Progress for transparency. The Luxembourg Presidency of the Council is going to start again from scratch, or thereabouts. I refer to the infamous Bolkestein directive on the liberalisation of services. The current Dutch Presidency first of all tried to speed up its adoption, but in the end they realised that they were kidding themselves if they thought they would be able to get it through this month at first reading: it has no choice but to bequeath it to the next Presidency. And Luxembourg has already given clear signs that it will move forward with discretion and circumspection. According to one minister, the phenomenon of distrust towards Europe and sometimes even outright rejection of it, which we can see within certain political circles and sections of the general public in many Member States, has homed in on this text. It is rare for a European Commission proposal to provoke such a flurry of protest and even, on occasion, demonstrations in the street, and for it to take the name of the person who set it in motion. This is why the Luxembourg authorities feel that judgement and realism dictate that the whole of the draft must be re-examined before moving ahead with caution. It is certainly true that accusations that Europe has opted for a so-called "liberal" economic policy have homed in on this text. But these accusations are unjustified: what is happening with this directive proves that European democracy is making progress from the point of view of the transparency of its decision-making mechanisms.
Grounds for concern. What actually happened? Frits Bolkestein, whose political beliefs and positions are well know, got his draft approved by the Prodi Commission and proposed to the legislative authorities. This started off the legislative procedures, openly and transparently. The European Parliament held (on 11 November, see our bulletin of 13 November, p.15) a hearing at which all interested parties (and God knows there's a lot of them) were able to put their views, and all the different opinions and angles were heard and academics and lawyers were able to give the benefit of their wisdom too. In my opinion, the Parliament's Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection, chaired by Philip Whitehead, managed to demonstrate a veritable model of transparency and democracy. Rapporteur Evelyne Gebhardt, of the Socialist group, has specific and useful indications on what's at stake with the draft, on the positions as they stand and the very serious gaps and shortfalls with the current text; prompting her to say that they left the hearing "with more questions than before". The Parliamentary Committee met again on 23 November to assess the results of the hearing, and the verdict is clear: the Bolkestein draft raises a staggering number of meaty problems which it only answers in part, and itself adds a considerable number more to the pile. The summary put together by Nathalie Lhayani for the association "Confrontations Europe" points out that Frits Bolkestein and his services have repeated incessantly that concerns about this draft were the results of misunderstandings, or, according to an employers' representative, from "irrational fears"; the Parliamentary committee, on the other hand, stated that "these fears were well-founded", in large part at least (Mia de Vits). I will refrain from going back over the main issues that have arisen; they are indeed quite serious, and the legal uncertainties over the repercussions of the draft are fairly impressive.
Ms Gebhardt takes her time. Given the situation, the rapporteur deemed it necessary to take her time. In January, Mr Gebhardt will present a working document, to prepare the ground, and it is not until March at the earliest that she will produce a report which may, in its intentions, receive "the approval of public opinion and all interested circles" (which, in practice, means drastic changes to the current draft). There can be no plenary vote on it until June at the earliest, and the Council will have to wait for this vote to define its "common position" ahead of the second reading. This timetable presupposes that the principle of a directive on liberalisation itself is not compromised, because the services feature among the four "freedoms of movement" (goods, capital, people and services), which are the basis of the single market. However, a minority of MEPs, including the Green Pierre Jonckheer, have reservations on the very principle of having a cross-cutting directive, and the EP's committee on the environment feels that the Barroso Commission should withdraw its proposal.
Justified caution. At the first debate at ministerial level within the Council, certain Member States called one of the essential principles of the directive into question, that of applying the legislation of the Member State of origin to workers providing a service in another Member State (see our bulletin of 26 November, page 11). We can see it, it is open, and the caution heralded by Luxembourg is entirely justified. (F.R.)