Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-05-10-Speech-2-074"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050510.4.2-074"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, in order to revive the Lisbon process, the Barroso Commission has publicly committed itself to cutting through red tape and to deregulation, and this House must support it in this endeavour. Tomorrow, we will be able to take a step in the right direction by voting in favour of a flexible, modern and forward-looking revision of the Working Time Directive. A European directive must, by definition, allow the Member States the creative space and flexibility to apply it in their own way, and so our main objective, at European level, must be only to set out the guiding principles.
If what the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs has proposed is accepted, that is, if the whole of the time spent on call is, in principle, to be treated as working time, and if the opt-out is to be abolished, then this will represent a considerable hindrance to flexible working arrangements throughout Europe. This is not what I would regard as a modern solution. It cannot be fair that we should set down as applicable to the workers concerned the principle that time spent on call is seen in its entirety as working time, for there is no likelihood of, for example, fire-fighters, youth workers and staff in rehabilitation centres over-exerting themselves, as being on call in these involves being inactive for most of the time.
It is for that reason that we advocate the drawing of distinctions between different types of on-call service. Let the hospitals, the doctors, the fire services and the youth workers, together with the local social partners, decide among themselves what working arrangements are right for them. Let us vote to give workers freedom of choice. Let us opt for flexibility, which requires the opt-out, longer reference periods and reasonable and appropriate differentiation between different types of standby duty. It is for these that we are aiming with our Amendments 26, 27 and 32, along with Amendments 29 and 30 on on-call services, and these I ask you to support."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples