Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-05-16-Speech-2-154"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000516.7.2-154"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"I would like to begin by echoing previous speakers and adding my words of thanks to the rapporteur and to our chairman and to you for the magnificent work you did in that conciliation. The progress we achieved is in large part thanks to the formidable effort and attention to detail the rapporteur put in to this.
There are three main issues which I would like to concentrate on in the brief time available to me.
In the original working time directive we had agreed way back in 1993 that it would be possible to introduce annualisation of working time for categories of workers, but only where collective agreements allowed that to happen. The first two points I would like to make relate to categories of workers where we have managed to achieve that progress in the conciliation. As far as offshore workers and mobile workers in the transport sector are concerned – there was an attempt in the common position to allow annualisation of working time for those workers without collective agreement. Thanks to conciliation, collective agreement will now need to be the route for an extension to annualisation. That was an important point of progress.
The second point concerns sea-fishing. There we have now built in to the directive the principle that a 48-hour average working week over a period of one year will be the rule. That can be subject to derogation but again only after attempts to broker collective agreements to involve the social partners. That should be the rule wherever there is an attempt to introduce annualisation and that principle has been safeguarded as a result of the conciliation.
The third area I want to concentrate on – and it is what other speakers have mentioned – relates to junior doctors. Looking at this part of the agreement without detailed knowledge of the negotiations that went into it, it must seem like a very strange animal. A four-year transposition period – five years transition and then the possibility of extra time beyond that. But of course that was to take account of the special difficulties facing one or two Member States. I would repeat what other speakers have said: for us the period in question is nine years. That will be the normal period within which Member States will be expected to comply with the requirements of this directive in relation to junior doctors. That is why the procedure to go beyond that into what we might term extra time is so open – in a way humiliating for any government that attempts to take that step. I think that in fact we will see all Member States complying with that section of the directive relating to junior doctors within that nine-year time frame. I am confident, speaking today, that will be the case.
A further important point might have been missed. The provisions relating to nine years for junior doctors only relate to the average working week. The other provisions of the directive relating to daily and weekly rest breaks, annual leave and nightwork will, of course, apply to junior doctors after a three-year transposition period just as they do for all other workers. Those parts of the directive can, of course, be subject to derogation but only by collective agreement so those elements will apply to junior doctors. The sections dealing with annual leave cannot be negotiated away and it is important to bear that in mind: i.e. the nine years for junior doctors applies only to working time – average weekly working time – and the other provisions of the directive apply after three years.
The final point I would like to make relates to the transport dossier. It is very important that we get movement in that area in the Transport Council. Maybe the Commissioner has some news for us today. There was an agreement in the rail sector that the provisions of the working time directive would apply in that sector so long as there was parallel progress in other transport sectors, particularly the road sector. Unless we get progress in that sector, I am quite certain we are going to see a problem for the rail sector. The agreement will not be implemented in the near future at national level."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples