Mr President, the basis of the whole working time directive is now in the process of being eroded. Pressure is being exerted from two sides. This comes firstly in relation to the individual opt-out. Mr Bushill-Matthews and Mrs Lynne are very enthusiastic about these individual opt-outs. I think, however, that we are obliged now to ask them why, if individual opt-outs are so fantastic, this provision should not be extended to apply to all legislation concerning health and safety in the workplace. Why stop here? Why not go further and include noise, asbestos and other areas if it is such a splendid principle? There is also a prevailing misunderstanding that it is the individual opt-out that makes it possible to work long hours. I should like to invite both Mr Bushill-Matthews and Mrs Lynne to get out and about in Europe and visit a few workplaces and to come to Denmark where they will see that it is, in actual fact, possible to work very long hours in various industries in Denmark and, at the same time, to comply with the directive, for it is very flexible. Nor, at the same time, must we of course forget that we are concerned here with health and safety in the workplace. It is not just something that the Social Democrats have lighted upon in order to be officious and over-zealous or in order to limit individual flexibility. We also know that the statistics are clear in their implications. We know that there is a clear connection between long working hours and accidents at work. Moreover, it is generally known that the number of sick days is increasing and that long working hours do not in actual fact mean higher productivity. Nor can we ignore the fact that it is women who will be placed in a difficult position if we simply extend working time, the natural consequence being that a number of women will perhaps withdraw completely from the labour market. I am certain that the right-hand side of the Chamber too will appreciate that this would be very unfortunate for the European economy. The second pressure on the working time directive stems directly from the fact that the Commission has neglected to say what it intends to do as a consequence of the Jaeger and SIMAP Judgments. These rigid judgments have sent shock waves through the national and regional health authorities which simply cannot imagine how they are to make ends meet if on-call hours are to be fully charged for. I would go so far as to say to the Commission that, if it does not do something soon and produce a proposal, it will itself contribute to the image of the EU as something removed from the real world and unable to come up with flexible solutions. We badly need a revision of the directive that abolishes the individual opt-out but that constantly provides for flexibility where there is a need for this, for example in the health sector. I would also ask the right wing today to take note of the fact that no one is asking for a very rigid directive. We are all asking for flexibility, but we must not of course destroy the principles behind having legislation in this area. Finally, I should like to ask for the revised directive also clearly to indicate that it can be implemented with the help of collective agreements. I say this not just to harp on about time-honoured Danish practices, but also because this method of implementation puts a stop to the individual ways of doing things and, at the same time, provides for a very high-level de facto implementation of the directive. That is why this is a sound way of proceeding, and that is why I should like to ask the Commission specifically to state in the directive that the directive can be implemented by means of collective agreements.

Political group: PSE