In the last 25 years of history of the Chamber of Commerce of Barcelona it had not happened that a decision of the plenary session had to be broken with the vote of its president. Josep Santacreu (Guisssona, 1958) has faced the most intense disagreement of his mandate this week, with the opposition of half of the organization to expanding the so-called silver chairs to give more weight to large companies.
To what extent is the institution fractured after this vote?
The fact that there is a discrepancy on a specific issue is not serious and critical. There were many other issues in the plenary session and they were all approved unanimously. In the Cambra there is no situation of confrontation or rupture, at all. 95% of the issues are approved practically without any vote against or abstention.
Why has this issue happened precisely?
We understand that the issue of chairs is not simple. There was an evident discrepancy on the part of Eines de País and also on the part of a part of the small and medium-sized companies that are in Pimec’s orbit.
Were you surprised that the result was so close?
The truth is that no. I had a photocopy of the rules on the table to know what would happen if we tied. We knew it was a one-vote vote because we had had conversations.
Why was a prior agreement with Pimec not possible?
If there are 15 large companies in the Chamber, it means that there were 14 SMEs and self-employed workers who gave us support. And this somewhat explains the difficulty of carrying out the measure, because the Chamber we currently have is biased towards SMEs and the self-employed. With Pimec we tried to reach an agreement, proposing a position of understanding that in the end was not materialized.
The Comuns and the CUP have asked the Consell de Guaranties Statutàries to review the Cambres law precisely because of the controversy over the chairs. Do you think it will have a route?
In the two and a half years that I have been working in the law, no one has ever questioned the distribution of chairs. The law says that in the case of Barcelona there could be up to 14 silver seats. I see a certain opportunism on the part of these two parties. We are very calm and happy because we will finally have a law. I’m sorry we have to wait a couple or three months for this surprising decision.
They also had disagreements with Pimec over the drafting of the Cambres law.
We had more than a year of conversations with Pimec. We made more than 20 drafts. And, finally, we reached what we considered to be an agreement and which President Cañete now says was an agreement. no disagreement. It’s an interesting term that I had never heard before. We are at the end of the road and what we should do is congratulate ourselves because we will have a good law.
After what happened on Thursday, will your relationships change?
It is evident that Thursday’s events are important, because we have never had a discrepancy of this type. But I think there is much more that unites us than what separates us with Pimec. Even, if they rush me, with Eines. This moment had to happen and it has happened, it is normal for there to be a certain difference of opinion.
Why do you advocate expanding these silver chairs to ten?
We have proposed this change to adjust the representativeness of the different types of companies in the plenary session to the economic reality of the country. At this time, it does not reflect it proportionally. And we would have done the same if it were the other way around and there was an over-representation of large companies and an under-representation of small and medium-sized companies. We do nothing that is not democratic and legal because it is provided for by law. It is an instrument that allows us to give them a little more weight without reaching the real proportion of almost 40% that large companies have in Catalonia. Now there is a privileged situation for SMEs, with certain acquired rights. Our obligation is to think about the general interest, balance the plenary session and say openly that the Chamber is not the Chamber of small and medium-sized companies. All types of companies have to feel well represented. We take risks. This approach was not comfortable because we could lose in a plenary session so biased towards SMEs, but we did it out of conviction and we achieved it.
In what will the greatest weight of the large company be felt?
It is important that the Chamber is stronger and this strength also comes from having large companies. This will not have an immediate effect, we are defining the future plenary session, which will go to the elections in October 2027. If we have made a mistake in the approach, the voters will have the say.
Do you think it could harm you in your re-election?
I suppose I will run again for the same title. If I end up being the president, the plenary session will decide. When I started, I said that my idea was to stay for four years and have someone from Va d’Empresa take over from me. This is a conversation we are having that may happen next year or in two years. I do not rule out running again, if the candidacy suits it. Although I believe a lot in the renewal of positions and in not flattering oneself in a place like the Chamber.
On Friday the budget execution data was released. Catalonia receives 8.6% of the investment, when its weight in the Spanish GDP is 19%.
It’s very bad news. Recently at the Chamber we presented a report in which we estimated at 52,000 million the investment that the State should make in Catalonia until 2040. With these data the calculation will worsen. Instead of reducing the deficit we are increasing it. There is no excuse that, whatever color the Government may be, this continues to happen. There are communities that are capable of getting very close to 100% or even exceeding it. The Government should say something about it immediately, take measures to prevent it from happening again and compensate for it. It is difficult to explain how with a Spanish Government very close to the Catalan executive we have repeated this situation. It has no explanation.
Do you share the conclusions of the Fènix Report of a group of economists who blamed sectors such as tourism or meat for the low productivity of Catalonia?
We are doing an in-depth analysis but I can point out some first opinion. We consider that pointing out any sector as responsible for low productivity is a mistake. When we analyze the problem of productivity, compared to other countries that have more productivity, we see that it is a reality that cuts across all sectors. Here we all have a job as a country to explore issues linked to education, talent, investment, and infrastructure to develop these sectors.
Source: Lavanguardia
