The first examination, on Wednesday 29 August, of the 929 amendments (975 including the rapporteur’s) on the proposal for a European Labour Authority at the European Parliament’s employment and social affairs committee (EMPL) led to intense debate among MEPs, firstly over the authority’s name, but also about how far its role should extend and the tasks to be attributed to it.
Rapporteur Jeroen Lenaers (EPP, the Netherlands) said it had made him think of Romeo and Juliet when he read the first part of the amendments, given the number of proposals for a new name for the EU authority (see EUROPE 12083). He said that in his opinion, the tasks and objectives were much more important, noting the need for an authority that focuses mostly on implementing European legislation. In this connection, he welcomed the fact that many amendments took this view.
The main points of disagreement are over whether or not the authority should act in the event of disturbances to the labour market and the nature of its role in joint inspections, along with whether its decisions should be binding on the member states, he explained.
The MEP rejected any idea of introducing new definitions, point out that the regulation nine question aims to boost implementation and respect of existing EU legislation. During the debate, however, he queried the authority’s role in the fiscal domain – a question that will have to be addressed by the authority, although this is a matter of national competency.
Shadow S&D rapporteur Georgi Pirinski (Bulgaria), however, stressed the importance of setting common definitions. The Social Democrat MEP proposes a raft of definitions for mobile, seasonal, border or seconded (posted) workers due to differences in definition from one area of legislation to the next, he explained.
In his view, the information and mediation rule should be kept in addition to implementing the legislation and thus preserving the broad pillars of the European Commission’s proposal. Bulgaria added that it was against any "vertical" authority that would be higher than national authorities, insisting on a tripartite structure. He suggested creating an executive committee to boost the authority’s operability.
Ulrike Trebesius (CRE, Germany) focussed on subsidiarity, noting that the European social rights platform did not give the EU any extra powers. Moreover, the MEP called for SMEs to be taken into account, noting the potential new administrate charges. In her view, the other risk is the authority and the European employment mobility (EURES) portal duplicating each other’s work.
Marian Harkin (ALDE, Ireland) wondered about the solidity of the legal basis, while Terry Reintke (Greens/EFA, Germany) explained that it was important to extend the scope of action to fraudulent use of social security and including social partners and civil society. Evelyn Regner (S&D, Austria) highlighted the risk of excluding service sector workers. Rina Ronja Kari (GUE/NGL, Denmark) expressed concern about the risk of rendering the Scandinavian models fragile since they are wholly based on collective bargaining.
Guillaume Balas (S&D, France) said the debate on respect for subsidiarity was not pertinent, noting that the European treaties (Articles 151 and 153 of the TFEU) specify that the EU "supplements" the member states’ action in the social domain.
In reply, the European Commission stressed the various main jobs of the authority: better information, boosting cooperation and playing a mediating role for disputes. As for the name, the Commission representative said it was short and easy to remember and, more importantly, the acronym was still available.
MEPs’ work is just beginning. The vote at the committee is scheduled for 18 October and the member states are pursuing negotiations on the authority. Here too, several delegations expressed concerns about subsidiarity. (Original version in French by Pascal Hansens)