Brussels, 09/03/2006 (Agence Europe) - On 8 March, at the conference “Who's afraid of the Polish plumber?”, organised by “Friends of Europe”, on the “services” directive, Martin Power, Head of Internal Market Commissioner Charlie McCreevy's Cabinet said, “We welcome last month's European Parliament vote”. Mr Power indicated the main amendments the Commission would have to pick up in its amended proposal announced for the “4 April” (see EUROPE 9147), as well as parallel workshops on some sensitive services. Also taking part in the conference were German Social Democrat Evelyne Gebhardt, Parliamentary rapporteur on this dossier, Jozef Niemiec of the European Trade Union Confederation and several lawyers.
In the amended proposal, the Commission is expected to pick up several fundamental elements which were voted through by a large majority during the first reading in the EP (see EUROPE 9133). The Commission would endorse the deletion of the “right to work” from the directive, since that had been its intention in the initial proposal, said Mr Power. He added that the Commission would accept the EP amendments removing measures affecting directive 96/71/EC on the “posting of workers”. The Commission would present guidelines for the implementation of the directive in Member States at the same time as its amended proposal on services.
On the scope of the “services” directive, Mr Power spoke of justified concerns in some “sensitive sectors” raised during the debate on the proposal in Europe. “Private and public health” would be excluded from the scope of the directive, he said and the Commission would, at the same time, work to launch a “separate proposal” on health in the months to come “in summer or in autumn”. The aim was to incorporate European Court jurisprudence, notably on the issues related to “mobility of patients”, into the legislation. Mr Power did not speak of the EP's removal of social services when talking about services of general interest (SGI). He did, however, point out that, in April, Social Affairs Commissioner Vladimir Spidla would present a communication on social services of general interest (SSGI). On the other hand, as Parliament decided, services of general economic interest (SGEI), already open to competition - and not covered by sectoral legislation - should continue to fall within the scope of the directive. Charlie McCreevy had already indicated this at the vote in Strasbourg. Evelyne Gebhardt welcomed these initiatives.
Mr Power said the Commission had yet to decide on its final position on sensitive services, such as private security and temporary job agencies (both of which were excluded by the EP), but Mr McCreevy had adopted, he said, a more cautious approach. It is likely that the Commission will decide to put these services back within the scope of the directive, deeming that a sectoral regulatory approach would not provide any real added value. Josef Niemiec did not share this opinion, believing that temporary job agencies and private security should be the subject of at least minimal European rules. The Commission, on the other hand, accepted that gambling be removed, said Mr Power, noting that pending infringement procedures would be started.
Mr McCreevy's Head of Cabinet also said that the principle of free provision of services - introduced by the EP to control cross-border service provision - would not be amended either in “form” or in “substance”. The Commission would carry out some “legal tightening” to make the principle crystal clear, he said. Speaking about the differences of legal opinion surrounding this principle, he felt that the EP compromise guaranteed the freedom to provide a service in another Member State. He considered that the whole debate focussed on the legislation applicable to this provision. Lawyers, he said, would have a great deal of work to do in this area.
Evelyne Gebhardt said that, within the European Parliament, the aim was to open Europe's services market, while ensuring that labour, social, consumer and environmental legislation was respected by Member States. She added, “My first proposal was better”. Within the Parliamentary Internal market Committee, the rapporteur had suggested amendments making a distinction between access to service provision, subject to the rules of the country of origin and the exercise of this provision which came under the rules of the country of destination. The Committee, however, rejected this approach.