Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, although we have kept afloat in somewhat choppy waters, I do think it quite worthy of comment that the debate is being dominated by a number of speakers from the United Kingdom. This is something with which we are not wholly unfamiliar and to which I shall return shortly. I want to start by thanking our rapporteur for having drafted an outstanding report. Everyone knows how narrow the vote was in our committee, and that it could have had a different result, so the Commission is aware of the differing views that exist in this House. We, though, have to look at each of them very carefully. This own-initiative report was nevertheless a necessary one. We actually wanted to talk about amendments to the directive, of which, as I see it, there is without a doubt a great need. I shall also be putting forward arguments as to why this is the case. To be sure, the Commission has taken its time, and this is where I endorse Mr Hughes’ comments on the communication with which we have been presented. The material available to us and the study as published are enlightening, but they are not normative. Those who have dealt with this for some time actually knew what this was about. Yet again, as I see it, the actual blame for this rests with the Member States rather than with the Commission. A number of Member States are engaging in delaying tactics to gain the temporary support of the others in a while, such as the accession countries, which also may well be advocates of weakening necessary regulation. There are, of course also, and not least the employers, and, above all, there is all the heavy lobbying that is going on at the moment. As recently as last Thursday lunchtime, I was phoned up by the British social security minister, who asked me what I, for God’s sake, thought I was doing by signing up to a few pertinent amendments. I really do think that is going a bit far. I am pleased that he wanted to approach me, but I am doing no deals by the by, especially as that would mean bypassing the problems that exist. Let me start with the general individual opt-out. The question we have to ask ourselves is whether we want, at European level, social minimum rules, especially on highly topical matters where even the ILO – in 1919, I think – said that 48 hours is enough? Do we want a minimum regime? Do we want these rules to be a means of protecting safety and health, or do we want to move towards a situation that is slowly starting to take shape and which I would describe as social policy competition among Member States? That, at the moment, is what this is all about. Let me give you one example. At the moment – and the Dutch Council of Ministers is also represented here – discussions are going on in the Netherlands about adjusting Dutch legislation on working hours along the lines of the European minimum regime. That is to say, in the Netherlands too, it is proposed that the 60 hours should no longer be a matter for consultation, but should be a norm. That is certainly going a long way. I know that this debate is going on in other countries as well, and I do not think that we can leave it to the social partners. On this issue, their advice may be sought, but such advice must not be determinative in the way that several amendments on this point propose. I will deal very briefly with workers on call, a problem that we should try to resolve. Although I am happy with the Commission’s proposals, there is a great deal left to be done; not only as regards doctors, but also as regards firefighters – and I could say the same of a number of other services. This is an issue that is generating a lot of heat in certain Member States. As far as I am concerned, we have to be prompt and unambiguous in our dealings with each of them. I urge the Irish and the Dutch to give their full attention to this thorny problem, which, within the life of this Parliament, we will probably no longer be dealing with in the form of an amended directive.

Political group: Verts-ALE