Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-11-15-Speech-3-030"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20061115.3.3-030"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, thanks to the hard work and determination of our rapporteur Mrs Gebhardt, and thanks to the mobilisation of the European trades union movement, at first reading Parliament removed the main dangers from the initial version of the Services Directive, the version put forward by Commissioner Bolkestein. In particular, Parliament managed to remove from the directive all social services, including social housing, healthcare, audiovisual services, transport and temporary employment agencies. Likewise, the directive on the posting of workers and labour law could not be affected, thus removing the main dangers of social dumping, and the country of origin principle was also deleted. Nevertheless, two major problems remained: firstly, not all services of general economic interest were removed from the scope, due to opposition from the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats and the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe; secondly, the new version of Article 16, whilst removing the country of origin principle, was not clear in establishing the country of destination principle.
These problems have not been solved in the Council's common position, which, although it has indeed incorporated the essence of the conclusions from Parliament's first reading, has taken a backward step on several other points, in particular social services and labour law, as the European Trade Union Confederation has underlined. Everyone has acknowledged the need for clarification of these points, and of others, such as the effects on criminal law, the direction taken by the Commission's guidelines and the need for future harmonisation, and you have made a statement to that effect, Commissioner. It would, however, have been more logical, given that the codecision procedure has not been completed, to adopt amendments to clarify these elements within the articles themselves. Unfortunately, I note that the PPE has neutralised the second reading by rejecting all the amendments proposed by the rapporteur during the debate in the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection. In a way, this group has deprived the European Parliament of its right of amendment, and I find that deplorable.
The French Socialist delegation has therefore tabled a number of amendments, because it feels that the compromise is not satisfactory in its current state, and that it leaves the door open to too many uncertainties with regard to the Court's interpretation. I think that, when it comes to distinguishing between liberalisation, on the one hand, and social and fundamental rights, on the other, the role of the legislature is to clarify, and not to leave the door open for case-law."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples