Brussels, 15/02/2011 (Agence Europe) - The report by Evelyne Gebhardt (S&D, Germany) on implementation of the directive on the liberalising of services in the EU was approved by the European Parliament (EP) by a show of hands, with support coming from the three main political groups (EPP, S&D and ALDE), though it was opposed by the Greens/EFA, the GUE/NGL and the Eurosceptics.
During the previous day's plenary session debate, the rapporteur reminded MEPs of the lively debates in 2006 that accompanied the drafting and adoption of the directive, which aims to help complete the single market in the services sector and, thus, to encourage economic activity and employment (potentially it represents an increase in EU GDP of between 0.6 and 1.5%). Four years on and the EP has been called on to assess how well the directive is being applied in relation to four points: - the process of peer assessment by member states, which was supposed to raise standards through the sharing of best practice; - the scope of the directive, which applies the principle of the “country of destination” (that is, application of the law of the country where the service is provided) and does not include services of general interest; - points of single contact (PSCs) or one-stop-shops where useful information can be found (mainly with regard to the national administrative practices of member states) and made rapidly available to service providers from other member states - in electronic format too - in their own language and in English; - cooperation between the administrations of the different member states in the exchange of information to ensure the directive works well.
The main failings flagged up by the rapporteur and MEPs are: - delays and unequal levels of transposition and implementation of the directive among member states, the legislation of which is often far too complex; - the inadequacy of one-stop-shops which are too few and are poorly equipped (language is a major handicap for SMEs) when these are the key to the success of the directive and must be easily accessible both physically and electronically; - the lack of training and awareness-raising by national administrations; - the lack of legal clarity over the areas where the directive applies, and in particular over those areas that are not part of the directive (resulting from the vagueness of the definition of services of general interest - SGI - and unclear distinction from services of general economic interest -SGEI).
Internal Market and Services Commissioner Michel Barnier wholeheartedly agreed and set out the measures the Commission intends to take: make the one-stop-shops “genuine administrative portals” that will allow companies to carry out all the formalities online and in their own languages; make more widespread the use of electronic signatures and documents; improve the quality of translations and of electronic translation instruments; and train national civil servants in a “culture of administrative cooperation”. He said the three main instruments in the application of the directive would be the one-stop-shops, the information and information exchange system on the internal market (IMI) and the Solvit network (for informally resolving disputes resulting from incorrect application of internal market rules by national administrations).
During the debate, the largest political groups (EPP, S&D and ALDE) supported the conclusions of the report and the aims and general thrust of the directive. Opposition came from: the Greens, who were critical of the costs of assessment for public administrations and the ambiguities of the directive which fails to take sufficient account of public services; the GUE/NGL, which criticised the liberalism of a directive which puts the free market above the right to organise, destroys pubic services and increases social and wage dumping; and the Right and the Eurosceptics, who see it as EU intrusion in national affairs and a further source of red tape. (F.G./transl.rt)