MEPs on the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection (IMCO) raised many questions about the functioning of the new Single Market Emergency Instrument (SMEI) on Monday 10 October in an exchange with the European Commission.
After a lengthy presentation on the instrument, including its ‘traffic light’ approach (green for normal operation, amber for ‘vigilance’ mode and red for emergency situations - see EUROPE 12024/1) by Outi Slotboom, a Director at the European Commission, MEPs sought to clarify a number of points, giving an indication of possible areas of reflection that are emerging within the European Parliament.
For example, Andreas Schwab (EPP, German) asked why energy and telecommunications were outside the scope of the instrument. He expressed concern about the potentially incomplete coverage of ‘omnibus’ legislation.
In addition, he saw issues with the monitoring and complexity of supply chains once the ‘vigilance’ mode was activated. The place and role of national authorities also seemed unclear to him. Finally, he asked how Member States can be asked to build up reserves without having a clear vision of the situation regarding raw materials.
Christel Schaldemose (S&D, Danish) wanted clarification on the functioning and articulation of the ‘vigilance’ and ‘emergency’ phases, particularly on the criteria for triggering these two modes.
Fellow Dane Karen Melchior (Renew Europe) questioned the role of the advisory group in triggering the different phases and the place of the European Parliament, expressing concern that the Parliament was confined to the role of a mere observer. She also highlighted the importance of the role of business and their interests being considered.
Malte Gallée (Greens/EFA, German) expressed concern about the quality of product approval in times of crisis under the fast-track procedures provided for in the regulation, citing the countless cases of non-compliant masks and medical equipment that flooded the internal market during the Covid-19 pandemic. He also called for clarification on the interaction between the SMEI and the Schengen Borders Code.
Finally, Anne-Sophie Pelletier (The Left, French) pointed to the repeal of the ‘strawberry’ regulation and asked, like the trade unions (see EUROPE 13016/5), for safeguards to be added to protect the right to strike.
Due to time constraints, Ms Slotboom was not able to answer the questions in detail. She recalled that the primary purpose of the future instrument is to prepare for crises of an unknown nature and not to respond to crises that have already occurred.
For this reason, the senior European official explained, the provisions are still not very precise, precisely so that they can deal with unknown and unpredictable situations. She explained that the SMEI is a horizontal instrument, whereas the Chips Act is primarily a sectoral instrument focused on semiconductors.
Ms Slotboom also confirmed that while the Single Market Emergency Instrument will address restrictions on free movement, including the free movement of people, the reintroduction of controls at the EU’s internal borders will remain within the remit of the Schengen Borders Code.
For the time being, no timetable for negotiations within the parliamentary committee has been set, a parliamentary source confirmed. (Original version in French by Pascal Hansens)