Brussels, 23/11/2005 (Agence Europe) - After more than three hours of voting, the committee on internal market on Tuesday night adopted by 25 in favour and 10 against with 5 abstentions the report by Evelyne Gebhardt (PSE, Germany) on the proposed services directive. The German social democrat, who abstained, did not wish to give any voting indications. Satisfied with some of the changes made on the scope of application of the directive, she still thought that “the definition of the country of origin principle does not allow me to vote in favour of the text”, and creates “legal uncertainty”. Rallying round several amendments from the ALDE and UEN groups, the British conservative Malcolm Harbour welcomed the vote, which, in his view, “safeguards the necessary freedom from which companies should benefit” in the single market, and preserves the “role of public authorities, at local and national level”, particularly with regard to “issues of public health and safety”.
In an atmosphere which has calmed down since the vote in committee was postponed (EUROPE 9042), the political groups on the right (PPE/DE, ADLE, UEN) and left (PSE, Green/ALE, GUE/NGL) had released several compromise amendments, which the vote on Tuesday confirmed (EUROPE 9072). The divergences were crystallised on the more delicate issues of the scope of application and the country of origin principle, sometimes with tight majorities and leading nonetheless to a result which still reduces the scope of the Commission's initial proposal (the much derided “Bolkestein directive”). These are all signs that there seems to be room for manoeuvre on this text, which will probably go to the vote in plenary in February 2006. In particular, the position of some members of the PPE-DE and ADLE groups (in particular French, Belgian, Luxembourg and Austrian members) do not seem to be set in stone.
On Tuesday in the committee, the principle of country of origin, the line defended by the right (PPE-DE, ALDE, UEN) was maintained, but with particular conditions in terms of the public, security or for the protection of the environment or health required in exercising a service activity. The vote provided for the exclusion of services of general interest (SGI) from the scope of application of the directive, but not services of general economic interest (SGEI), by two votes. The principle of including SGEIs contains several exceptions, however: for gambling (including casinos), audiovisual services (including cinema and sound broadcasting), professions and activities linked to authority (in particular lawyers) and health services. Temporary work agencies are however included in the scope of the directive. In general terms, SGEIs still escape the country of origin principle (article 16) and the evaluation procedure (articles 14 and 15).
“We proposed that companies which offer public services on a commercial basis should be able to benefit from the freedoms in the directive, even if certain sensitive fields (…) must be excluded”, declared Mr Harbour, whereas his ally in these circumstances Anneli Jäätteenmäki (ADLE, Finland) wanted to be realistic. “Even if we are not completely satisfied, we have at least achieved the necessary clarification of the scope of application of this directive, which the European Commission should have done from the initial proposal to cut short all unfounded concerns”, she declared in a press release. When questioned by the press, Evelyne Gebhardt on the other hand thought that the “rewriting" of the directive by the parliamentary committee would in no way alter the concerns of some European citizens. Mr Harbour, in contrast, thought that if the plenary follows the vote in committee, the Parliament will have responded to the electorate's concerns. This vote “will compromise the possibilities for the organisation of public services for the national, regional and local public authorities”, said Pierre Jonckheer, a Belgian Green, who was supported by Harlem Désir, a French socialist, who deemed the vote a "heavy blow to Europe at a time when the citizens expect signs of a defence of the European social model, not liberal running away”. This was a position shared by another French socialist, Benoît Hamon, who thought that the European right had “blithely ignored months of social mobilisation and the outright expressions of rejection of liberal policies in the French and Dutch referendums”.
“With a clear exemption from the country of origin principle for issues linked to the environment, employment or social rules, the new draft should respond to those who criticise the directive”, said Hans-Werner Müller of UEAPME. Ina press release, UNICE also declared itself satisfied with the overall result of the vote, with its President, Ernest Antoine Seillière, calling on MEPs to confirm these lines in plenary so that the directive remains “neutral with respect to the posting of workers directive”.