Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-12-04-Speech-3-152"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20021204.9.3-152"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Madam President, may I just say what a pleasure it is to be invited to take the floor at five minutes to midnight. I often think – because it is usually the case with employment legislation – that it is all a plot by the Secretariat
to remind us of the folly of the working time directive, not that we need to be reminded of that particular folly on that particular directive.
Regarding this one, this conciliated text is in my view a bad compromise on a bad directive. It would have been much better for both parties to have kept their original positions and for the legislation to have fallen. Certainly I voted against it; I was the notable exception referred to by my colleague Liz Lynne. I also voted against it in the conciliation committee for this reason, even though we did manage to dilute many of the dafter amendments during that committee process.
As far as the UK is concerned, existing noise regulations have been well thought through and these tighter regulations at EU level are neither necessary nor appropriate. Mr Hughes mentioned the importance of business impact assessments and that they should be carried out thoroughly. I agree with that. It is significant that there has been no proper regulatory impact assessment at EU level to determine the costs and benefits of the proposed directive. Certainly there was one done by the UK which established that the costs far outweighed the benefits and perhaps that is why the EU decided not to do one. This legislation does not reflect the real world.
Coming two weeks after Parliament approved the atypical workers directive, where extra costs and red tape could mean the loss of 160 000 temporary worker jobs in the UK alone, this latest directive shows that the EU continues to operate in a time warp when it comes to employment and social legislation.
Finally, I would like to say that during the progress of the legislation through the European Parliament there have been three different ministers back in the UK, which may explain why the UK Government has made such a limp response to it. The UK Conservative response will not be limp. We will stand up for common sense and vote against it."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples