Brussels, 05/10/2006 (Agence Europe) - The positions adopted by the political groups of the European Parliament, the Council and European Commission have not changed since the last exchange of views on the proposal for a directive relating to services in the internal market (see EUROPE 9265). During the meeting of the parliamentary committee on the internal market on 4 October, the EPP-ED and ALDE groups, the Council and Commission maintained their opposition to any changes being made in the Council's common position. Warning against the risk of bringing the fragile political compromise reached in May under Austrian Presidency into question (see EUROPE 9201), they are also aware that EP amendments to the common position were voted through by an absolute majority of MEPs. Invoking the EP's role as co-legislator, the PES and Greens groups consider it possible to clarify the Council's common position, especially with regard to the exclusion of social services and labour law. A further exchange of views on the 42 amendments submitted is scheduled for 9 October before the vote in parliamentary committee on 23 October. The EP is expected to take a stance during November plenary.
British Conservative Malcolm Harbour said on behalf of the EPP/ED Group that no member of his group had put forward any amendments. They believe the Council's common position is a text on which work can be based. Saying that every word counts in this directive, he considered that the second reading must not consist of a test of the EP's political strength but should rather encourage MEPs to show proof of maturity and political responsibility. Nonetheless, clarification is possible, Mr Harbour went on to say, putting forward the idea of Council “declarations”. Following closely behind him, Jacques Toubon (EPP-ED, France) was in favour of the Council adopting “declarations”, in particular on labour law. Zuzana Roithová (EPP/ED, Czech Republic) does not believe that the addition of amendments would improve the text. “The proposal hangs by a thread: each amendment that is adopted or rejected could make everything collapse”, said Zita Pleštinská (EPP/ED, Slovakia). “There is a risk if we make too many changes”, said Anneli Jäätteenmäki (ALDE, Finland).
“Some of the amendments proposed touch the heart of the compromise (…) It will be difficult, if not impossible to accept them””, the representative for the Finnish Presidency said. On the subject of the provisions relating to labour law, she stressed the Council's “neutral approach” which guarantees that the future directive does not affect this area. In the same way, the services directive will not affect the exercise of fundamental rights. On social services, the Finnish Presidency said the amendments submitted would extend and make less clear the exclusion of these services and could even engender “abuse” in Member States. The rapporteur's amendments on administrative cooperation would “modify the breakdown of Member States' tasks”, the Finnish Presidency added. It did not wish to add anything to what was said at the last exchange of views on the analyses and guidelines that the Commission will be providing on an annual basis after the national reports foreseen in the context of the mechanism for assessing national restrictions to cross-border provision of services.
Margot Froehlinger was of the view that the Commission would not be able to support the amendments put forward. She stressed the “fragility” of the Council's common position. It is true that there are national differences in the field of social services, she admitted, which is why the criteria chosen by the Council do not concern the structure or the financing of these services but refer to their beneficiaries, namely “the people who need them”. Guidelines “do not aim to give more power to the Commission” but to help Member States implement the assessment mechanism, she pointed out. And the interpretation of the provisions on the free provision of services, she said, will be up to the Court.
Evelyne Gebhardt (PES, Germany) explained why she had put amendments forward for the Council's common position. The main amendments concern labour law, social services and Commission competence, granted by Council, to provide guidelines on national restrictions to cross-border provision of services. The first point should not be an element that would break the compromise, she said. She spoke, however, of social services as a “delicate and thorny” issue where neither the Council nor EP text are satisfactory. Her approach therefore consists in taking up the wording of the Commission's communication on social services of general interest. On the subject of Commission guidelines, she said she did not know what Parliament's position would be as this subject was not discussed at first reading. If it is a matter of the Commission helping Member States to implement the assessment mechanism for national restrictions, then the rapporteur has nothing against it. On the other hand, Ms Gebhardt was firmly opposed to the Commission being competent to interpret European law on behalf of the EP in its capacity as co-legislator.
Speaking for the Greens, Heide Rühle (Germany) gave her support to the rapporteur's amendments, although her group wanted to go further. Among the “seven amendments” that the Greens submitted, certain focus on social services to maintain when re-establishing an indicative list and exclusion of services of general interest “such as those defined by Member States” and others underline the power of Member States to control the direction of a service. Supporting the exclusion of social services which are “very often provided by local authorities”, Ian Hudghton (Greens/EFA, Britain), wanted to know whether reception centres for young people, such as those set up in Scotland would be excluded from the services directive. Describing the services directive as the “text for European civilisation”, French socialist Bernadette Vergnaud supported the Greens position in favour of inserting an explicit reference to the charter of Fundamental Rights in the body of the text. She appealed for the total exclusion of social services and the elaboration of a specific directive in co-decision. (mb)