Vote

MEPs are calling for the Working Time Directive to be revised with a view to phasing out the option for individual workers to opt out of the maximum 48 hour working week. In the meantime, MEPs are calling on the Commission to find ways to tackle abuses of the opt-out provision and to strengthen the voluntary nature of the opt-out. However, they voted by a large majority (311 versus 89 with 118 abstentions) against a call for the UK to be taken to the Court of Justice for failing to tackle alleged abuse of the directive.

The 1993 Working Time Directive which limits the working week to a maximum of 48 hours is due for revision. In the last few weeks, the European Commission has begun a wide consultation of interested parties. The European Parliament adopted an own-initiative report on the subject, calling for the gradual elimination of the individual opt-out clause.

After lively debates in Parliament, the report from Alejandro CERCAS ALONSO (PES, E) was adopted by 370 in favour to 116 against with 21 abstentions. On the particular point of the opt-out, the vote was close, with those in favour of removing the option for employees to waive their rights succeeding by 275 votes to 229 with 9 abstentions.

Apart from the opt-out question, the report also considers the definition of working time, in the light of recent Court of Justice rulings on time spent 'on call.' The Court ruled that when doctors are on call they should be considered to be working for the purposes of calculating their overall working time. Given the urgent nature of this issue, MEPs regretted that they had been unable to examine the economic and social effects of this ruling on the health sector through proper comparative studies with firm data. Consequently, they are asking the Commission to come up with specific long-term proposals to resolve the question of how to classify time spent on call at the workplace. Parliament is also encouraging the Member States to exchange information on best practice in the context of existing structures, including the possibilities of changing the number of medical rotas, developing multidisciplinary teams and making better use of information technology.

MEPs also focused on the need to ensure a better balance between work and family life. MEPs recognise that the health and safety of workers must take precedence, but should be looked at alongside economic considerations; Parliament emphasises the importance of the revised directive providing flexibility for employers.

The European Parliament notes that the recent communication from the Commission on working time does not present any firm proposals for dealing with the problems which have arisen. MEPs are calling for the Commission to take a clear position of all the points of the directive which require revision and hope to see a proposal for a revised directive as soon as possible.

Background

The 1993 directive provides a basic level of protection for most workers, with the notable exception of managers. It means an employee has the right to a daily 11 hour rest period, regular breaks, a weekly working time of no more than 48 hours, a minimum annual holiday of 4 weeks, and, in general, that night time working should be limited to 8 hours out of 24.

In 1993, the UK negotiated an opt-out system, which authorised Member States not to apply the 48 hour limit under certain conditions, including the agreement in advance of the individual employee, the absence of negative consequences for workers who refuse to waive their rights and the recording of working hours of people who did waive their rights. Although this opt-out was not specific to the UK, this is where its provisions have been most widely used.

Concerns have been raised about potential abuse of the individual opt-out system, for example by workers being presented with the opt-out clause at the same time as their contract, which could be seen as limiting the individual's real freedom of choice. A growing list of countries are proposing to apply the opt-out to certain sectors: France, Germany and the Netherlands in the health sector and Luxembourg for hotels and catering, for example.

Press enquiries:
Constanze Beckerhoff
(Strasbourg) tel.(33-3) 881 73780
(Brussels)  tel.(32-2) 28 44302
e-mail :  empl-press@europarl.eu.int
&
Press enquiries:
Zaneta Vegnere
(Strasbourg) tel.(33-3) 881 74651
(Brussels)  tel.(32-2) 28 31056
e-mail :  empl-press@europarl.eu.int

Vote

By adopting the first reading report from Stefano ZAPPALA' (EPP-ED, I), Parliament voted to approve the Commission's proposed directive on the recognition of professional qualifications, albeit with a large number of amendments. This directive will simplify the rules relating to professional qualifications and applies to all nationals of a Member State wishing to practise a liberal profession in a state other than that in which they obtained their professional qualifications.

MEPs introduced a new article to clarify the distinction between the definitions of 'free provision of services' and 'freedom of establishment' in line with the case-law of the Court of Justice. In the Commission's original proposal, the temporary 'provision of services' meant that the professionals could operate in another Member State for up to 16 weeks per year without registering there, but MEPs argue that the 16 weeks criteria is not appropriate to evaluate whether the activity constitutes a temporary, provisional service. The presence of infrastructure, duration and main purpose of the activity, its frequency, regularity and continuity should be taken into account instead.

The host Member State must exempt service providers established in another Member State from the requirements which it places on professionals established in its territory relating to the membership of a professional organisation or registration with a public social security body. But if a service provider wishes to pursue activities which are subject to a special professional liability, the host country may require either automatic temporary registration or pro forma membership of a professional organisation. Where the profession concerned is regulated in the host country but not in the Member State of origin, the host may require full registration with the appropriate authorities of the host country before the service provider pursues the professional activities. In these cases, MEPs see full registration as essential in the interest of both harmonisation of qualifications and protection of consumers.

In the case of a regulated profession, which depends on the possession of specific professional qualifications, the Commission proposed that someone with the qualifications required in one Member State should have access to the profession in a second Member State, even if the level of qualification required in the second Member State is one step higher. MEPs opposed this, saying that access to the profession should be allowed only where the qualifications were of the same level, in order to discourage 'qualification shopping.' However, Parliament adds that if the level of training laid down for admission to a profession has been raised in the home Member State, the Member State of destination should allow professionals who have been admitted to the profession by virtue of a qualification obtained at the lower level to be recognised at the higher level.

Parliament also adopted some other amendments specifying the level of education, saying that the professional qualifications can be proved not only by a diploma certifying successful competition of a full-time post-secondary course, but also by equivalent duration on a part-time basis, as well as the professional training which may be required in addition to that post-secondary course. Five years after its entry into force, the Commission is required to evaluate how the 'levels' system of professional qualifications of the diplomas works in practice. If there are evident differences between the Member States, MEPs insist that the Commission come forward with proposals for a points and credit system linked to the quality and contents of the education and professional training in the different Member States.

Press enquiries:
Miriam Orieskova
(Strasbourg) tel.(33-3) 881 74864
(Brussels)  tel.(32-2) 28 31054
e-mail :  lega-press@europarl.eu.int

Vote

The European Parliament adopted an own-initiative report from Georges GAROT (PES, F), by 313 in favour to 60 against and 42 abstentions, based on a new in-depth study on the trends in the income of European farmers and the impact that the latest measures adopted under the common agricultural policy (CAP) reform could have on the agricultural income. The report has a strong political content, since it shows MEPs' critical view of the decoupling of aid and stresses the need to strengthen the multifunctional role of agriculture, including rural development, social and environmental standards, animal welfare and consumer protection.

Risks of decoupling aid
In June 2003 the EU finalised a major overhaul of its agriculture policy designed to cope with changing circumstances: the arrival of ten new Member States in 2004, the need to make Europe's farmers more competitive on world markets and the imminent World Trade Organisation talks. The CAP reform introduced a partial decoupling of financial aid to farmers, i.e. severing the link between farm subsidies and production levels while expanding the system of direct aid to compensate farmers for their income losses. In future, most farm subsidies will not be linked to production volumes and EU farmers will increasingly grow what the market wants.

In the resolution adopted today, the Parliament considers that "the fact that the granting of aid is not linked to agricultural production levels is liable to accentuate territorial problems and create an imbalance between sectors if a large number of farmers decide not to produce while continuing to receive aid."

Furthermore, MEPs express their rejection of the decision that the future single payments will be based on the production levels registered by each farmer over a certain specific period, the so called 'reference period'. "The unfair system of decoupled aid, with its differentiated application in Member States, is liable to be deemed no longer acceptable by the general public and the WTO if it continues to be based on historically acquired by producers and does not allow a fairer remuneration for all farmers and all production in line with the principle of multifunctionality."

The House also calls on Member States to ensure that the premium rights transfer system is implemented "as far as possible on a redistributive basis through the national reserves in order to assist, as a matter of priority, setting up and those farms which most need to be consolidated."

Rural development
MEPs support the Council's vision that the CAP could be made more multifunctional by diverting a large part of agricultural funding from market support to rural development, especially social and environmental needs (the so called 'modulation' of aid). New measures will make more money available to farmers for environmental, quality or animal welfare programmes by cutting direct aid to bigger farms. At the same time, the single farm payments are tied to compliance with environmental, food safety and animal welfare standards. However, MEPs find these measures are insufficient: they deplore "the fact that the type of compulsory modulation adopted by the Council is inadequate" and stress that imposing compulsory co-financing will create "a serious hindrance to the development of the rural development policy", which could be worse after enlargement of the EU.

Finally, the European Parliament calls for an increase in the CAP's second pillar resources (rural development funds), in addition to modulation funds.

Farm incomes in Europe: key figures
Between 1995 and 2002 farm incomes in the EU rose on average by 7%. However income trends have been marked not only by very large disparities between countries, but also by the fact that during the same period, income levels have been maintained largely by a 15.7% drop in the number of farms. In fact, incomes have been preserved due to the concentration of productivity in a smaller number of producers and the abandonment of the land from small farmers. The CAP has been a major influence on these trends.

Since 1992, direct aid has had a decisive impact on farm incomes. The economic performance of a growing number of farms has increasingly depended on this new form of support. Before the 2003 reform, it accounted for 56% of current income before tax, including all forms of production. However, its most striking feature is its extremely high degree of concentration and the unfair nature of the aid system: 20% of farms, accounting for 59% of land and 25% of farming jobs, receive 73% of direct aid.

Press enquiries:
Maria Andrés Marìn
(Strasbourg) tel.(33-3) 881 73603
(Brussels)  tel.(32-2) 28 44299
e-mail :  agri-press@europarl.eu.int

Vote

The European Parliament adopted an own-initiative report from Friedrich-Wilhelm GRAEFE zu BARINGDORF (Greens/EFA, D) in which MEPs call on the Commission to make the sustainability of agriculture a focus of research policy when implementing the sixth framework programme for research. They consider that increased research funding and appropriately targeted research can boost innovation in the field of ecologically compatible farming. Following the mid-term CAP reform decisions, MEPs stress the need to redistribute research funds to increase studies on rural development, consumer protection, environmental and social aspects of agriculture and animal welfare standards, rather than on purely economic aspects of the agricultural production, such as intensification and industrialisation of agriculture.

Organic farming and coexistence with GMOs
The sixth framework programme for research has a budget of around €16 billion, of which a maximum of 2% (€800 million) may be allocated to agriculture and rural development. Most Community funding is currently used for research topics related to industrialised food processing. This applies to new technologies for food production, processing and packaging, including those involving genetically modified organisms.

In contrast to these trends, MEPs consider that research on organic farming should be a priority and call on the Commission to ensure that coexistence measures - between GMOs and conventional crops - used in community-funded research are "scientifically monitored". "Organic farming and other low-input farming methods must be made a specific research priority, as part of which funding should also be provided for research into animal husbandry systems which respect animal welfare."

MEPs also consider that "favourable conditions for biotechnology research should exist in the Union" because it is an essential element in the Lisbon strategy and "can contribute to high-quality, sustainable agriculture." Finally, they highlight the fact that "raw materials for food do not only come from agriculture but have for years been coming from the production of additives and substitute materials by means of pharmaceutical, synthetic and genetic-engineering processes."

Press enquiries:
Maria Andrés Marìn
(Strasbourg) tel.(33-3) 881 73603
(Brussels)  tel.(32-2) 28 44299
e-mail :  agri-press@europarl.eu.int

Vote

The European Parliament expressed its disagreement with the recovery plan proposed by the Commission for hake in northern waters. In approving a report drawn up by Dominique SOUCHET (IND, F), MEPs criticised the plan - the second of its kind under the reformed Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) - for imposing unnecessary cuts in fishing for a commercially valuable species at a time when its stocks are seen as stable. The recovery plan envisages limits on the number of days vessels can spend at sea in a large geographical area ranging from the Kattegat and Skagerrak in the north to the Bay of Biscay in the south.

In today's vote, MEPs passed a large number of amendments calling for a less severe "management" plan to replace the proposed "recovery" plan. That would mean scrapping the "days at sea" scheme and relying on the usual management instruments - namely total allowable catches (TACs) and quotas. Members also reminded the Commission of the need to consult Regional Advisory Councils on the effects of the plan and to improve scientific advice with the input of fishermen.

Press enquiries:
Gonçalo Macedo
(Strasbourg) tel.(33-3) 881 75825
(Brussels)  tel.(32-2) 28 41361
e-mail :  fish-press@europarl.eu.int

Vote

Parliament adopted a legislative resolution on the approval of motor vehicles and their trailers, and of systems, components and separate technical units intended for such vehicles.

Press enquiries:
Miriam Orieskova
(Strasbourg) tel.(33-3) 881 74864
(Brussels)  tel.(32-2) 28 31054
e-mail :  lega-press@europarl.eu.int