Brussels, 10/11/2004 (Agence Europe) - On the eve of the hearing organised on Thursday (11 November) by the EP on the "Bolkestein Directive" on internal market services (see also yesterday's EUROPE, p.15, and 9 November, p.13), many different stances were expressed on this subject on Wednesday.
European employers (UNICE), while supporting the general approach of the proposed directive, nonetheless consider it necessary to adjust a number of terms, not only to guarantee that the single market in the services sector works correctly, but also to ensure that all unfair competition is avoided. In its position paper prepared for Thursday's hearing, UNICE calls for an explicit statement of what kinds of services would be covered by the directive, and those that would not. It would also be necessary to speak of "host country" rather than the "Member State of establishment", UNICE considers, explaining that the first notion is "far less ambiguous". A more precise definition should be given of the term "establishment" with a view to excluding what is commonly called "company post boxes". UNICE finds, moreover, that the directive's approach on freedom of establishment should be simplified and clarified as far as authorisation procedures are concerned. On the subject of the freedom of movement of services, the employers' organisation highlights the fact that general exemption to the principles of the country of origin on the basis of the political situation, security and public health should not be discriminatory, should be fully justified and assessed at regular intervals in order to ensure they are not used for undermining the main aim of the directive, which is to reduce the obstacles to the free movement of services. On the matter of the rights of those benefiting from services, UNICE notes that the components of a service provided in different Member States can vary, as is the case for costs and price. Price adjustment must remain possible, the European employers' organisation adds. The terms "objective criteria" and "discriminatory conditions" must be defined more clearly in the proposal of directive, UNICE also states. As far as the reference to posted workers is concerned, UNICE considers that administrative simplification must not create legal insecurity or transfer administrative charges onto the enterprise using the services of the company employing a posted worker. Finally, UNICE calls for the "service quality" chapter to be restricted as a general rule to entrepreneur-consumer relations. Regarding follow-up, the host country must be able to carry out controls and inspections on what foreign service providers are doing, UNICE says.
The European Centre for Enterprises with Public Participation (CEEP) is requesting that the draft directive takes into full consideration, the specificities of the services o general economic interest. CEEP Secretary General , Rainer Plassmann, underlined in a press statement the need for ensuring better balance between developing the internal market for services and considerations about respect for labour legislation and quality health services for all European citizens. Mr Plassmaan said that coherency with the White Paper was necessary when services of general interest were involved. He also appealed for services of general interest to be excluded from the country of origin principle, which he thought incompatible with the competencies of Member States when defining the contents and quality of service on their own territory. The EEP also affirmed that the provisions proposed for services of general economic interest for transport, health and audio-visual had to be amended and excluded from the field of application because their had their own legal bases. Plassmann explained that the CEEP would strive actively to get exact amendments proposed that aimed to consolidate the Community acquis in social domains and public services but also to preserve the competence of Member States in defining, organising and regulating these services in respect of the subsidiarity principle.
The European Federation of Public Service Unions (EFPSU, member of the European Confederation of Trade Unions (ETUC), on the other hand is very much opposed to the draft directive, for a number of reasons. It argues that citizens want a balanced Europe: European construction has come at a vital moment in its history. The EFPSU asks whether the ideology of competitiveness at any price going to overshadow other problems? The union wants a Europe that is close to its citizens, as well as a balance between competitiveness and other cornerstone values. The EFPSU also affirms that the Commission had promised to consult civil society on the liberalisation of social services. But this promise has been broken and the directive is cutting short the debate on services of general interest. The union believes that this consultation should be carried out before other measures are proposed that have an impact on these services. Moreover, the draft directive is not balanced, and its contents creates doubts, even among its fervent supporters. The EFPSU considers that there is very little to win but much to lose by making the best of a bad proposal. "The Commission should therefore withdraw its proposal" because it "lacks quality" as well. The EFPSU is posing a number of question about how the directive will affect the quality of services, "and not only public services". It also asserts that if quality standards are lacking, the directive will not improve the level of services provided to consumers or citizens. Health care and social services, such as care for the elderly are "too important to be left to the market". The union therefore rejects public service providers being put on the same footing as private providers and is therefore against the concept of "neutrality" in this area. The public sector cannot abandon its responsibilities to citizens, when the private sector can at the same time choose and limit its own responsibilities. The EFPSU says that there is a fundamental difference and that the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice should not be the only source of inspiration when solidarity and subsidiarity were indispensable.