Brussels, 28/01/2005 (Agence Europe) - Belgian socialist Anne Van Lancker, the EP Committee on Employment and Social Affairs' rapporteur on the proposed services directive has presented her ideas on the “Bolkestein directive” at a meeting organised by the Italian delegation of the socialist group in the European Parliament. Presenting her first working document, she said that that a cross-cutting approach could be possible on two conditions: by excluding a greater number of activities, particularly economic services of general interest (ESGIs), and by introducing substantial amendments on the issue of the establishment of providers and temporary provision of services. The meeting exposed the differences in approach between trade unions and industry representatives. If everyone agrees on the need for a directive, the former fear that if the directive were adopted in its present state, it would open the way to competition between Member States and they are therefore demanding that the “country of origin” principle be abandoned. The latter, on the other hand, think that there must be no concession to “emotive issues” and that the “Bolkestein directive”, named after the former Commissioner behind the proposal, is a good basis for discussion.
In Anne Van Lancker's view, the legislative proposal on services in the single market “endanger European integration and social protection”. She said that she was “happy” that the Parliament has decided to “take its time”, referring to the proposals from the rapporteur Evelyne Gebhard (SPD) who was unable to promise a draft report before March to the Parliament Committee on the Single Market and Consumer Protection (see EUROPE of 21 January, p.9). “Rushing things would mean not taking account of civil society”, she said. Given the results of the hearing of November 2004 and her discussions with NGO representatives, Ms Van Lancker says in her working document that “the Commission should withdraw the proposal and table a new one” which takes account of criticisms and the clarifications she herself has made. She adds: “If the Commission is not willing to do so, the Parliament should amend this proposal substantially to make it acceptable”. First of all, Anne Van Lancker disputes the extent of the directive's field of application, where “the cross-cutting nature implies that the provisions will have repercussions on other policies for which the Treaty provides a specific legal basis for Community action”. As examples, she cites culture (article 151), public health (article 152), consumer protection (article 153) and transport (articles 70-80). In her view, it would therefore be “preferable to continue on the basis of a sectoral approach. Nonetheless, the Commission's concept could work if additional activities or sectors are excluded, and if substantial modifications are made to the provisions on the establishment of providers and temporary provision of services. This directive could serve as a framework for a process of gradual harmonisation, coupled with mutual recognition of conditions governing access to and exercising of services throughout the EU”.
The MEP repeated this at the meeting of the Italian delegation of the PSE group: “there should be serious consideration of completely excluding (economic) services of general interest from the directive's scope of application”. “Even if that concept is not clearly defined at European level”, the fact remains that the proposal “covers activities such as services linked to the network industries, healthcare services, social services, employment services and social housing”, in short “all of these services of general interest (SGI)”. Ms Van Lancker also thinks that the discussions on the services proposal should not affect ongoing reflection on the Commission's white paper on SGIs. Asked by EUROPE about a possible socialist group demand to make the adoption of a framework service directive dependent on that of a parallel SGI instrument, Anne Van Lancker thought it unlikely that such a link would be made, given the current Parliament majorities and the Commission's position. The latter thinks that there is in fact no legal basis for such a proposal and that they must wait until the future Constitution comes into force.
On the controversial country of origin principle, under which a service provider providing services in another Member State would be subject to the legislation of its Member State of origin, Anne Van Lancker diverged slightly from rapporteur Evelyne Gebhardt's position. “To say that harmonisation is too difficult (…), is to abandon the founding principle of European integration”, she said. However, in contrast to her colleague, she is not demanding that the country of origin principle be abandoned: “Its application should be limited to areas such as obligations for information and taking out insurance, leaving the option for the Member States to impose greater demands in terms of quality and security”, said Anne Van Lancker, who knows that her position will already be a step too far for the trade unions.