Allister says services directive is a threat to local jobs
15 February 2006
The key debate of the week in the Strasbourg Parliament was on the controversial Services Directive which the Commission is proposing as an extension to competition within the Internal Market. The Directive is seen as presenting a major threat to jobs in the EU-15 as it would permit service providers from right across Europe to operate freely in any Member State subject only to the national laws of the country where they are based in terms of employment in terms of labour and consumer legislation. Thus, it is perceived that foreign providers would have a distinct advantage over those currently providing these services in the UK and elsewhere.
The scope of the Directive is also a major issue with it being intended to apply not just to economic services but social services.
It was on these two key issues that Jim Allister MEP focused in his contribution to the debate as he declared himself opposed to the Directive. In the course of his remarks, Mr Allister said:-
"In the tension between totally free market access and the preservation of indigenous national employment, I unapologetically see the priority as protecting local jobs. Hence, the Country of Origin principle, in the proposed Services Directive, is for me a bridge too far. It would be injurious of home-grown employment by permitting service providers to operate in the host country of their choice without, unlike local providers, being subject to the same costly restraints in labour, consumer and environmental legislation. Thus, local employers, employees and consumers would be the losers.
Competition must not just be free, it must be fair. It seems to me, that principle has been swept aside.
My second area of objection to this Directive is its virtually unlimited scope. I can't accept that it should apply to core public services. Every nation owes a duty to provide such services and that duty should not be evaded or their quality diminished by allowing them to be provided by the cheapest "cowboy" source. Commercial services are one thing, but core public services like social housing and welfare provision are something quite different and should not be a pawn of profit-driven providers.
Thus, this is a Directive which I cannot support."
