Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-12-15-Speech-1-070"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20031215.7.1-070"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, please believe me when I say that I am not particularly interested in stirring up past issues. If I am doing so, however, it is also the case that, when it appears that a high degree of consensus has been reached on certain issues, it is good to consider what has happened, at least so that, if not in this case, then certainly in the future, we can draw conclusions on how parliamentary tasks are carried out within the codecision procedure.
I am therefore going to focus exclusively on two aspects of the first occasion on which – as all the honourable Members will remember – during this legislature, Parliament did not approve the text of the Conciliation Committee, which was basically in line with the text of the common position.
The first of these aspects will allow me to remind the honourable Members of the different formulae which were considered on the initiative of the European Parliament in terms of regulating administration bodies’ neutrality obligation and comparing them – where appropriate – with the formulae now being presented. And in view of this comparison I do not believe that what we are going to approve today improves on what on that previous occasion had been proposed, at least by the European Parliament. Because at that time this House proposed maintaining the administration bodies’ neutrality obligation – which is positive – although, simply for certain cases in which it is not possible for the board of directors to meet, it proposed certain formulae, which were not accepted by the Council or by the Commission.
What is happening now? Well it has only been possible to reach a consensus by greatly reducing the Commission’s initial proposals. Ultimately, by not regulating the section relating to the neutrality obligation and consequently allowing the legislations of the Member States to regulate, by means of handy subsidiarity, issues relating to the prohibition or non-prohibition of defensive measures.
I do not believe that this is a good formula for legislation. I believe that, if certain proposals presented by Parliament had been approved at that time, we would have had more suitable legislation.
The second aspect – which has been mentioned by my colleague, Mrs van den Burg – relates to the chapter on information and consultation for workers. I would like to point out that, on that occasion, a large majority of Members of Parliament approved rights to information and consultation for workers which were shared by the immense majority of these Members. Some people pointed out on that occasion that there had been an alliance between certain conservative sectors and the Socialists, as a result of which the former had obtained flexible treatment for the prohibition of defensive measures, while the latter obtained broad recognition of the participation of workers. At that time it was also proposed that we Socialists should break the pact and vote in favour of the proposals in the common position in exchange for recognising the workers’ right to information.
Well, on that occasion we did not do so, but – as Mrs van den Burg has said – if this aspect is not recognised and if the relevant amendments are not approved we will be obliged to vote against."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples