agreements in member states, another notorious cause of much cross-border confusion.

BEUC is pushing for Article 129a to be 'beefed up' when the updated Maastricht Treaty - currently under discussion at the Intergovernmental Conference - is unveiled later this year.

Thompson points to the provisional draft treaty drawn up by Ireland during its presidency of the EU in the second half of last year as a good first step towards the sorts of legal provisions her organisation would like to see for consumers.

“In order to promote the interests of consumers and to ensure a high level of consumer protection, the Community shall contribute to protecting the health, safety and economic interests of consumers as well as to promoting their right to information, education and representation,” read the Irish draft text, adding: “Consumer protection requirements shall be taken into account in defining and implementing other Community policies and activities.”

Thompson is disappointed that the current Dutch EU presidency - which is charged with steering the IGC to a close at this June's Amsterdam meeting of Union leaders - does not seem to share the same enthusiasm for consumer policy as its Irish predecessors.

The Hague, she maintains, is very keen to ensure that European markets are 'freed up' as quickly as possible, but does not seem so concerned that the liberalisation process should be matched with parallel consumer protection measures.

However, Thompson says her organisation will be happy if the Dutch carry on as they are, so long as they simply leave the Irish proposal on the table as it is.

“We are not asking them to add anything to the current draft text. We just do not want them to take anything out,” she concluded.