Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-05-10-Speech-2-041"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050510.4.2-041"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Madam President, thank you very much, Commissioner, for your kind words, not just about my report, but also about the joint work carried out by all members of this Parliament’s Committee on Employment and Social Affairs.
We can make an effort, we have demonstrated this, there is a consensus in Parliament. I would ask the Commission and the Council not to destroy the enthusiasm created by this agreement, because it is the old agreement that led to the European social model. We therefore fervently hope that we can count on your help, your dialogue and that we can work together constructively over the coming months.
Ladies and gentlemen, by chance, our debate on the Directive on working time has coincided with the European anniversaries of 9 May. The words of our President, Mr Borrell, yesterday in this house on the relationship between our duty to remember and our duty to build a Europe in which euro-scepticism and anti-europeanism have been defeated are still ringing in my ears.
Our debate today and tomorrow’s vote are very much related to our responsibilities. They are very much related because millions of Europeans are awaiting the result of certain debates in which they have placed very great hopes, since this Directive is at the heart of social Europe and will be a clear signal of our will and our conviction that the European social model has a future, otherwise we will be at the mercy of a future dictated not from the other side of the Atlantic, but from the Pacific.
Our debates also coincide with an important moment in European integration and the ratification of the Constitutional Treaty by the various parliaments and peoples of Europe. And at the heart of the concerns of the citizens currently facing the question of whether or not to take the constitutional route is always the same question: what is Europe doing to improve our living conditions? We all know that this is the key point and that the question of whether or not our agenda is in line with the agenda and concerns of the citizens will depend precisely upon our reaffirming the European social model.
And the key point, as the Commissioner has said, is the opt-out
Parliament wishes to put an end to this clause. European social laws must apply to all countries without exception. It is not sufficient, Commissioner, to eliminate the abuse and fraud committed in the past under the previous legislation. We must put an end to its legal basis in all of the Member States, as Parliament says, after 36 months or whatever is decided in a subsequent negotiation with the Council.
Why? Because the opt-out blatantly contradicts the objectives of the Directive, the health and safety of workers and the fundamental principles of the Treaty. Because it contradicts that which we have learnt from 10 years of experience during which, in the countries in which it has been applied, the health, safety and reconciliation of the family and professional lives of millions of European men and women have suffered seriously. Because it contravenes the Charter of Fundamental Rights and our Constitutional Treaty, Article 91 of which lays down the obligation for a high quality of life in work and a restriction of working days. Because, Commissioner, European workers, their organisations, women's organisations and also, in private, many employers who want a typically European model for industrial relations, are asking us for it.
What about flexibility though? This Parliament knows that we also need to deal with the issue of flexibility, because in Europe we do not just need higher quality work, but also more work. We are therefore in agreement and we will allow flexibility and we will vote for the annualisation, but, I must insist, this is a
we shall not vote for annualisation unless there is a vote in favour of putting an end to the opt-out clause. We believe that the opt-out would be proper in a Europe without rules, but we are nevertheless in favour of making European rules flexible.
Greater flexibility is not incompatible with a higher level of social protection for workers, provided that we ensure that there is a minimum level of regulations and guarantees, as the Wim Kok report stated. We also want to respond, Commissioner, to the principles to be taken into account when defining on-call times; we want the
to be respected; we want the decision of the Court of Justice to be respected. On-call time is working time, because workers cannot use their time freely and they have to be in the places dictated by the employer.
We are also sensitive to the needs of the European health systems, which are facing serious difficulties recruiting professionals to cover this on-call time. We have therefore sought a solution which creates a synthesis between flexibility and safety. Commissioner, the Members in the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs believe that these two things are compatible. Those who believe they are not compatible are the people who are seeking to perpetuate the opt-out or those who are seeking to define on-call time as non-working time."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"do ut des"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples