Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-05-10-Speech-2-076"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050510.4.2-076"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Madam President, honourable Members, although the Commission is unable to agree with Parliament on all counts, the report by Parliament’s Committee on Employment and Social Affairs makes it quite clear that we share the same desire to seek a broad consensus that would both protect workers and help achieve the necessary flexibility.
I do not believe that Parliament’s proposal, as set out in Amendment 10, would provide the same level of legal certainty, and it could well leave the door open for further judgments that would lead to even greater legal uncertainty.
I do, however, fully appreciate Parliament’s concerns, which it has outlined in the draft report. The Commission will therefore amend its proposal in such a way as to ensure that on-call workers are better protected. The inclusion of inactive on-call time in the daily rest period of 11 hours and the weekly rest period of 24 hours will not be permitted.
I should now like to say a few words on the delicate issue of individual opt-outs. Although both Parliament and the Commission are critical of the practical implementation of this provision, the two institutions hold differing views on its future. The Commission is proposing that the issue be reviewed, whilst Parliament is calling for the opt-out clause to be abolished three years after the directive comes into force.
The Commission cannot accept this proposal as it stands. It is, however, willing to discuss it, and to work together with legislators, who are themselves divided on the issue, in order to find the best possible compromise. I am aware that this is a very political issue, and also a matter of principle. In view of this, the Commission will continue to engage in intensive dialogue with Parliament.
I should now like to outline the Commission’s position on the individual amendments.
The Commission can accept Amendments 2, 3, 12, 13 and 17 in full, as they either improve the text of the proposal or make it clearer. One of them introduces a provision regarding improvements to work-life balance, which I regard as a key issue.
The Commission can accept Amendments 1, 4, 8, 11, 16, 18, 19, 24 and 29 either in principle, in part or on the condition that they are reworded. In particular, I should like to draw the House’s attention to Amendments 16 and 18, on compensatory rest, and Amendment 19, on the reference period.
The Commission is unable to accept Amendments 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 14, 15, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25 to 28 and 30 to 52, some of which relate to the individual opt-out that I have already discussed. As I said before, the Commission intends to seek a compromise solution to this issue. The remaining amendments deal with matters not covered in the Commission’s original proposal, for example Article 17(1) on the derogation for managing executives.
In conclusion, I should like to thank Parliament for the high quality of the debate that has been held on this proposal. The dialogue between the Commission and Parliament has made it possible for me to state with confidence that the directive which we now have, and which serves as a symbol of a social Europe, does even more to protect the health and safety of workers, whilst ensuring that the latter are not jeopardised by the flexible organisation of working time called for by our entrepreneurs. It therefore helps to build a stronger and more modern European social model.
Before I focus on the individual amendments in more detail, I should like to make a number of more general comments. Firstly, I would note that this proposal for a directive is a proposal for an amending directive. The original directive, which has already been in force for 10 years, needs to be amended from time to time, not least because provision is made in the directive itself for future amendments.
Furthermore, I should like to emphasise that this is a directive that relates to safety and health at work. Its aim is therefore not to reorganise working time, but to protect workers, at the same time as maintaining the much-needed flexibility demanded by the Lisbon Strategy, and indeed by modern life itself. The issues that form the backdrop to this directive are extremely complex. They include the ageing of the population, which is something that calls for a much better balance between working life and social life. As I have already highlighted, the directive relates to the protection of working time. I have no hesitation in stating that working time has an overall influence on safety and health at work. Consideration is currently being given to an extension of working lives as a result of demographic developments in society, and there can be no question that people need to reach the end of these working lives in good health.
The debate we have just heard covered a number of key proposals, which I should like to deal with in more detail. I shall begin with the proposal for an extension of the reference period for calculating the maximum average working week of 48 hours.
As you will be aware, the Commission is proposing that matters should be left as they stand, or in other words that the ‘standard’ reference period should continue to be four months, with the option of extending it to twelve months by means of collective agreements. The Commission wishes to ensure that the same conditions apply in all Member States, irrespective of the way in which relations between social partners are organised, and I would therefore propose that it should also be possible to extend this reference period by means of legislation.
I am glad to see that Parliament’s position does not differ greatly from that of the Commission on this matter, and in fact Parliament’s proposal offers a better guarantee that this extension will be possible. I am therefore able to tell you that the Commission can accept almost all of Parliament’s proposals in this respect, with the exception of that stating that the reference period may only be extended by means of legislation if the worker in question is already covered by collective agreements.
The Commission does not believe that collective agreements should be favoured to the extent that the use of legislation is denied in instances where either the reference period has not been discussed or no agreement has been reached.
The Commission cannot accept Parliament’s position with regard to on-call periods, although it does appreciate Parliament’s concerns.
I should like to make our views on this issue quite clear. The basic aim of the Commission’s proposal is to provide a guarantee of legal certainty, and I am sure I do not need to remind you that this problem has arisen as a result of the way in which the Luxembourg Court of Justice has interpreted the concept of ‘working time’. The Commission has chosen not to regard ‘inactive on-call time’ as working time for safety and health at work purposes, in order to leave the Member States free to take the measures they believe will best protect workers’ safety and health."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples