Brussels, 12/07/2005 (Agence Europe) - On Monday, the Members of the European Parliament carried out an initial assessment of the 1154 amendments tabled on the proposed directive on services in the internal market. There is said to be agreement among the MEPs on conferring the responsibility for checks on cross-border service provision upon the Member States. A number of MEPs from the ALDE and EPP-ED groups have their doubts that the timetable is realistic. The vote within the committee on the internal market is scheduled for 13 September 2005 and the first reading by the EP in plenary session for October. The Commission takes the view that it is “essential not to go backwards”; the UK Presidency announced the timetable for the Council's work.
“The time is ripe, we have talked for a long time, we must now make a decision”, said the rapporteur, German Social Democrat Evelyne Gebhardt. She sounded out her fellow MEPs on the need for “lists” for services to be included or excluded from the scope of the directive. On the “internal market clause” supported by British Conservative Malcolm Harbour, “I get the impression that this is nothing other than the principle of country of origin”, she said, adding: “the only difference” is that this clause calls for “more exceptions”. The rapporteur hopes to organise informal meetings with the MEPs with a view to drafting compromise amendments. We have “tabled very coherent amendments”, retorted Malcolm Harbour. “If we reduce the scope, we will not be going in the right direction”. He insisted on “checks on the provider and on the services as long as the division of roles can be clarified” between the national authorities. In the view of Anneli Jäätteenmäki (ALDE, Finland), “if there are too many exceptions, the directive won't be doing its job”, but that not everything should be included, certain “elements should stay on the outside”, such as “healthcare”. She said that she struggled to “distinguish between what is temporary and what isn't” when it comes to the cross-border provision of services. Heide Rühle of Germany repeated the full support of the Greens/EFA group to exclude services of general interest (SGI). She referred to the excess of exceptions, which would lead to “a Swiss cheese directive”, preferring instead the introduction of a “positive list” taking account of “genuinely harmonised fields”. Jacques Toubon (EPP-ED, France) took position in favour of excluding “culture”, “gambling”, “regulated professions” and “international private law”. “Seconded workers must be excluded completely” (articles 24 and 25), he added, and we must “continue with national preferences” for SGI.
Alexander Schaub, Director General for the Internal Market, gave the Commission's “initial gut reactions” to the MEPs' amendments, although the Commission had “not been able to analyse all the amendments”. He said that the spirit of the “final objective of the proposal” should be kept: more competition, stimulating entrepreneurship, new opportunities for business. There will be no “healthy and functional European social model” or “sustainable development”, he said, if there are no “fruitful economic activities”. Alexander Schaub summarised the various amendments tabled. On the planned exclusions from the scope, he said that it was important to assess the “economic impact” of these and pointed out that leaving it up to the Court to decide was “not always the correct solution”. On the principle of country of origin, “a climate of confidence needs to be created” and “increased administrative cooperation” is a “challenge” for this. Mr Schaub pointed out that the “Commission does not want to hear about social dumping” in the context of seconded workers. He said that it was possible to “build bridges” between the various positions. The Commission will work “constructively” with the Parliament, and Commissioner Charlie McCreevy will be “personally involved” in seeking a “broad consensus”. When asked about a possible initiative on SGIs, Mr Schaub said that the Commission may adopt three or four proposals in this field in the next few days. The Commission is to discuss this issue twice, but a third meeting may prove necessary.
“The directive is a priority for the Presidency”, said the British representative at the Council, and we hope to “move forward on it as quickly as possible”, whilst remaining “aware of the sensitivity” of this dossier. He said that the methodology to be used would be applied in two phases. The specific working group of the Council would initially carry out a technical examination of the legislative proposal. The British representative said that the week before, the group had examined articles 20 to 23 (rights of the end users of the services), and 39 to 47 (convergence of codes of conduct and Community legislation, final provisions), and that this Thursday's meeting would concentrate on article 27 (insurance and professional guarantees). After the summer break, work will move onto the heart of the matter with an examination of “chapter I” on the scope on 8 September. Thereafter, the Council will carry out an initial “stock-take” of the talks.