Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-11-15-Speech-4-167"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20011115.6.4-167"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". – Madam President, I welcome the favourable reception that the Commission proposal has received and I would like to thank Parliament for its contributions aimed at further reinforcing the protection of workers affected by the insolvency of their employer.
In line with your comments I agree that there are different types of self-employed people. There are some self-employed people who are economically dependent. This issue was raised in 2000 when we had consultation with the social partners. The responses of the social partners emphasised the need to clarify and analyse the situation in all Member States because there is a diversity of situations, there are many different kinds of self-employed people. This was the reason why we have already launched a study which will provide us with an overview of the nature of the phenomenon across the European Union. Once we have the results of the study, the Commission will analyse it and after a consultation with the social partners we will present the appropriate way to deal with this issue.
The other categories – home-workers and those in similar categories – are covered to the extent that they are considered to be employees under national law. There is, therefore, no need to mention them specifically.
Finally, some amendments should be rejected because they would not help to achieve the underlying objective of the proposal.
To sum up, I can accept, subject to some minor redrafting, Amendments Nos 2, 4, 6, 9, and 11, and parts of Amendments Nos 14 and 15. I reject Amendments Nos 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 16, 17 and 18.
I would like to thank you for your contribution. I would particularly like to thank and congratulate Mr Bouwman for his contribution and for the report.
The Insolvency Directive has proved to be an invaluable instrument for protecting employees in cases of economic downturns and it will be a key legislative instrument to respond to the present climate of closures and redundancies. Although the basic structure of the directive should be retained, specific points of the directive need to be revised.
I welcome Amendment No 2 which aims to prevent the introduction of new restrictions beyond those currently in place in the Member States, and also Amendment No 9 which proposes to prohibit threshold provisions in order to qualify for claims under the directive.
I am also in favour of Amendment No 4 which proposes to extend the protection of workers of employers in other insolvency situations beyond those situations covered by the definition of insolvency proposed by the Commission. Firstly, the broadening of the definition is fully acceptable. However, on Amendment No 6, the extension to any other procedure or even to "de facto" situations of insolvency can only be accepted as an option for the Member States and not as an obligation.
I can also accept Amendment No 11, which proposes to add severance pay on termination of the employment relationship, with the addition of the term "where appropriate". The term "pay" should continue to be defined in the national law of the Member States.
Amendment No 14, which proposes the abolition of a ceiling, is not acceptable in its entirety but I share your concerns on this point and I could accept a provision which allows ceilings which are compatible with the social purpose of the directive in order to avoid a level which is unacceptable for workers. I am also ready to supplement this provision with a non-regression clause which impedes Member States from lowering the protection already provided when implementing the amended directive.
Finally, I can accept the reintroduction of the old Article 5 of the directive – Amendment No 15 – but this only in the old unchanged version of this article in the 1980 directive.
I am unable to accept the remaining amendments, in particular Amendment No 13 which aims to increase the minimum period for pay to six months. Such an increase would seriously reduce the chance of the directive being adopted and would place a further considerable financial burden on the public purse and employers which would in turn cast doubt on the system of pay guarantees as a whole.
I cannot accept Amendment No 1, which aims to prevent employees from being "converted" to self-employed persons; Amendment No 7 which proposes the introduction of a Community definition of "employee"; nor Amendments Nos 8 and 16 which propose to add categories of workers who may not be excluded from the scope of the directive. Efforts to combat illegal "conversion" must be made at national level. A Community definition of an employed person should not be included in a particular directive, and self-employed workers cannot be covered because they do not have an employer who could be insolvent."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples