Services Directive

The vote
Jean's position on the Directive
Green Group position
October 2006
November 2006
What next?

The aim of the Services Directive is to create a free market for the services sector.  It is believed that the removal of barriers in service provision would encourage cross-border competition.  However rules and standards governing services are very different across the 25 EU Member States.  If the original Services Directive proposal had gone through, safety nets in Member States could also have been removed and so there was a risk of ‘social dumping’ in key sectors. 

The Vote
The Services Directive vote took place on February 16th 2006.  In the months leading up to the vote, the Greens campaigned against the Directive.

The controversial Directive was in the end amended and approved by the European Parliament. However, while labour law and many important services such as healthcare were excluded from its scope, some social services, including education and environmental services were kept in. 

Green MEPs therefore voted against the Directive warning that it does not provide adequate protection for public services.

Back to top

Jean’s position on the Directive
Jean felt strongly that health was not a commercial service to be traded across borders like kitchen sinks, and she was against its inclusion in the Services Directive. 

To explain Jean’s and the Green Group's position Jean produced a report The Bolkestein Directive: Health Warning which heard from the British Medical Association, The Royal College of Nursing and the European Federation of Public Services Unions. 

Click here to download The Bolkestein Directive report.

“The Services Directive is a mess.  That is why the Greens in the European Parliament, with other progressive colleagues, have been trying to get the proposal withdrawn and campaigning to have a Directive on Services of General Interest decided first which would set out the protective framework needed for these essential public services.

“Our belief is that the current Directive is not good for workers, consumers or business.  It transfers responsibility for understanding the law and its operation to the individual from the Government, authorities – the ultimate privatisation.  It is so badly drafted that it includes health and care services, yet no-one can clearly say why these need to be there and what the effect will be on these public services.  The arguments about jobs rest on sandy ground – while jobs may be created there is no guarantee that they will be the ‘quality’ jobs demanded by the EU’s so-called Lisbon Agenda and it is not clear how many jobs might be lost.

Jean Lambert, Green MEP
Back to top

Green Group Position
The Green’s support the objective of reducing unjustified obstacles to the free movement of services but oppose the so-called ‘Bolkestein Directive’ for the following reasons:

· The justification for the Commission’s proposal is more ideological than practical.
· The Directive will lead to social and environmental dumping.
· The impact of the Directive on growth and employment is over estimated.
· The scope is much too wide and includes services of general (economic) interest.
· The Directive potentially contradicts the application of some provisions of the new Constitutional Treaty.
· There has been no serious legal impact study and therefore the Directive would lead to legal uncertainties.
· The Directive is incompatible with the Directive on posting of workers.
· There are better ways to achieve some of the Commission’s relevant objectives. 

Click here for the full Green Group position paper and suggested alternatives on the Services Directive.

Back to top

October 2006
The Greens and other left wing parties tabled amendments to improve the Services proposal in the Internal Market Committee but they were blocked by other political groups as the Council had already announced it would not accept amendments to its common position.

Back to top


November 2006
In contrast to the previous Plenary vote, there was a lack of political mobilisation calling for better public service protection prior to the second reading. The Greens re-tabled their amendments but were aware that the bigger groups were likely to block them in the final vote. The Greens therefore had to vote against the final package, not because they are against the free movement of services but because services will be put at risk under this Directive. The text went through Parliament largely unaltered. Both the PSE (left) and PPE (right) were claiming a victory - which in itself proves how ambiguous the final package was.

After the vote Jean submitted a written explanation to Parliament.

Back to top

What next?
After the formal adoption by the Council, the EU procedure will finish. The Greens will keep a close eye on how the Directive is transposed in Member States with the possibility of a revision process a few years after the Directive enters into force.

Back to top