Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)

Sinn Féin supports the motion tabled by the Independent Deputies in the Technical Group. As the Government clearly did not intend allowing time for this matter, we welcome the opportunity to debate this important EU services directive. We join the Independent Deputies in urging Members of this House to mandate the Government to reject the directive at the Council of Ministers. If passed the directive would have profound impact on the lives of workers and service users across Ireland and the EU. It would also have potentially grave implications for the environment. The directive is symptomatic of the general shift to the right and the adoption of the neo-liberal agenda of privatisation and deregulation.

Sinn Féin belongs to the Confederal Group of the European United Left-Nordic Green Left, GUE-NGL, in the European Parliament. Our group has been the most united on the services directive and has strongly opposed it from the beginning. In doing so we have worked alongside many organisations that have called for it to be withdrawn. Sinn Féin members who attended a major conference of political parties, trade unions and NGOs in Brussels were accompanied by representatives of trade unions from Ireland, SIPTU, UNISON and the Independent Workers Union among them.

As Deputy Morgan said last night, in common with the European Trade Union Confederation, Sinn Féin believes that neither the current text nor the report from the Internal Market Committee secures high level quality of services and social progress in the EU. We recognise that the Internal Market Committee has proposed some important improvements to the Commission's draft, for example, stating that the objective of the directive is not to deal with labour law, collective agreements and industrial action. It is accepted that some public services, health in particular, should be excluded from the scope of the directive.

We will strive to uphold those improvements but the Internal Market Committee, IMC, has left the Commission's proposal largely intact. The original proposal has not been withdrawn or significantly changed. We remain opposed to the directive and will vote to reject it in the European Parliament in February. We encourage others to do so. However, we will support any amendments that address our key concerns, among them that the country of origin principle remains.

Some who have recognised that there is strong opposition to this principle are now calling it something else, such as the freedom to provide services. The groups that Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael belong to have changed the wording, which does not alter the threat posed any more than changing the name of Windscale to Sellafield. The country of origin principle will lead to social dumping or the encouragement of downward regulatory competition between member states. The removal of the principle in its entirety is a prerequisite for support for any proposal in respect of the services directive.

In response to a parliamentary question I tabled to the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment in December 2005 regarding the Government's position on the country of origin principle, the Minister made it crystal clear that the Government supports it. He went so far as to argue that the introduction of the principle is necessary to give legislative effect to the treaty right of free movement of services. I contest this. The county of origin principle has no treaty basis. The Government's chosen interpretation of the right to free movement of services as implying that member states cannot introduce their own democratically determined laws and regulations governing the provision of services is a massive and disproportionate leap.

The country of origin principle is in direct conflict with other articles of the treaty relating to subsidiarity, workers' rights and the freedom to provide services. For example, Article 39 of the consolidated version of the Treaty Establishing the European Community states: "To stay in a member state for the purpose of employment in accordance with the provisions governing the employment of nationals of that state laid down by law, regulation or administrative action". Article 50 states: "Without prejudice to the provisions of the chapter relating to the right of establishment, the person providing a service may, in order to do so, temporarily pursue his activity in the state where the service is provided, under the same conditions as are imposed by that state on its own nationals."

The main thrust of the services directive is still one of deregulation, including the elimination of authorisation schemes, monitoring procedures and the provisions aimed at ensuring quality and access. In all sectors, the host member state must be enabled to monitor and supervise all service providers operating in its jurisdiction. The ability to regulate service provision in the public interest is an essential tool that elected authorities must be allowed to keep.

The deregulatory nature of this directive in areas other than employment conditions is an aspect that has been unfortunately absent from the debate. The directive severely limits the ability of elected authorities to use laws, regulations and administrative requirements to ensure that the services are accessible, continuous and of high quality. This will have detrimental consequences for society and, in particular, vulnerable groups. For example, Greece has no equivalent to Ireland's Equal Status Act 2000. That is, Greece has no anti-discrimination laws governing the provision of services. Therefore, under the country of origin principle, Greek service providers can operate discriminatory practices in the course of their business in this country, which would have a negative impact on the social and economic interests of, for example, people with disabilities.

The EU and this Government must not be allowed to enforce a single market in services without harmonising social and environmental guarantees upwards across all member states. In areas where harmonisation exists, this directive prohibits member states from demanding standards above the bare minimum. It is important to note that this constitutes a break from the manner in which harmonisation usually operates in the EU. Normally, harmonisation relates to the minimum acceptable standard to which members states are free and encouraged to approve. Under the current draft of this directive, the opposite is the case.

Sinn Féin believes that all services of general interest — EU-speak for public services, economic or non-economic — should be excluded from the scope of the directive. While the simple exclusion of services of general economic interest alone, as proposed by some, would constitute an improvement, it would be inadequate protection given the absence of a clear and sufficient definition of such services.

As Deputy Morgan explained, language relating to labour law, collective bargaining and industrial relations is ambiguous in the Internal Market Committee's report. Stronger and unambiguous language ensuring that the directive in no way interferes with labour law, collective bargaining and industrial relations in member states and explicitly refers to the right to take industrial action is needed.

If this Government truly wishes to protect workers, service users and the environment, it will reject this directive. I urge the Government at this stage to take the opportunity to do so.

See this speech in context