Brussels, 12/12/2014 (Agence Europe) - Though the exchange of views among EU labour ministers on Thursday 11 December on the proposal for a directive on equal treatment certainly demonstrated the progress made, consensus on this matter remains a long way off, despite six years of debate.
The draft directive on implementation of the principle of equality of treatment among persons, irrespective of religion or conviction, handicap, age or sexual orientation, under negotiation since 2008, is with time becoming a skeleton in the cupboard of the Council of the EU. The Italian Presidency of the Council brought it out and tried to dust it down. Everyone is remaining determinedly upbeat but a sense of failure is gaining ground. This ambivalence is perhaps best illustrated by an attempt by the Presidency which, in hindsight, seems to smack of some hopelessness: suggesting making use of enhanced cooperation.
It might have failed to build consensus on the text as a whole but the Italian Presidency at least was successful in getting ministers to speak with a single voice on one point: “no” to enhanced cooperation. The idea is incongruous, remarked a number of delegations, including those of Finland and Greece. Greece highlighted the risk of a two-speed Europe on fundamental rights. Agreement on this point nevertheless leaves the matter far from settled, since this directive has to be adopted unanimously. While virtually all the member states acknowledge that progress has been made and that the guiding principles of the directive are appropriate, one delegation stands out from the rest - the United Kingdom. London retains serious concerns and cannot accept the directive as it currently stands.
Concerns, however, are not uniquely British. Several ministers raised a problem, perhaps not new, but which is probably more sensitive than six years ago: how much will transposition of the directive cost? Its scope extends to the areas of social protection (including social security and healthcare), social benefits and education, and to access to and supply of goods and services such as housing and transport.
Several member states, Belgium, Slovakia and the United Kingdom among them, remain reluctant, particularly with regard to two areas - social protection and education - seen by some as sacred matters of national sovereignty. So if the directive were to impinge on these two areas, it would have to do so from one single angle, that of physical access, several ministers stated.
Access means upgrading work and costs. Thus, providing access for the handicapped to old and new buildings, bringing infrastructure and methods of transport up to standard cause more than one capital to come out in a cold sweat. Quite naturally then, the idea of a longer deadline for transposition of the directive, particularly for new buildings, was the cornerstone of the remarks of several ministers. For new buildings, not two years, not five years, but eight would be acceptable, indicated Warsaw, for example. The Italian Presidency suggested five years for new buildings and 20 years for old. And how might one define what is a new building, remarked Estonia on the sidelines.
In this context, having an impact study for the directive would be of the greatest usefulness. One was indeed carried out by the European Commission - but in 2008. The European Parliament carried out a new study in January 2014 but Denmark, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, Estonia, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Luxembourg and Finland are all calling for another. The Commission and France say that this would serve no purpose. The issue becomes further complicated with the Commission idea of working on a European legislative act in 2015 that relates only to accessibility. It still needs to be more clearly defined as does how it would interact with the equal treatment directive.
While awaiting fresh technical discussions and possibly an impact study, the matter has been put back in the cupboard. (JK)