Brussels, 13/03/2006 (Agence Europe) - Fifteen Member States- the eight new Member States from Central and Eastern Europe plus Spain, Ireland, Italy, Finland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom - feel that the compromise on the directive on services in the internal market, which was voted on at first reading by the European Parliament in mid-February, goes too far, said Giorgio La Malfa, the Italian Minster for European Affairs (see EUROPE9133), on Monday 13 March. |These Member States prefer the report which was adopted in late November 2005 by the parliamentary committee on the internal market, which retained (but renamed) the principle of the country of origin from the legislative proposal. On the other hand, there appears to be a blocking minority of Member States (Germany, Belgium, France, Greece, and Portugal) in favour of the parliamentary compromise.
The ministers of the Competitiveness Council held an informal dinner on Sunday evening, given over to the proposed “services” directive. On Monday, Martin Bartenstein, Austrian Minister for the Economy and Work, summed up the discussions of the day before at a public session. He referred to the existence, within the Council, of a “consensus on the need for a directive which is positive for the European Union” and sends out an “important signal” to the citizens of Europe. The position of the European Parliament is “a good basis for a compromise”, he added. Nevertheless, clarifications are proving necessary in order to bring “more legal clarity and security” to the provisions on the cross-border provision of services and worker secondment. Martin Bartenstein noted that the Commission is to present guidelines on the implementation of directive 96/71/EX, announced at the same time as the modified proposal of the Commission on the “services” directive (see EUROPE 9148). Lastly, Charlie McCreevy, the Commissioner in charge of the Internal Market, is to present the Commission's modified proposal at the end of April to the 25 ministers, at the Informal Council of Graz.
Speaking to the press, Martin Bartenstein recognised that the “ministers of the new Member States wanted to reintroduce the principle of country of origin”, but he hoped to avoid any “polarisation of the Member States into two groups” on this dossier. He took pains to send out a positive political message: “We are midstream. A dynamic exists (…). We can make it”. And this dynamic should, he continued, take account of the compromise voted on by the EP. On this point, “we are still a long way from a unanimous position”, continued the Austrian minister for the economy, but this is a “compromise which we will be compelled to submit to if a social partnership exists in Europe”. He also considered that it will be “important to hear form the Heads of State and Government”, who are meeting for the European Summit of 23 and 24 March and to wait for the Commission's modified proposal, announced for early April.
Concerning the scope of the legislative proposal, Martin Bartenstein spoke of the doubts voiced by the unions on the inclusion of temporary employment agencies, particularly at the troïka with the social partners which was held on the sidelines of the recent Employment and Social Affairs Council. If it has not yet taken any definitive decisions, the Commission is said to be in favour of the reintroduction of temp agencies and security services, which the EP had excluded from the scope of application.
“There is no point in trying to make progress at all costs and to be ideological. No, we must reach a consensus, a European added value” in favour of the opening up of the European services market, said Gunther Verheugen. The European Commissioner in charge of Enterprise and Industry added that the Commission was to present its modified proposal on the services directive early in April. On this dossier, we must “ensure that the 'services' directive does not cause any other damage”, he added. Without saying so explicitly, he was referring to the French 2005 refusal to ratify the treaty instituting the Constitution for Europe. In a similar vein, Martin Bartenstein said that this dossier contained no “doctrine or ideals to implement, but pragmatism”. On the damages mentioned by Mr Verheugen, he added that we must “do something to bring the citizens closer to Europe”.