Hearing on the Services Directive
Thursday, 9 December 2004

Conclusions by Ms Marianne Thyssen

I think that we now have a very broad spectrum of information covering various sectors. This is a very good thing, because in dealing with this directive, we have all realised that it is going to be a rather sensitive matter.

As far as the audio-visual sector is concerned, we have heard that subsidiarity was applied even before the term existed and since it now appears in the treaties, there seems not to be much room of manoeuvre left. It has also been said that the television without frontiers directive is still there which seems to make the Commission think that there is no need to intervene into Member States' competencies in order to improve cultural plurality and independence of the media. Yet, there have been some concerns mentioned this morning and we therefore have to take them on board and see whether the necessary guarantees are there in the directive.

Concerning the contribution of Mr Pellegrino of Eurocommerce, we heard that as far as free establishment and as far as his association is concerned there are no problems and that they are relatively positive with regard to this directive. There might be a few details that have to be dealt with but he believes that the Parliament will be able to deal with it, and certainly we will all try.

Regarding the gambling sector and lotteries etc. I think that there are people who are worried that there may be a breach of state monopolies. Yet, in the text it says that this is not intended. Some make a distinction between state monopolies which are lotteries and private casinos, horse racing etc. I think we have now understood what this is about and we will have to deal with that.

Then we heard from Mr Grupp from the association of SMEs. He was very positive in general, I think. What he especially said is that we have got to work on the details of the directive.

As far as the health sector is concerned, I note that there are a number of arguments which speak in favour of keeping the health sector within the scope of the directive but we have also heard from people in the room who do not believe in that. We have heard about the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety Committee which says that this sector should actually be exempted from this directive. The question therefore is: should it be in or should it be out? Do we need a specific and separate regulation for this very specific area of health? I think, perhaps we might need a bit more discussion and information and claritywith regard to this issue. Of course there is a big difference of opinions also between the Committees and Members of Parliament and indeed members of our group. So I do think that we have got to think about this issue more intensely.

Of course the liberal professions are also directly concerned by this directive. I am very happy that we have heard two speakers, Mr Bedossa and Mr Metzler, and it occurred to me that signals are going off in two directions. If I understood rightly, CEPLIS is saying that they are rather in favour, at least as far as the country of origin principle is concerned and they believe it is a more positive than negative directive. Mr Bedossa also said that there ought to be room left for self-regulation. Perhaps in that framework many of the provisions which concern the liberal professions would be more easily implemented. First there has to be further harmonisation and then the directive could kick in. There is one thing that you mentioned, and that is liability insurance. I think that this not simply a question of legislation but problems are arising because markets themselves might be mutually exclusive especially in insurance and especially for the health personnel. Here perhaps you have to look a bit to what is happening in America. About the consensus on the country of origin principle, Mr Metzler said that this will only work if there is previous harmonisation. He referred to different conflicts which are still ongoing. I think we have to make a few distinctions here because the liberal professions cannot all be put into one basket. As there are so many different activities, the only common ground is that they are liberal professions.

Then Mr Mueller has been very much concerned with this directive, and he is not necessarily negative against this approach to organise the market for services. Yet he thinks that we ought to look a bit more how it is being done particularly with a questions mark on the country of origin principle. You were talking about free competition, consumers' confidence, high quality services and so on. Obviously we want to make sure that the directive that we approve will not have negative consequences. Mr Mueller also send out indeed a political message, and I can only say to you, Mr Mueller, that the EPP-ED will safeguard the interests of the SMEs as we have done in the past. In tourism, different profession are covered by this as well. And we heard how complicated the situation is for these people, and we have understood that.

To conclude our meeting let me just say finally that we have understood what is at stake in this directive and even if the scope is very broad, we are prepared to go down to the details and to get more information. This is why we organised today's meeting and we have got to be clear about the impact before we take decisions and correct the directive if necessary. Basically, however, we are not negative but positive. Even if we are not one hundred per cent happy, we know that we can improve things, and this is what we will try to do. Thank you very much for being here.