Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-11-06-Speech-4-026"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20031106.2.4-026"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mrs Smet, thank you for the comment you made a moment ago; I agree with it, and that also applies to this subject. Naturally, we cannot deal with the mid-term social policy agenda review established in Nice in her absence. Incidentally, it is nice to see that Mr Fischler is present, and therefore the Commission too.
Our second question is this: How does the Commission envisage improving employment and social policy after the enlargement of the EU? We have been highlighting the problems in detail for some time, including the follow-up and implementation of the legislation, the
and the development of social dialogue. These are not easy subjects for the accession countries. In this connection, I would also like attention to be paid to progress in European employment strategy and the use of the open coordination methods with regard to social exclusion and social protection.
I would have liked to have had her answers, particularly because we had already discussed the mid-term social policy agenda review with her in our committee. Nevertheless, there were still a number of questions left unanswered, and that is why we are putting these questions verbally today, without a resolution.
The Nice social agenda is very important for the perfectly simple reason that Europe and European citizens are expecting the social side of Europe to develop further after the introduction and coming into force of EMU, the euro, and the stability and growth pact. This is indeed necessary; it not only costs money, it also delivers benefits; this has been clearly demonstrated by the Commission in its study. This agenda naturally includes creating more and better jobs, anticipating working environments, fighting poverty and social exclusion, modernising social protection, promoting gender equality and ultimately social policy as part of enlargement. At the end of my speech I would like to ask a few questions which we would like the Commission to answer.
In the meantime, I note that the European Parliament has already expressed its objections relating to this social agenda three times during the annual scoreboards. Each time, we asked that attention be paid to the points brought forward by Parliament – some existing points relating to the social agenda, some new points connected with current events, such as the events currently taking place at Ford Genk. In other words, therefore, we are asking for the new policy initiatives to be properly implemented, but also for an indication as to the means by which this will be done. We are also of the opinion that there is often a great deal more to be done – including legislative activities – than is currently being done: deliberation, consultation, expert groups etc., all of which takes time.
When I came in here, I thought we were going to deal with the European works council, but this will still not have happened by the time I leave, and it may not even happen during the next legislature. This is causing us problems all the time in practice; today's debate is proof of that!
In other words, we are not satisfied with the way in which a number of proposals on this agenda are being dealt with at the moment, and I would like to list a few examples. The most important is naturally the question of the European works council. We have already let it be known that we believe that consultations have been going on long enough, including in the area of social dialogue. The partners have had more than enough time to exercise influence on this. Now it is time for measures! We had already expected these in 2002, but they have still not arrived! This is in fact nothing new for the Commission, and it is nothing new for the Commissioner.
The same applies to the working time directive. We asked that attention be paid to this area as well. At the moment, a number of countries in Europe are avoiding the working time regulations, and that is exactly what we do not want, as it distorts competition. We want to see measures introduced in this regard, and as soon as possible! The Commission should take the initiative on this point, and it should do so quicker than is currently the case. We could go on like this for a while, including with regard to aspects such as the new occupational diseases. I could give you a whole list of rapporteurs we have had on this subject: Mrs Van Lancker, Mrs Smet, Mrs Hermange and finally Mrs Figueiredo. New occupational diseases, the social sides of competition policy, intervention procedures in the area of the delocalisation of companies; we have been asking for these for some time now. These points seem to be repeatedly left off the agenda, however.
As far as social and fiscal measures are concerned, we want to put the effects these have on cross-border working on the agenda as soon as possible. We want the regulations to address the question of gender inequality. We could go on like this; the legal basis for what we call the ‘civil dialogue’ is also one of these points. In other words, what I said was not yet exhaustive. Taking all this into consideration, we would like to ask the following two questions:
How does the Commission intend to use its right of initiative (in other words its right to take active steps) to implement the social policy agenda, both with regard to the old points and with regard to the points we have put forward on behalf of the European Parliament? In doing so, we must bear in mind that these should contribute to creating full employment, the fight against social dumping and discrimination and improving the quality of employment in Europe. That is our first question."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples