Brussels, 05/10/2005 (Agence Europe) - The committee on the internal market of the European Parliament ended up not voting on the 1200 amendments on the proposed directive on "Services in the internal market", on 4 October. By proposal of its president, the British Labour member Philip Whitehead, it decided by a large majority to postpone the vote to 21 and 22 November, in order to give the MEPs more time to draw up new compromise amendments within a dedicated working group: even though it is hard to see how it will be possible to overcome the very real rift between Right and Left in this highly sensitive matter. This is highlighted by the attitude of each camp, which lays the blame for postponing the vote firmly at the door of the other. The deadline for amendments to be tabled has been set for 12 October. The plenary vote is unlikely to take place before January 2006, under the Austrian Presidency.
"It is most regrettable that we have had to postpone today's vote", said Social Democrat Evelyne Gebhardt, rapporteur, who believes that the vote should have taken place on Tuesday. "If there is no compromise, we must vote. That's life, that's democracy", she said. Ms Gebhardt pointed out that she was in favour of the opening up of the markets for services, but that it must be "clear" that this should not happen unless social and environmental legislation is respected, and "therein lies the differences of opinion in the line of attack". She spoke out against the "almost abusive methods of the Right and the Liberals", who "do not want to make progress", and persist in favouring the principle of the country of origin. "The French Right is holding a double discourse on this dossier!" exclaimed French Socialist Béatrice Patrie in a press release. She added: "in Paris, Jacques Chirac says that we must completely really right the services directive. In Brussels, UMP members are refusing to get rid of the principle of the country of origin and clearly to exclude public services from the text (...). MEPs from the ALDE group (UDF), not to be outdone, have taken the same line as the UMP!".
"In this case, patience may be a virtue", said British Conservative Malcolm Harbour, who pointed out that "a lot of work remains to be done to reach a compromise in the next few weeks". We must "stop demonising the principle of the country of origin", he told EUROPE once the session had closed. He feels that Evelyne Gebhardt has made proposals which are "more restrictive" and "do not believe in the potential represented by the liberalisation of services of economic interest to growth". Also speaking out against an "unjustified delay", Jacques Toubon (EPP/ED, France) said that "the Socialists are refusing the obstacle". He feels that the amendments which were on the table would allow social dumping to be avoided and public services to be protected. Charlotte Cederschiöld (EPP/ED, Sweden), who had less to say about the postponement of the vote, pointed out that " the job of our committee is to adopt legislation on the internal market", then questioned the wisdom of waiting for the Austrian Presidency: "we know what the British Presidency wants, not what the Austrians want". On the Right, various MEPs felt that the delay in the vote was down to the Socialists, who were in the minority on certain key points.
Speaking for the Liberals, Toine Manders (Netherlands) said that he can accept the delay in the vote on condition that president Whitehead's refusal to admit the amendments by the ALDE, EPP/ED and UEN groups was due to nothing more than their tardiness. These amendments had been presented the evening before the vote in committee. Anneli Jäätteenmäki (ALDE, Finland), who was visibly disappointed, complained about the ambient atmosphere, saying "in this Parliament, we are starting to look like a nursery school". Heide Rühle (Greens/EFA, Germany) and Eva-Britt Svensson (GUE/NGL, Sweden) spoke out in favour of the vote being suspended, saying that if they wanted their amendments to be genuinely considered as a compromise proposals, the Conservatives and Liberals should have discussed them previously with the other groups.
On the substance, the scope of the directive and the principle of the legislation of the country of origin in matters of cross-border service provision remain the most controversial points. Generally, the PES, Greens/EFA and GUE/NGL groups would like to limit the scope of the directive, for instance by excluding all services of general interest (SGI), services of general economic interest (SGEI) and non-commercial services (although the GUE/NGL group continues to call for the text to be withdrawn altogether). The EPP/ED and ALDE groups agree to exclude the non-commercial SGI (education, justice, police), but not the SGEI (health care, water, waste, postal services, energy). The exclusion of Social Security, gambling, contract law and laws governing those exercising public authority appears to be a done deal. The Conservatives and Liberals seem to favour the use of the principle of the country of origin- or very similar concept- in the directive as it relates to access to a service and the exercise of this service, whilst putting a shade on its application, in the exclusion of the SGEI. In the view of the Socialists, the legislation of the host country should remain valid when the service is being provided.