Eoin Ryan (UEN). – Mr President, this is an extremely interesting debate. As you know, the Commission published a White Paper on the issue, recommending that a framework directive be put in place to cover services of general interest. However, I do not agree with that approach; I believe that we should support regulations governing specific economic sectors. I would certainly agree with the idea in principle, but I believe that an overarching directive would cause enormous confusion in the debate, especially in the debate in Member States. It could lead to hysteria if people do not understand exactly what it means. That is why I believe we have to be far more specific and look at the directive sector by sector, at the existing providers of services. What we are trying to do here is improve services for the citizens of Europe so they will understand exactly what has been proposed; so that consumers will not be frightened that a directive which comes from Europe could privatise or undermine existing services within their country. It is very important to approach this with clarity so people can understand exactly what has been proposed by both the Commission and Parliament.

The EU has competence over matters such as telecommunications, transport and energy, but it does not have competence under the EU Treaties to legislate in a broad capacity on matters governing the operation of social services, health and education within the different Member States. The debate boils down to the powers of the EU institutions versus the competence of Member States. We must be very careful with regard to that issue.

It surprises me that some Members are against that, whereas they are very much in favour of tax harmonisation between Member States. To my mind that seems to contradict what they are saying in this debate. I do not believe in tax harmonisation. I believe that Member States should control their own tax systems. That would encourage competition within the Union.