Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-05-16-Speech-2-157"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000516.7.2-157"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I too want to thank and congratulate Mrs Smet on an excellent piece of work in the Conciliation Committee and also on her report. I also want to thank other key people such as Mr Provan and Mr Rocard. They have played an important role.
The Parliamentary delegation was basically very much in agreement, even though we differed in our willingness to compromise when it came to the crunch. It was, of course, important to solve problems. The idea was that seven million people should be brought within the scope of the directive. When I learned that the whole thing was to go off without a hitch, that is to say that there was to be an agreement, I nonetheless took the liberty of voting against. I wanted to make the point that, in spite of everything, I was not satisfied with everything in this compromise. I was especially critical of the agreement when it came to the issue of young doctors.
If the decision is interpreted as it already has been by some people in this debate, namely as saying that the transposition and transitional periods for doctors should add up to nine years and that there should, above and beyond that, be the possibility of an additional three years’ extra time, then we arrive at a total period of twelve years. This is really little different from the Council’s position, involving thirteen years. There was, therefore, not so much of a compromise on that particular point. I think this is a serious matter, because it is about patients having to suffer and about doctors being placed in impossible situations, from both moral and personal points of view. Young doctors do not choose these working conditions and working hours but are forced to accept them. I thought it was appropriate for at least someone in this Parliament to use his voting right for the purpose of indicating this dissatisfaction.
I now hope to see the three extra years become a facility which cannot be counted upon but which is only granted in really exceptional cases. The intention expressed by this Chamber has, of course, been that, where junior doctors are concerned, the period for implementing the present directive should be nine years and that the three extra years should only apply in extreme and exceptional cases. Naturally, we hope that, in reality, the process will be still more rapid.
We also want, in the future, to see the working time directive apply to those groups which have still not been brought within its scope. In common with Mr Hughes, I should like to ask the Commission a question regarding these groups. How far has the work progressed when it comes to the transport sector and lorry drivers?
I want to conclude by saying that, on more than one occasion, the European Parliament has shown itself to be a significant force where working time legislation in Europe is concerned. I hope that this will continue. It is not just a question of establishing longest permitted working times but of a good deal else besides. There are ever more differences in the way in which working time is distributed in our society. For young families, the difficulty of reconciling full-time work with family and children is becoming ever greater. Working time puts the squeeze on women and children, in particular. It is also an issue relating to age and to where one is in one’s life. Young and old have different needs and different abilities. We need a whole series of changes to working time policy, and it is my hope that it will be possible for the European Parliament to come back with more initiatives in this area."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples