Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-05-16-Speech-2-151"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000516.7.2-151"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I would first of all like to thank the President, Mr Provan, for his kind words, but particularly for the way in which he, together with Mr Rocard, has presided over and guided the entire process. I would also like to thank all the delegates, as it would indeed be impossible to find a compromise on a number of difficult and sensitive issues, if it was not for the fact that everyone moderated their demands, and this is what eventually happened. My thanks go to all of you.
The vote in the European Parliament tomorrow and in the Council the day after will provisionally end a decade of European legislation concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time. I am adding “provisionally”, because although a number of sectors and activities are already covered by conclusive horizontal legislation, the vertical rules are still pending. The best way to establish these vertical rules is via collective labour agreements, but if these collective labour agreements are not forthcoming, then the Commission will need to take the initiative and propose draft directives. This has already happened in the case of road transport. The European Parliament has made its position clear but it appears that the Council is unable to adopt the common position. This is intolerable, really intolerable, because road transport is one of the key sectors, there are many difficulties within that sector and because so many accidents happen within the Member States due to a lack of legislation and control. I would call on the Council and both sides of industry finally to resolve this matter.
Since no draft directive has been proposed for inland shipping yet, I would ask the Commission to work on that. Fortunately, agreements have now been concluded within aviation, navigation at sea and also rail transport, which have been translated into directives. Like rail transport, the sea-fishing and off-shore sectors, as well as the activities of junior doctors, fall within the scope of the directive which we are discussing today.
For the sea-fishing sector, the European Parliament managed to secure a maximum working week of 48 hours, over a twelve-month reference period. Exemptions are only possible under a collective labour agreement or following consultation involving both sides of industry. It is indeed necessary to provide for these exemptions, because not only do sea fishermen stay at sea for extended periods of time, in certain countries even 3 000 hours on average annually, they also carry out heavy work at what is by far the most mobile of workplaces.
Regarding junior doctors, I would refer to what Mr Provan said, because he explained quite clearly what we eventually achieved. The main thing is that those countries that want a transitional period in excess of nine years will need to follow a very demanding procedure in order to achieve this. The reason why they want to have an extended transitional period and the decision which is eventually taken have to be published in the EU’s Official Journal. I hope that this procedure will create a disincentive for those countries because we do not intend to carry on applying the number of working hours prescribed for longer than nine years.
In 1993, when I, in the capacity of President of the Council, signed the directive concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time, I was aware that the Commission’s proposal of 1990 did not exclude any sectors or activities. But at the time, it appeared impossible for the Council to draw up a directive which covered all employees in all sectors and activities. Hence the Commission proposed to take a separate and additional initiative for the benefit of those sectors and activities which were excluded from the Council’s directive. That culminated in the 1997 White Paper and the 1998 consultation paper and communication.
The present directive is the first to be born out of negotiations in a Conciliation Committee within the framework of the European social policy, with the European Parliament acting as co-legislator. The power of codecision proved to be decisive. I think we owe our success, the fact that we eventually reached a sound compromise, to Parliament, among other things, which in its wisdom, only tabled a few amendments. Indeed, had we found ourselves in a conciliation procedure faced with 30 or 40 amendments tabled by Parliament, it would have been extremely difficult ever to reach a compromise.
In this case, we managed to keep the procedure within bounds. As such, the European Parliament gave evidence of a legislative maturity, which the Council and the Intergovernmental Conference, in particular, would do well not to lose sight of."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples