Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-07-05-Speech-2-283"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: none) |
|---|---|
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to express my thanks for an extremely animated and focused debate. I should like to start by emphasising that an opportunity is available to us to adopt this crucial directive without delay. In the interests of Europe’s citizens, this opportunity must be seized. I would note that this is a key step forward that must be taken in order to promote equality between men and women in the eyes of all stakeholders, regardless of the different opinions held by the institutions on the thinking behind this revision.
In conclusion, I would note that the Commission can accept a number of amendments in full on the basis of these considerations, and, if I may, I will run through the amendments in question. The Commission can accept in full Amendments 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25, 26, 27, 28, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 45, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 64, 65, 66, 68, 69, 70, 74, 75, 77, 78, 79, 80, 82, 83, 85, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 96, 101, 106, 107, 108 and 109. The Commission can accept in part Amendments 5, 24, 71, 72, 73, 76, 84, 98, 102, 103, 104 and 105. The Commission cannot, however, accept Amendments 3, 12, 13, 29, 30, 36, 44, 46, 53, 63, 67, 81, 86, 94, 95, 97, 99 or 100. I have already set out the rationale behind the Commission’s position.
If I may, I should now like to explain the Commission’s position on the amendments in a little more detail. The Commission can readily accept a significant number of them, and indeed we believe that they are also consistent with the Council’s position as set out in its general approach of 7 December 2004. They go a long way towards improving Community legislation in this field and making it more accessible. A variety of tools are employed to this end, including technical measures, legal clarifications and provisions that will give fresh political impetus to the promotion of equality between men and women, for example with regard to equal pay.
The Commission cannot accept a second set of amendments for purely technical reasons, and it will outline these reasons in detail in its amended proposal. In addition, it has rejected a certain number of amendments because they go beyond the scope of what can reasonably be achieved during this revision process. The specific aim of the latter is to facilitate the ongoing and parallel procedures of codifying Community legislation on the one hand, and laying the groundwork for fundamental changes on the other.
The first of these amendments relates to the new Article 3(a), which would oblige Member States to implement positive action measures, instead of this being an option. Given that Article 141(4) of the Treaty, which is a source of primary law, clearly states that the Member States are competent to take whatever action they deem necessary in this field, any act of secondary law that cited this Article of the Treaty, while at the same time encroaching upon this competence, would in our opinion face major obstacles.
Secondly, the Commission cannot agree to the obligation incumbent upon Member States to support certain measures in the framework of social dialogue being turned into an obligation to guarantee certain outcomes of this dialogue, in line with the amendments to Articles 24 and 27. It would be hard to square these amendments with the principle of social partners’ autonomy.
I should also like to remind the House that corresponding provisions were included in Directive 2002/73/EC, following lengthy negotiations with Parliament and the Council. This Directive and the rules it lays down, which represent an innovative approach intended to increase the involvement of social partners, will not come into force until October 2005. As we see it, it would be inappropriate to amend these provisions before they have had a chance to prove their worth in practice.
The new Article 28(b), which proposes a review clause for the Parental Leave Directive, is unacceptable because this Directive does not fall within the scope of the present revision. A clause to this effect would be difficult to reconcile with the relevant provisions in the Parental Leave Directive and with those in the European-level framework agreement between the social partners, upon which the Directive is based. What is more, problems would arise regarding the compatibility of this amendment with the autonomy of social partners and their role, as enshrined in Articles 138 and 139 of the Treaty.
Finally, the Commission cannot accept the amendments to Article 8 that are aimed at prohibiting the use of gender as a factor when calculating insurance premiums and benefits for employee insurance schemes. These amendments also go beyond what is involved in drafting legislative proposals such as the directive under debate. That is not to say that this issue should not be a subject of political debate in the future. Even though opinions are divided on the matter, and the position currently held by the Council is quite clear, I am absolutely convinced that this is an important issue that requires our attention.
Furthermore, the Commission does not of course believe that applying different schemes for second- and third-pillar pensions would give rise to ambiguity in the present context, as was also suggested during the debate. This is an entirely separate issue, and one that transcends purely technical considerations."@en1
|
| dcterms:Language | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| rdf:type | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050705.29.2-283"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| dcterms:Date |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples