Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/1999-11-03-Speech-3-089"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.19991103.7.3-089"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"I would like to talk just briefly about some of the amendments tabled in the report by Mrs Smet.
First of all Amendment No 5 relating to the working time of junior doctors in training. I agree absolutely with the amendment that has been tabled here reinstating the first reading position. I know certain Member States feel that a far longer transition period will be necessary. It might well be that the maintenance of this amendment will take us into conciliation. That will give us an opportunity to look at the circumstances facing certain Member States but for now I think it is absolutely right that we stick to this amendment. Mr Pronk is absolutely right. We should ask ourselves would we want to be receiving an injection from a doctor at the end of an 18-hour working day, which is not unusual.
In the offshore sector, Amendment No 6 – we have looked long and hard to try to come up with a formulation that will make sure that we get a collective agreement leading to the maximum flexibility available under the directive, that is annualisation of working time. The formulation of the common position would have simply allowed the employers to walk away from attempts to reach negotiation on annualisation of working time and Member States could then have allowed annualisation. We have built in an addition here that will ask for a review after five years involving the two sides of industry at European level to see how the regime is functioning in this sector with particular reference to the health and safety of the workers involved.
Amendment No 7 relates to sea fishing. The effect of this amendment will be to try to limit to one year the reference period available for the annualisation of the calculation of working time, in other words making sure that annualisation of working time is possible but no more. If we go to two, three or more years as the reference period for the calculation of working time it becomes absolutely meaningless and we feel that the maximum flexibility of one year annualisation should be sufficient.
In Amendment No 8 we look at the issue of the transposition period to be allowed to the Member States. The common position proposes four years which I think is without precedent in the social area. We have looked in this amendment to return to the first reading position of two years. Perhaps again this is something that will be subject to conciliation but we will have to see if and when that is triggered following our vote tomorrow.
My final point relates to urban transport, Amendment No 9. We have also built in here a review in order to try to remove an anomaly. The way things stand we would have a different regime applying to a person driving a tram to a person driving an urban bus. That needs to be reviewed. We think a five-year time period should be sufficient."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples