Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-12-03-Speech-3-057"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20031203.6.3-057"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, I very much support the joint resolution which my group has signed up to in relation to the Summit and the Social Forum. The important thing is that once again it seeks to strike the essential balance that was established at Lisbon: the balanced policy mix combining economic, social and employment policies in an overall framework of sustainable development. I hope governments will not succumb to the temptation to try in any way to skew that policy mix at the forthcoming summit.
There is one element in the resolution that causes me some concern: the second part of paragraph 10. My Group will request a separate vote on that point and many will be voting against it.
Why would that be? Are we in favour of needless, additional regulation? No. The first part of paragraph 10
which we support
makes that absolutely clear. It is equally true, however, that certain sections of this House, and local employers' organisations outside it, are increasingly calling for ever more stringent, narrowly-drawn business impact assessments as a way of blocking the Commission’s right of initiative on much-needed proposals. We cannot allow those calls for cost-benefit impact assessments to be used in that way.
We on this side of the House support the idea of true and honest cost-benefit assessments that take account of all the costs and benefits. For example, in a debate on the revision of the working time directive last week in the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, the point was made very forcibly by Liberal Members that we need a full business impact assessment. I make the point in reply that what we need is a true cost-benefit assessment that takes account of all the costs and benefits.
What, for example, is the cost of a long-hours culture in terms of damage to family life, damage to children and marital dysfunction? A cost must be imputed to those things as well in such a calculation. We therefore urgently need to bring forward revisions of that sort.
In relation to paragraph 9 of the resolution, which refers to opening up the market in postal and passenger services, it is important that a true cost-benefit assessment is applied there too.
Finally, I would like to point out that in fact the Treaties are very clear. In the area of employment and social legislation, there is already a very clear requirement built into the Treaty: 'such directives shall avoid imposing administrative, financial and legal constraints in a way which would hold back the creation, and development of small and medium sized undertakings'. The Commission already applies those tests to every piece of legislation it brings forward in the employment and social field. That is right and proper. It is good that it takes place already, but we should not try to narrow it in order to needlessly block much-needed social and employment proposals that will help maintain that overall policy balance established at Lisbon."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples