Completing the greater market without touching what's already been achieved on SGIs. The partial de-dramatisation, in the “Competitiveness” Council, of the draft “services” directive (see our bulletin of 25 September, page 9) is positive. Before, there had been excess reactions on the part of the proponents of the text, and that of its opponents. For the former, the effective liberalisation of services within the Union is not just necessary, but it could also give a much-needed boost to economic activity; for the latter, it would be the death blow to the universal nature of the provision of services of general interest to all citizens, and therefore to the European model of society.
It is true that services have an ever greater contribution to make to employment and the national product, and have largely overtaken industry as factors in these. But apart from cross-border exceptions, you don't go abroad for a plumber or someone to repair your telly, or to get a nurse to give you an injection or a hairdresser to cut your children's hair, or a driver to drive you to the airport. The lion's share of services will always be national, and we should not mythologise the effects of opening them up to international competition. But services are one of the “four freedoms”: goods, persons, capital and services. The common market is not complete without all four, and the advantages of competition can help get the economy going. Any serious and well-balanced debate must therefore:
acknowledge that the services sector cannot be excluded from the greater unified market, and that competition is beneficial for consumers and citizens in general;
- recognise the need to safeguard what has already been achieved in terms of SGIs (services of general interest; education, health, electricity, water, telephone, etc), the availability of which for all citizens has been recognised as an essential part of the European model of society.
Bypassing anathema. The “Competitiveness” Council finally seems to be heading in the direction of this compromise, following last week's informal lunch between ministers. It is therefore becoming possible to discuss this without getting into the anathema thrown by either side at each other. The draft developed under the guidance of Frits Bolkestein and approved by the Commission had indeed led to energetic debates, especially in Belgium, long before the institutional debate within the European Parliament and the Council started. Now, with the debate underway, it is clear that the European democratic mechanisms will have their part, and that the final decision will come down to the representatives of the people and the States. The first discussions between the national delegations and within the European Parliament demonstrated the need for greater clarification of the draft, as it has appeared that various essential parts remain up in the air or can be interpreted in different ways. Our bulletin of 14 September (pages 14-15) published an overview of the controversial points and the national positions.
A text to be improved. The German Socialist rapporteur of the European Parliament, Evelyne Gebhardt, acknowledged that the Commission's initiative is appropriate, because the success of the Lisbon strategy depends on the completion of the internal market, but stressed that the scope of the directive is unclear. The non-economic SGIs (health, education etc) would be excluded from the liberalisation, but “grey areas” exist where the boundaries between the economic and the social are slightly blurred, especially for healthcare issues. Equally uncertain is the status of financial services: they are regulated by specific directives and are thus excluded from the general directive; but what about pension funds or insurance services? Relations with Community directives on seconded workers, public procurement and the recognition of qualifications also need to be clarified: according to Ms Gebhardt, there are overlaps, in some cases even conflicts between the texts in force and the new draft. As well and above all, the fundamental principle of the application of the regime of the country of origin raises uncertainty and confusion, especially on equal rights for the consumer: how can a citizen of any country be subject to different regimes depending on whether a service is provided by a national provider or one from another Member State? Ms Gebhardt said that she would call upon the Parliament to approve the directive as long as greater mention is made of consumers, that the safety of workers and companies is guaranteed, and provisions on the SGIs are respected.
In conclusion, our pleasure that the irrational positions based on gut reactions have been put aside should not disguise the fact that there are still a great many vague points. Completing the internal market, yes. Calling into question what has been achieved in other fields thanks to decades of hard work, no. (F.R.)