Strasbourg, 05/09/2006 (Agence Europe) - On 4 September, MEPs on the Parliamentary internal market committee had an initial exchange of views on the Council's joint position, adopted at the end of July, with regard to the draft directive on services in the internal market (see EUROPE 9238). The majority confirmed their desire to come quickly to the definitive adoption of the text. The second reading vote, it is hoped, will take place in November.
The Finnish Presidency, first of all, presented the work that had gone on within the Council and which resulted in the political agreement reached at the end of May (see EUROPE 9201). The Council's joint position, it said, was “very balanced and based to a large extent on the compromise” achieved in the EP in February, and did not contain many “really new” provisions. The principal innovation is the introduction of a mechanism for assessing national restrictions imposed on cross-border service provision which Member States may apply for reasons of public policy or public health and security. Member States will have to justify the extent to which these requirements abide by the principals of the future directive. The Finnish Presidency said it was aware that such a mechanism would lead to additional work for national administrations. The scope of the draft directive, says the Presidency, has been “consolidated and clarified”, particularly with regard to “social services”. It reaffirmed its desire to conclude negotiations on the text successfully before the end of the year.
The European Commission pointed out that, at the end of July, it had adopted a communication on the joint Council position (see EUROPE 9243). Being also of the opinion that this joint position reflected the political compromise reached in the European Parliament, it felt that all of the provisions in the text were “inter-dependent, important, and part of the same package”. The compromise reached on the country of origin would, it said, be of benefit both to service suppliers and recipients.
“Almost all of us want markets opened, but we also want protection for labour rights, consumers, the environment” and for Member States to be able to have requirements that go beyond the European minima, said German Social Democrat MEP Evelyne Gebhardt, the rapporteur on this issue. She felt that the Council and Commission had taken on board the major part of the EP amendments, “but not the entirety”. She said she would have to make sure that the amendments not taken on board were carefully assessed. Ms Gebhardt will have eleven amendments in total, which do not bring the political compromise, which the European institutions have backed, into question. In particular, there are “labour law, the omission of social services, consumer protection and administrative cooperation”. She believed the mechanism for assessing national restrictions to cross-border service provision would lead to increased bureaucracy for national administrations. She would, nevertheless, respect the decision by ministers, “who have taken the responsibility for imposing this administrative burden”. She hoped, however, that MEPs would consider the issue of the Commission's competence in setting guidelines based on the reports submitted to it by Member States. “Do we want to give this right to the Commission?” she asked, fearing a loss of EP prerogatives. Ms Gebhardt will present her report on 13 September, hoping for a Parliamentary committee vote at the end of October, and thinks the second reading vote could be taken at the first plenary session in November (from 13 to 17).
British Conservative MEP Malcolm Harbour announced his group's position for next week, being of the opinion that the EPP-ED group would not put down any amendments. He welcomed the Council's commitment and the position set out by Ms Gebhardt. “We will make sure we do not accept amendments that could endanger the joint position,” he said. He spoke about the very delicate compromise achieved in the EP and the Council on labour law and social services. He felt further amendments would be possible only if the Council was in agreement. Finnish MEP Anneli Jäätteenmäki, speaking for the ALDE group, accepted the joint position: the Liberals too were unlikely to put down any amendments. Pierre Jonckheer (Greens/EFA) found it “surprising” that some of his colleagues did not plan to put down amendments. In line with co-decision procedure, it was the EP's right, indeed its responsibility to do so, he said. Calling for the maximum possible legal security for traders, he felt that the council's joint position could be open to different interpretations depending on the language of the version. On behalf of the GUE/NGL, German MEP Sahra Wagenknecht denounced what was being hailed as a political compromise, when, in fact, it was only a misleading wrapping. She said that the problems of services of general interest and labour law had not been settled. She said that what MEPs had before them was not a compromise, it was still the “Bolkestein directive”.
European Parliament Plenary Session