James Hugh Allister (NI). – Madam President, 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, particularly in its original form in the proposed directive, is for me a bridge too far: it would be injurious to home-grown employment to permit 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, ultimately, local consumers, would be the losers. Competition must not just be free: it must also be fair, and it seems to me that principle is being swept aside.

My second area of objection to this directive is its scope. I cannot 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 the quality of such services 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 the plaything of profit-driven providers. Thus this is a directive which I cannot, and will not, support.