Brussels, 08/02/2006 (Agence Europe) - Intense negotiations are underway at the European Parliament between German Social Democrat Evelyne Gebhardt (rapporteur) and UK Conservative member Malcolm Harbour (shadow rapporteur) with a view to reaching a compromise on the proposed directive on services in the internal market. They are focusing on the most controversial elements of the legislative proposal: the principle of "freedom to provide services", which will govern the cross-border activities of a service provider and the scope of application. A group of eight negotiators, including Evelyne Gebhardt hand Malcolm Harbour, is proposing a radical reformulation of the provision of the proposed directive which will govern the provision of services in a cross-border context. This proposal was discussed on Wednesday afternoon by the PES and EPP/ED groups. However, there is no global agreement on the fate reserved for services of general economic interest (SGEI). 7 February was the deadline for amendments to be tabled ahead of the plenary session of 16 February in Strasbourg.
"We have achieved a breakthrough between the EPP/ED and PES groups", Evelyne Gebhardt told the press on Wednesday. "A third way" will help to get rid of the "bone of contention", she was pleased to note. She said that "we have provided a concrete solution to remove the obstacles to the freedom to provide services and clearly state that the social laws of the Member States will continue to apply". She added that it is indeed "wiser to define the obstacles which we can no longer accept" than to "quarrel over the principles". We have found "a new formulation" for the freedom to provide services which conserves its "central point" and will oblige the Member States to withdraw a number of restrictions, added Malcolm Harbour at a separate press conference.
What is the content of the proposal on the cross-border provision of services, as drafted by the negotiators? The Member States must respect the rights of service-providers to provide a service in another Member State than that in which the service-providers are established. The Member State of destination for the service must ensure, on its territory, free access and the free exercise of a service activity. This free access and this free exercise cannot be governed by provisions which fail to respect the principles of non-discrimination, necessity and proportionality.
The proposed text draws up a list of seven requirements which the Member States of destination cannot impose upon service-providers established in another Member State: 1) the obligation to be established in the Member State of destination; 2) the obligation upon the service-provider to obtain authorisation from the competent authorities of the country of destination (including registration with a professional body or other register), with the exception of cases specifically described in the "services" directive or other Community instruments; 3) the obligation to set up an office of representation in the Member State of destination; 4) the application of contractual rules between the service-provider and the client, banning or limiting the provision of services by independent workers; 5) the obligation upon the service-provider to have an identification document specific to the exercise of his or her activity and issued by the Member State of destination; 6) the establishment of rules determining the use of the material or equipment which is an integral part of the service provided, with the exception of those having an impact on health and safety at work; 7) the application of certain restrictions to the freedom to provide services (article 20 of the proposed directive).
A global compromise on whether or not SGEI should be excluded from the scope of application of the directive, on the other hand, is not planned. This is a sizeable "bone of contention", Ms Gebhardt acknowledged, indicating that "the question remains open and each group will table its own amendments". The PES group would like to exclude both SGI and SGEI from the proposed directive. The EPP/ED group agrees with the PES group on SGI, but is sticking to its guns on the inclusion of SGEI. However, it has not been ruled out that a joint proposal may be drawn up to exclude "social services", if both groups agree on the definition of these services.
Other points already appear to be in the bag: the "services" directive will not affect national social, employment and consumer protection legislation. It will not modify the directive on worker secondment, nor existing European sectorial directives. Controls on the service-provider and on the provision of the service itself will be left up to the host Member State.
A strong position enjoying the support of the two main political groups of the EP would have the advantage of showing that the Parliament can send out a clear and strong message to the European Council and the European Commission.