Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-04-04-Speech-2-188"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060404.21.2-188"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to thank you for the discussion that has just taken place. Allow me to touch on some of the points that have been raised.
In the continuing debate between the social partners and representatives of the Member States, and especially also within the framework of parliamentary debates, the view has now taken hold that the Directive is fit for purpose and that there is no pressing reason for it to be subjected to any fundamental legislative reworking, although its practical application may give rise to a number of problems. In the course of discussing the Services Directive, Parliament obtained a promise that the Commission would include in its communication a round-up of practice to date and of the decisions to date from the Luxembourg court. It is absolutely clear, and I think it applies across the entire legal system, that laws should be used only in accordance with the purposes for which lawmakers have framed them. The Posted Workers Directive should protect workers who have been posted, securing for them the appropriate rights while preventing social dumping, protecting them from exploitation and saving them from being forced into accepting unreasonable social standards and thereby competing unfairly against workers in the host country. This is the purpose of the Directive and this was our determining viewpoint when formulating a strategy for the communication.
It is not of course the aim of the Directive to create artificial barriers, and this means that every single barrier and every administrative procedure must be weighed up from the following standpoint: is it necessary and essential to the greater protection of workers? If the answer is yes, then it will be in agreement with the Directive, if the answer is no, then it will not be. I can provide a typical example: the protection of workers unquestionably requires the use of official documents, but we can easily imagine that some documents may be unnecessary from this standpoint. This is one of the issues addressed in the communication.
In a number of speeches a question also arose that was not connected directly with the communication, but was connected with the further development of the Services Directive and with issues relating to services in general. This was the question of social services in the public interest. I can report that the communication is already complete in respect of the fundamentals of this issue, and we expect it to be fully formulated by the end of April. The communication will, on the one hand, clarify some of the principal legal questions, because it is necessary to have precise and reliable interpretations of court decisions, and on the other hand it will put forward a number of other procedures that might be adopted with the further development and elaboration of the political concept of services in the public interest.
Ladies and gentlemen, I believe that the Services Directive and the related communication, along with the additional negotiations and subsequent steps, provide an example of exceptionally productive cooperation between the Commission and Parliament, within the framework of some highly demanding parts of our legislation.
Ladies and gentlemen, perhaps I might be allowed one more comment, already touched on by my colleague Mr McCreevy, which is that we do indeed expect some new legislative proposals to be formulated in relation to health care, and particularly in relation to the movement of patients within the health system."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples