Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/1999-11-03-Speech-3-092"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.19991103.7.3-092"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, I, like my colleagues, would like to congratulate both our rapporteurs on the presentation of their work. Also, as this is the first opportunity I have had, I should like to welcome the Commissioner to the House for this debate.
The impact of this directive will not be uniform across all sectors of the economy and therefore it will negatively impact on certain sectors, in particular those areas that are more heavily dependent on transport.
Thirdly, it is likely that rather than aligning competition, the application of a single standard across all road transport and other transport areas in some Member States will actually distort competition.
The proposals will also lead to a conflict with other goals with regard to the regulation of traffic to reduce congestion and other impacts.
Finally, we already have in place in the transport sector tachograph requirements which are rigorously enforced in all Member States and which may be one way of dealing with some of the concerns about the health and safety aspect. We should look at modifying and solidifying those tachograph requirements. In Ireland we have a road safety plan which has been in operation since 1998. This is a five-year plan which aims to reduce road deaths, the amount of traffic on the roads and to ensure that the quality of vehicles on the road meet the highest possible standards to protect the environment.
The next point I want to cover is with regard to junior doctors and training. This is an area that has been fraught with danger for the Member States. I believe everybody in this House would welcome the opportunity to give a very positive and assertive vote in favour of the proposals put forward by Mrs Smith in her report with regard to reducing the transitional period to four years. There is no reason why we need a 13-year introduction. Even the common position proposal of 7 years is too long.
Each of us is fully aware that junior doctors in training carry out tasks which are virtually the same as those carried out by their so-called “masters”, the consultants. Indeed, in 1994 the report commissioned by the European Commission which looked at this whole area of junior doctors in training highlighted seven points which need immediate action: the excessive hours of work in some countries; the question of on-call duties; unrealistic rostering periods; protracted periods of continuous duty; the distribution of duties between junior doctors and senior doctors; informal pressures on doctors in training; the vulnerability of breaks and time off in the face of the pressure of service needed.
I have had several meetings with junior doctors in Ireland over the last number of months with regard to this issue. One of the areas that is of highest concern to them is that because of the existence in Ireland – and in Britain as well, for example – of the archaic feudal-type system whereby junior doctors in training are apprenticed – I use that word broadly – to senior consultants, they are afraid to raise too many issues of concern, because it might affect their future careers. What we have to guarantee is that the proper level of health care and health protection can be given to patients in the health service and also, that junior doctors are given the highest possible level of training with proper standards for their working conditions and working time – this will mean a reduction in the amount of hours that are worked – and also, the other so-called duties which they are obliged to carry out merely to deliver the service. We have a model in Australia and New Zealand which could usefully be copied in the European Union Member States.
Finally, with regard to the concerns of fishermen, special consideration has to be given to this special sector. There is no other sector to which it can be compared. The proposals put forward are unrealistic and impractical. We must ensure that fishermen’s rights to earn their living are not hindered by ridiculous regulation.
The whole area of working time and the directive have created a lot of difficulties for individual Members and also in Member States. I feel that whilst each of us in this House would welcome the opportunity to ensure a safer working environment, not only for employees, but also for consumers and other users of transport and so on, we have to ensure that we do not over-regulate in any individual area. Therefore, my group will be seeking separate votes on certain paragraphs, in particular within the Smet report.
When framing legislation we have an obligation to ensure that legislation is effective, that it can be easily enforced and that it does not impose an onerous burden on employees or enterprises. I feel there are some areas within the present proposals which will create difficulties.
Firstly, with regard to mobile workers, the exclusion of own-account operators from the definition will subject this group to the full rigours of the original working time directive. This will mean, for instance, that in the road transport area there will be three categories of operators: own-account, third party hauliers and self-employed.
Secondly, the deletion of mobile workers from Article 17 dilutes the opportunity for mobile workers to extend the reference period from 4 to 12 months.
Thirdly, the proposed sector-specific directive for working time in road transport, when finalised, will supersede this common position and will provide a more detailed regulatory framework for this area.
In the light of these issues we should be cognisant of the difficulties which will be created. Therefore I am recommending a negative vote in relation to these areas.
There is one further point to bear in mind. The intention of the introduction of this legislation, as I said earlier, was protection of health and safety. However, I have in my possession a study carried out by University College, Dublin, which highlights the negative impact of this proposed extension of the directive, not only on the grounds of safety and competitiveness, but also on the grounds of damage to the environment. The Commission already has a copy of this study. I would welcome a response from it with regard to the points highlighted in it.
I should like to refer very briefly to some of the points highlighted. Firstly, the overall cost of the directive would be far greater than that proposed under the impact assessment. Secondly, the average cost increase for firms in this study would be in excess by about a hundred times that of the study carried out by the EC which stated that it would be 0.2%."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples