Brussels, 20/06/2006 (Agence Europe) - On 20 June, Martin Bartenstein, Austrian economy and labour minister, reported back on the work of the Austrian Presidency in the implementation of the revised Lisbon Strategy to MEPs on the internal market committee. Discussions focussed on the Council's recent political agreement on the draft directive on services in the internal market (see EUROPE 9201). He congratulated the EP on managing to bring the other two European institutions round to the Parliamentary compromise. He said the mechanism for assessing national restrictions on cross-border service provision “will prevent Member States from turning protection into protectionism”. Social Democrat MEP Evelyne Gebhardt gave assurances that, despite the rumours, there would indeed be a second EP reading. The joint Council position is due to be submitted only in July, with work beginning again in the EP in September.
“I would like to thank the Parliamentary internal market committee for its help during the Austrian Presidency,” said Mr Bartenstein on his involvement in the negotiations on the compromise on the services directive (see EUROPE 9133). It was only thanks to the committee's “fabulous work” that it was possible to break the deadlock in which the text found itself at the end of 2005, he added. He pointed out that the services directive had contributed to the French rejection of the Constitutional Treaty and even led to citizens hurling paving stones at the EP during stormy demonstrations in Strasbourg. He re-stated the importance of having dialogue with the social partners on such thorny issues: “We had the support of the unions. UNICE wasn't happy at the start, but finally accepted (the agreement as) a step in the right direction”.
Questioned by British Labour MEP Arlene McCarthy, Mr Bartenstein said he was ready to provide MEPs with a summary of what had changed in the Council text compared with the EP compromise. He clarified a few points, notably “Article 16” on cross-border supply of services: “I defended it, I believed in it, it was difficult because people wanted to amend it”. “Article 41 is a clear improvement which takes account of the interests of the new Member States” and it “will prevent Member States from turning protection into protectionism,” he added. In this Article, the Council introduced the requirement for Member States to inform the Commission of their national restrictions on cross-border supply of services in order to convince those countries which thought the EP compromise was too ambitious.
Mr Bartenstein was confident that the solution that was found would provide legal certainty, even if the Court's interpretation will be needed in several cases. He also noted that some cinema services were covered, but without specifying which ones, and that the one-stop shop system, promoted by the United Kingdom, would reduce bureaucracy. In the face of France's clear opposition on solicitors, “we went in a direction closer to the EP than to the Commission,” he pointed out.
Ms Gebhardt said that, for the EP to work well, good collaboration was needed, particularly from the Council and the Commission. To reach the compromise, “everyone took part” and “everyone gave up on” some of their demands, she said. She was certain that “with the Finnish Presidency, we'll reach an agreement on second reading”. She noted that the Council's political agreement took account of the “delicate balance” obtained in the EP. In particular, Article 16 had been properly taken on board, she stressed, but she also wanted more time to see if, in Article 41, the balance had been respected. In this latter Article, the Council introduced the requirement for Member States to report their national restrictions on cross-border provision of services. The aim was to bring round those countries which thought the Parliamentary compromise went too far.
British Conservative MEP Malcolm Harbour welcomed the Austrian Presidency's initiative of inviting six MEPs to the informal Competitiveness Council in Graz at the end of April (see EUROPE 9178). Pierre Jonckheer (Greens/EFA, Belgium) thought that the political agreement obtained on 29 May showed the will to be finished quickly with a dossier that was poisoning the atmosphere. “My group still questions the real impact of the directive for firms,” he added, less than convinced that it would bring “legal certainty to economic operators”. He asked for “more information on the most important amendments” brought by the Council, particularly on social services and the desire of the Council to draw up common standards in consumer protection.