On Wednesday 11 July, members of the European Parliament committee on employment and social affairs (EMPL) were divided during their first exchange on the regulation establishing the European Labour Authority. The scope of the authority was the main bone of contention.
The rapporteur for the text, Jeroen Lenaers (EPP, Netherlands), includes in his proposals that the scope of the authority as foreseen by the European Commission should be reduced to just one task – that of ensuring compliance with EU law. He expressed doubt about adding other tasks such as the provision of information or employment services.
As he sees it, such tasks should be entrusted to the relevant regional or national administrations, so as to take into account, as far as possible, any particular aspects arising from bilateral agreements, especially in the field of taxation. Here, the MEP suggested creating one-stop shops for businesses and workers in a cross-border situation.
This proposal was not welcomed by the shadow rapporteur, Georgi Pirinski (S&D, Bulgaria), who considers, on the contrary, that the authority’s scope “should not be limited or restricted”. He says that, if the authority’s role were focused only on ensuring European rules are upheld, this would obscure its role of coordinator.
Nonetheless, he did wish to specify the authority’s competence in respect of sharing competence. In addition, he advocates clarifying the organisational structure in order to: - sort out the structures grouped under the authority to only keep those that truly contribute to coordination; - better coordinate the “galaxy” of committees, commissions and networks linked to worker mobility; - and safeguard the platform for tackling undeclared work.
Ulrike Trebesius (ECR, Germany), on the other hand, takes a view along the lines of the rapporteur and fears that the authority’s extended scope would impinge upon the activities of other European bodies and agencies. In the same way, Geoffroy Didier (EPP, France) deems it necessary to give a limited framework respecting the principle of subsidiarity. Enrique Calvet-Chambon (ALDE, Spain), for his part, expressed scepticism about the study work that would be assigned to the authority.
The European Commission defended its position and explained that, if it was to be effective, the role of the authority could not be limited to simply respect of European rules. Communication and the dissemination of information for businesses and workers were part of the authority’s role as a precautionary measure.
Voluntary. There was another stumbling block. Lenaers wants to bring into question the voluntary nature of participation by national authorities and prefers a binding solution in order to achieve objectives fixed. Such a proposal does not have consensus either. Trebesius, Marian Harkin (ALDE, Ireland) and Rina Ronja Kari (GUE/NGL, Denmark) were opposed to this.
Subsidiarity. Like the debates held within the Council (see EUROPE 1042), several MEPs – like Geoffroy Didier or Michaela Sojdrova (EPP, Czech Republic) – expressed concern about respect of subsidiarity.
Seat. Sojdrova was the only one to mention the particularly thorny question of the seat of the authority and called for it to be located in one of the “new” member states.
The scheduled timetable is tight: the date for submitting amendments is 17 July; scrutiny of those amendments will be on 29 and 30 August; and a vote in committee on 18 October. (Original version in French by Pascal Hansens)