Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-10-04-Speech-3-211"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20001004.8.3-211"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". – As you know, last November the Commission proposed a broad package based on Article 13 with two directives and a programme. One of the directives has already been adopted in record time, and I am quite optimistic that the other one will be adopted during the French Presidency in November.
I welcome your clarification on the terms "reasonable accommodation": you use the word "adjustment" and "undue hardship". Your proposal is very useful, as discussions in the different institutions have shown that these terms were not fully understood. Now it has become clear that a number of factors such as the cost involved, the financial resources of the organisations and the possibility of obtaining public funds will determine if their accommodation would impose a considerable burden on the employer. I would like to clarify that the valuation of the economic impact in SMEs is not just the work or job of a civil servant. We use as a basis the statistics at European and national level, we use surveys and we have comparisons with the impact in the USA where there are surveys and results after a long period of implementation of directives like this.
Another key issue concerns religious organisations and the possibility of using the genuine occupation requirement clause in Article 4(2). However, this provision should not give rise to discrimination on the sole grounds of disability, age or sexual orientation and we must be very clear on that. I welcome your reference to this question in Amendment No 37.
I can also agree to the idea of extending the wording of Article 4(2) to include organisations providing services in a religious environment, as we realise that the wording of the Commission's proposal was very rigid. In my view, with these two additions, the scope of the proposal becomes clear.
On the contrary, I cannot accept Amendment No 38 which proposes to delete from Article 5 the list of differences of treatment on grounds of age, which could be justified. This is not in line with our proposal. The Commission's intention is to create workable rules for companies while at the same time prohibiting instances of discrimination which are arbitrary and not objectively justified. However, I understand that this is a very sensitive issue. The Commission is ready to simplify the wording of Article 5 for better understanding of this provision.
Regarding the second category of amendments, it aims to clarify the text of the Commission's proposal.
In particular, Amendments Nos 9, 10 and 20 propose the removal of the reference to discrimination based on racial and ethnic origin. All three can be accepted for reasons of legal consistency.
I also accept the references to the 2000 employment strategy, to personal and self-realisation, to discrimination as an obstacle to free movement of persons, to the clarification of the personal scope of the directive as being applicable to third country nationals, to the clarification of the burden of proof and to the simplification of the information provision. These references are contained in Amendments Nos 7, 8, 9, 12, 34 and 47. The Commission can accept the spirit of all these amendments.
I want to turn now to the third category of amendments. I can accept the spirit behind all these amendments but in some cases there is a problem with the wording. However, there are a number of other amendments which I cannot accept, either for technical reasons or because their detailed nature runs counter to the purpose of the Framework Directive.
I would like to refer in detail to those amendments which I cannot accept because they present political or legal difficulties. You have addressed the important question of contract compliance. This kind of provision is not appropriate in a directive on a framework proposal. I agree that it is very important and I pledge that it will be a communication: we will examine this in the text of the communication we have already announced in the social agenda.
Secondly, I have raised the issue of monitoring and statistics. We all know that this is very important, but I must stress that in some Member States the collection of this kind of data infringes constitutional provisions on the protection of privacy. So I cannot accept your proposal on Amendment No 43, but I agree with you that, without monitoring, it becomes extremely difficult to know what progress is being made and the action programme will explore what can be done at Community level.
The debate in Parliament was extremely interesting, and you have already highlighted the political importance of this directive. In terms of social solidarity, human rights and social justice, and in terms of the internal market, it is very important to understand that we must have the same minimum social standards in all Member States and in the applicant countries in the future as well.
I cannot accept your references in Amendments Nos 21 and 45 to natural and legal persons and non-formalised groups of persons, as this employment proposal only applies to individuals. It is clearly a legal problem.
You propose in Amendment No 52, by analogy with the directive on racial discrimination, to incorporate a provision on independent bodies to monitor compliance with the provision of the directive.
I also have difficulties with Amendments Nos 19 and 35, in which you propose a time-frame of three years in order to equalise the scope of the discrimination legislation for all the grounds referred to in Article 3. It is impossible to refer to this time-frame in a directive, but the implementation of the action plan will help us to see how we can move forward with the other amendments.
To summarise, I can accept, either as drafted or in spirit, Amendments Nos 2, 4, 5, 8, 10, 12, 14, 23, 24, 26, 30, 34, 40, 49, 50, 51 and 54 and also parts of Amendments Nos 7, 9, 13, 20, 25, 29, 36, 37, 41, 42, 46, 47, 48, 58, 59, 60 and 61. This very large number of accepted amendments proves the excellent cooperation between the Commission and Parliament.
In conclusion, some Members of Parliament referred to the need for cooperation about, or the implementation of, directives like these in the applicant countries. This directive must be part of the social
in the applicant countries. It is the first time that we allow joint projects in this action programme. Applicant countries can cooperate with the Member States and submit joint projects and joint proposals and this is very important for them and for us also. Some of the Members have referred to the particular problems that Turkey has with the Kurdish language and the problems in Turkey. I consider that the Community could support and select any kind of project that the Turkish Government submitted in the framework of this action plan.
I had to reply to more than 50 different points and amendments and I am very optimistic that these amendments will be adopted during the French presidency.
I would like to thank the two rapporteurs, Mr Cashman and Mr Mann, for the excellent work they have done. I would also like to thank the committees involved for their support and cooperation in getting a coordinated view in such a short time.
It is important that the Community action programme is adopted by the Council this autumn so that we can avoid a gap between it and the preparatory actions which we are currently running. I can accept a number of your proposals. In particular I welcome the amendments you have made on mainstreaming and on the issue of multiple discrimination. I will also accept the amendments you have tabled to bring out the importance of preventing discrimination, as well as combating it. Prevention is the key to a long-term strategy.
I also agree with the emphasis you have placed on doing what we can to meet the special needs of people who have difficulties in participating in the programme. This will necessarily include efforts to make all the documentation around the programme as simple and as accessible as possible (on which you have also proposed amendments). I am aware of the difficulties and of the complication of the forms of these projects and I will try to simplify them.
I can also agree to highlight in future the importance of NGOs, both as partners and as target actors participating in the actions themselves. It will be important to involve as wide a range of types and sizes of NGOs as possible to make sure that we benefit from the experience of these people who work every day with these issues. I can accept your proposals to write into the body of the decision the limit of 90% for the co-funding of such NGOs, and we can justify this proposal because there are many particularities in these NGOs.
In short, therefore, I can accept either as drafted or in spirit Amendments Nos 1, 2, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, 18, 21, 41 to 45, 47, 50, 58, 59, 62, 64, 65, 66 and 67. I can also accept parts of Amendments Nos 3, 14, 16, 31, 33, 35, 38, 40, 55 and 57. I am unable to accept the remaining amendments for a variety of reasons. Some are not in conformity with other legal requirements, for example the amendment concerning the committees' arrangements.
Some are simply not compatible with the Commission's objective, such as focusing the annual report on the implementation of the programme rather than on a particular aspect of the fight against discrimination itself. Others risk creating an imbalance in programmes by an over-concentration on a particular aspect; others again are not necessary to achieve Parliament's objective, as the ideas are either implicitly or explicitly already included in the decision, such as those on drawing on the experience of third countries.
As regards Mr Mann's report, I would like to comment on the main amendments tabled before Parliament today. There are three categories of amendment. The first one concerns disability, religion and age. The second category aims to clarify the text of the Commission proposal and the third category consists of a large number of amendments which try to bring this proposal in line with the directive on racial discrimination adopted last June. As far as the first category is concerned, disability, religion and age, the specific problems facing disabled people are acknowledged in the current draft where the provision to reasonably accommodate the workplace to the needs of disabled people is specifically foreseen. This is a key provision for achieving equal treatment for people with disabilities."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples