Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-10-05-Speech-4-075"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2000-10-05"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Vote (continuation)2
dcterms:Language	"de"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20001005.5.4-075"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2000-10-05-Speech-4-0762
lpv:speaker	lp:Astrid Lulling2
lpv:spokenAs	member; Delegation for relations with the countries of South America and MERCOSUR (1999-10-06--2002-01-14)3 member; EPP-ED (1999-09-16--2004-07-19)3 unknown; Parti chrétien social (1999-09-16--2004-07-19)3 substitute; AGRI (1999-10-07--2002-01-14)3 member; Committee on Women's Rights and Equal Opportunities (1999-10-07--2002-01-14)3 member; ECON (1999-10-07--2002-01-14)3
lpv:translated text	". Our colleague, Thomas Mann, has invested a great deal of work in a report on the proposal for a Council directive establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation. His report was adopted unanimously in the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs. However, we then had 13 improvement amendments to consider, in addition to the 60 contained in the Mann report on the directive proposed by the Commission. There is a saying we would do well not to ignore in our efforts to amend the Commission proposals, which are actually well thought through as a rule, and this is how it goes ‘what is better is the enemy of what is good’. That is only common sense in fact. One could not help but wonder if common sense had always prevailed in the drafting of certain, no doubt well-meaning, proposed amendments that were now before us. If the directive is to be adopted and implemented, it must not be encumbered with a literary approach and wishful thinking, which have no place in a legal document. That is most certainly true of the amendment which proposes that this directive should end the sexually discriminatory practice of stipulating that only male personnel can wear a tie. If absurdity could kill then the authors of such an amendment would definitely no longer be with us. I think it is also going too far to expect employers to provide statistics on all aspects of their employment of people falling within the scope of this directive. The authorities already have their work cut out. This brings to mind another sound rule of thumb: ‘no one can achieve the impossible’. I also think that we can do without the entire contents of the new Article 12 (a). The Commission rightly refrained – on the basis of the subsidiarity principle, of course – from instructing the Member States to set up new institutions for monitoring the application of the principle of equal treatment, which could be consulted by every conceivable, and inconceivable, group of people or association etc, requesting free handling of their complaints, and which could even be granted access to confidential personnel files. Despite all the inconsistencies and superfluous proposals, which do nothing to help the cause, I did not want to vote against the report at the final vote. But here too, I feel that ‘less would have been more’, and the Commission proposal, without the superfluous amendments, is the better and more logical instrument for ensuring equal treatment in employment and occupation, which is, after all, what we want."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph