Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-02-02-Speech-3-105"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000202.7.3-105"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, thank you very much for the opportunity you are giving me to go into the different amendments in more detail. In the course of my speech, I would also like to address Lord Inglewood regarding the remark he has just made.
Finally, I would like to thank Parliament for the very constructive debate on the key aspects of these proposals and, in particular, of course, the rapporteur, Mrs Berger.
Regarding the first proposal on third-country employees, the Commission is prepared to adopt Amendments Nos 2, 11, 12, 15, 16 and 22. Amendments Nos 7 and 8 are acceptable too, provided the situation of posting is established in the Member State in which the service provider is established.
The Commission also agrees with Amendment No 11, except for the proposed period of previous employment of only three months, as I explained just now. We also welcome Amendment No 13 insofar as, as a result of this, the card’s area of applicability is extended from one Member State to all Member States. In terms of comitology, Amendments Nos 14 and 21 also apply in part, insofar as the rights of Parliament are concerned.
I regret that the Commission has found Amendment No 10 to be unacceptable as far as the three-month period and the role of the Member State in which the service is provided are concerned. In this respect, the Commission supports Amendment No 22, as I have already mentioned. The other amendments are unacceptable. Personally, I am rather in favour of the term “EU service provision card” which is proposed in Amendment No 1, but the Treaty of Amsterdam does not allow this.
As Amendment No 18 refers to Directive 96/71 concerning the minimum wage which is already in force, no change is necessary. Acceptance of Amendment No 17 by the Commission would mean that a simple duty of notification would apply if no valid card is issued. Surely this is contrary to interests of public order within the Member States.
Amendment No 19 is also unacceptable, given my thoughts on Amendment No 10. The Commission has the same opinion of similar amendments to the second proposal. I would like to add that Amendment No 10 to that proposal is wholly acceptable.
As far as Amendment No 15 on the definition of the term “self-employed” is concerned, the Commission will, as I have already remarked, provide an adequate solution to accommodate the objections lodged.
I would now like to move on to Lord Inglewood’s remark. He referred to United Kingdom border controls and I would like to say to him that Member States, and this includes the United Kingdom, are under no obligation at all to abolish or change controls at the existing borders. This applies, as already stated, to the United Kingdom and it also applies to Belgium, where it was recently of relevance.
With regard to the remark made by Mr Karas, I am under the impression that he is talking about the possibility of people from Poland being used as employees in his country. The Commission would like to propose finding a solution to this problem which would then apply to all companies based in the European Union which employ staff from non-EU countries. The question is, furthermore, one of whether the two cases should be treated in the same way. In my opinion, this is an issue which belongs to the debate on the enlargement of the European Union and perhaps not to the present debate. On behalf of the Commission, I would be more than happy to make myself available to Mr Karas in case he would like further information on this genuinely important point. I will keep myself free in this connection."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples