Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2008-12-15-Speech-1-136"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20081215.15.1-136"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, first of all, many thanks to the rapporteur. Though the amendments voted through committee were not what he wanted – in fact he wanted no amendments – he nevertheless defended the committee position in the negotiations which led to this first-reading agreement.
Many thanks also to Mr Cremers, our shadow rapporteur, who was the real architect of the content of the agreement. The three additions to the points agreed by the social partners in their advice note – on sanctions, on transnationality and the removal of the threshold for the special negotiating body – are important in themselves, but many of us, as has been said, still feel cheated by this recasting.
We were promised a full revision of the directive almost 10 years ago. Other serious deficiencies need to be addressed, and we insist that the Commission should bring forward that full revision during the next mandate.
Another serious concern about the handling of this recasting was the crossover between the social dialogue and legislative tracks. The social partners were consulted in accordance with Article 139 and eventually signalled their inability or unwillingness to negotiate a framework agreement. But just as we began our legislative work, they did signal that they would like to open negotiations. They then agreed an advice note, which has no standing at all in the Treaties, but that gave our rapporteur, Mr Bushill-Matthews, the opportunity to pretend to be conciliatory by accepting the content of the note, but nothing more.
Rather than acting as a spur to our work, that advice note almost became a straitjacket. The Article 139 and 138 procedures need to be kept clearly separated. It is wrong if either undermines or constrains the other, and it is the job of the Commission to ensure that separation. Even as we speak, a similar crossover is being allowed to derail a legislative amendment we have been calling for to address the problem of needle-stick injuries.
I repeat, this is dangerous and can only lead to resentment and distrust between the social partners and Parliament. Nevertheless, this is a step forward in terms of information and consultation rights for workers, and I welcome it."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples