Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/1999-11-03-Speech-3-085"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.19991103.7.3-085"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"As you said, the proposal for which I am responsible is that relating to the enforcement of seafarers’ hours of work on board ships using Community ports.
This is just one element of an overall package of proposals that were brought forward by the Commission last November to try to plug the loopholes of the sectors that were excluded from the original working-time directive back in 1993. I hope we are nearing the final chapters in this long saga and that soon we will have all sectors covered by arrangements on working time to protect worker health and safety.
Just as a quick reminder, the batch that was brought forward last year by the Commission included first of all an overall amendment of the 1993 directive, that is the subject of Mrs Smet’s report; a directive on road transport, sadly that one is totally blocked in the Transport Council at the moment I understand it; the third, a directive implementing the agreement between the social partners on seafarers, was adopted in the form of a directive in June this year so that element is taken care of, and then finally the proposal that I am speaking on today, a directive on the enforcement of working hours on board ships using Community ports. The three proposals effectively need to be seen together in relation to the one proposal I am speaking on.
There is the agreement reached between the two sides of industry in the maritime sector, there is the specific proposal relating to seafarers having recourse to Community ports, but also there is ILO Convention 180 and in fact the agreement between the two sides of industry in the maritime sector was very closely based on ILO Convention 180. These three proposals: the agreement, the directive on seafarers’ hours and the ILO Convention are designed to come into effect together in mid-2002.
At the first reading on this particular proposal Parliament made no amendments but the rapporter, Hugh McMahon at that time, made the point that it was absolutely essential that these three instruments should come into effect at the same time to avoid any competitive disadvantage. I am therefore very pleased indeed that seems to have been agreed and we seem to be making progress in that direction. The fact that the ILO Convention now has a time limit set down effectively in the form of the other two directives means that we will, I am sure, have sufficient Member States with sufficiently large fleets ratifying the Convention to make sure that it too comes into effect in mid-2002. The only significant difference in the common position compared with the first reading position is that the implementation date has been put back by one year. That really is to allow Member States to overcome one or two technical difficulties they might have in ratifying ILO Convention 180 and thereby allowing the whole package to be brought into effect at the same time.
Perhaps I could also say that I have just met with the two sides of industry from the maritime sector and congratulated them heartily on the agreement they reached. It took five years of negotiation to reach the agreement in the maritime sector. These things do not happen easily, they do not happen overnight but they did work extremely hard and we are now seeing the fruits of the social dialogue in that particular sector. I think it is very sad indeed that we have not seen similar progress in the road sector.
The difficulties we are now facing in the Transport Council over the legislative proposal the Commission brought forward stem directly from the fact that there was a failure to make progress on a framework agreement on working time in the road sector. It reveals a real sharp contrast to the progress that was made in the maritime sector. That really poses a danger; it poses a danger to the revision to the general directive that Mrs Smet is also dealing with and the danger is this: the rail sector is included in the general directive. The two sides of industry there agreed to be included in the general directive so long as parallel progress was made in the road sector because they quite naturally fear a competitive disadvantage if they put in place wide-ranging arrangements to cover working time but the road sector does not. I hope the Transport Council will hear that message and that we will see some progress to make sure that road transport is covered, otherwise we see a real danger to the rail sector element of the revision to the general directive.
For now, however, I can thoroughly commend the common position in relation to the enforcement of seafarers’ hours at work on board ships using Community ports. This will make sure that the workers on board vessels from third countries having recourse to our ports are covered by the same broad arrangements as the agreement between the two sides of industry. It is a perfectly sensible and good proposal and I commend it to the House."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples