By Evelyne Gebhardt MEP - 6th February 2006
Keeping public services out of the scope of the services directive will ensure higher standards of social cohesion and consumer protection, argues Evelyne Gebhardt MEP.
We need the services directive – that is to say, we need legislation that ensures the opening of the European services market.
But at the same time we have to be careful how to achieve this objective.
The key question behind the discussion about the services directive is whether we want the EU to be simply a large free-trade area or whether we want it also to enshrine the principles of the European social model, focusing on citizens and their needs.
Do we want to focus solely on improving the competitive environment for European companies, even if this comes at the expense of the structures and systems put in place by the member states?
Should we try to guarantee the quality of public services or should we focus on liberalisation at all costs?
I think the European commission has chosen the wrong approach in its proposal for the services directive.
The text transmitted to the European parliament is unacceptable in its current version.
As a result, we have to revise it profoundly and try to improve it.
The main bone of contention on the services directive is without doubt the so-called “country of origin principle”.
This states that service providers are only subject to the regulations of the member state in which they are established.
Providers would thus only have to respect the provisions of their country of establishment, even when offering a service in another member state.
I believe this approach should not be used in the case of the services directive because it means a greater risk of a lowering of standards in terms of environmental protection, social protection and labour law.
In addition, the commission’s proposal is not compatible with existing European legislation, such as the directive on the posting of workers or the directive on the mutual recognition of diplomas.
Which legislation would apply in the case of a profession that is regulated in one member state and not in another country?
Closely linked to the country of origin principle is the question of control. Under the commission’s proposal, the authorities of the member state of establishment are responsible for controlling the activities of companies, but how practical is it for, say, the Belgian authorities to control the activities of a Belgian company offering services in Italy?
These provisions are clearly neither reasonable nor practicable; therefore, I am currently working on an alternative to the country of origin principle.
I am convinced that we need to find a balance between the effective opening of the European services market and the preservation of high quality services.
In order to achieve this, we must ensure that both services of general interest and services of general economic interest are excluded from the scope of the services directive.
As it stands, it is unclear from the commission’s proposal which services would actually be concerned by the directive.
A particular service such as waste management can be open to competition from the private sector in one member state but considered a public service in another.
The different definitions of services of general interest and services of general economic interest in the various member states has simply led to even greater confusion.
Though the internal market and consumer protection committee has already voted in favour of excluding services of general interest from the directive’s scope, we still need a clear exclusion of services of general economic interest, such as social services, waste management or water supply, if we want to guarantee high standards of service provision, consumer protection and social cohesion.
The vote on the services directive in the February plenary session will not be like any other vote – it will be a crucial decision on the future development of the EU and on the core values we attach to it.
This article originally appeared in the February 6 edition of Parliament Magazine.
Have your say...
Please enter your comments below.