Paudge Connolly (Cavan-Monaghan, Independent)

The proposal for a new services directive, the brainchild of former EU Commissioner Bolkestein, is under attack from all sides. It has been called the "Frankenstein directive" and the "directive from hell". It even emerged as an issue in the French referendum campaign on the EU constitutional treaty. It represents a declaration of war on working men and women and their social, health care and educational provisions, which are the fruits of two centuries of struggle. Even the European Council has called for it to be profoundly revised to safeguard the European social model.

In January 1993, the Single Market was supposed to come into effect providing four basic freedoms, namely, of goods, capital, persons and services. One would have expected the services sector would have been opened up after more than 13 years and that there would be no need to liberalise trade and services at this point. Until now, free movement of services, which accounts for 70% of the EU's employment, has been strangled by a patchwork of legislation and red tape. Many EU member states continue to display a distinctly unco-operative attitude to foreigners who try to establish small businesses on their territory. The proposed directive is more than a hammer to break a nut since the nut is treated as if it were a weapon of mass destruction. It sends the legal equivalent of stealth bombers to hammer those responsible into submission. In its current form, the directive would expose all services to the cold draft of market-based competition. What will the exposure of essential services to pre-competition mean? The heart of the services directive, the country of origin principle, so beloved by Gama and Irish Ferries, is the most disturbing aspect of the proposal.

We need definitive clarification on a number of issues. Would it allow companies to provide services in any EU member state following the rules and laws not of the country where the services will be provided but of the country where it is established? Established does not necessarily mean that a firm has any real roots in a particular part of the world, since a US multinational could simply establish itself in Latvia or Lithuania, for example, by registering its presence there as a post box company. It could mean that it could trade in Ireland or any part of the EU by conforming only to the Latvian or Lithuanian law on matters like health and safety, workers' rights and environmental protection. Unscrupulous multinationals wishing to exploit fully the directive need only ascertain the various countries' strengths and weaknesses before deciding where to establish themselves.

It would not take long for Irish companies to cotton on. Irish Ferries amply demonstrated how quickly it could do so. As a result, labour relations would be soured and poisoned well into the future. Differences in standards of pay and social security must not be used to play one economy off against the other until the lowest level of social protection has been reached. Country of origin is the most dangerous and offensive aspect of the proposal, which is utterly unacceptable.

Recently, there was reference to the mushroom industry in Cavan and Monaghan. It is an important part of industry in that area but a wrong is a wrong regardless of where it happens. If a cleaner in a school is exploited, every school should not be tarred with the same brush. There is a feeling in the mushroom industry in Cavan and Monaghan, which is such a vital part of the economy in the area, that the industry is being singled out for criticism. More than 95% of growers in the area treat all workers, both national and non-nationals, the same. They are paid the same rates. It is a low wage industry but it is an important part of the economy in the area. It is worthwhile pointing out that there were 900 mushroom growers in the area just a few years ago. In the past 18 months, the area lost more than 50 growers and there are now just 150 growers in the Cavan and Monaghan area.

See this speech in context