Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-07-10-Speech-2-301"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20070710.53.2-301"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Honourable Members I should like to make it clear that the correct implementation of the posted workers directive is not, under any circumstances, a back door through which we are seeking to weaken and compromise the protection of workers in the European labour market. Quite the opposite, correct implementation of the directive will lead to the effective protection of workers, and this is of vital importance. It is not true at all that the Commission is placing restrictions on monitoring powers: let me state categorically that any measures that a Member State deems necessary, and which are proportionate to the objective, will of course be correct and applicable.
I must also point out that the decision on this directive, did not take place in some ivory tower any more than the decision on the communication did – it has been discussed on countless occasions on the ground with the social partners. I feel that when it comes to implementing laws, we all know where to draw the line between instances when the law becomes a matter of mere bureaucracy, and fails to achieve its objectives, and on the other hand instances when it achieves different and incorrect objectives. Checks must therefore be thorough and effective, but within the framework of an applied method, as the directive and the law in general do not allow everything. In other words, not everything will be acceptable – only that which falls within the framework of the law, and which is effective and is proportionate.
As regards amending the directive, which has been suggested, I should like to say that Parliament has itself addressed this issue at least twice or three times before, as have the social partners, and no overriding position was formulated whereby the directive could be recast in a substantive way. On the contrary, the positions formulated were always in favour of improving cooperation and implementation. I should also like to point out that the implementation is a matter for the Member States, and the Commission is responsible for ensuring that implementation is carried out within the framework of European law. It also has an obligation to use the legal resources at its disposal. In this regard, the Commission of course checks what the situation is in labour markets in the individual Member States and proceeds in a considered way, as is laid down in the law.
It is of course extremely important to improve administrative cooperation. It is also important to improve cooperation between individual monitoring bodies in the Member States, and the Commission will proceed and channel its efforts in this direction. If it is shown in subsequent debates that there are grounds for extending the law, this point will certainly be opened up, and fervently debated. At the moment, neither the preliminary political debate in Parliament nor the debate with the social partners suggests that it would be right to take any new legislative action in this field.
Honourable Members, I must stress once again that the objective of this directive is the effective protection of workers, and any monitoring measures that contribute to effective protection will be appropriate. Member States that do not carry out effective monitoring are in breach of the directive. It is clear that monitoring in any area must be pursued in a manner which is proportionate, in the legal sense of the term, and we are often in dispute over what is proportionate. The Court of Justice in Luxembourg has the authority to settle such disputes between European institutions."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples