The proposed extension of EU limits on working time to junior hospital doctors and road hauliers is sensible and overdue. Some five million workers throughout the EU were exempted from the strictures on working hours agreed by the Council of Ministers several years ago. The proposal by the EU Social Affairs Commissioner, Mr Padraig Flynn, to give other workers the same rights, is a welcome attempt to impose civilised standards for all workers - although there will be some concern that the proposals will not apply to junior doctors for another seven years under a special exemption.
The EU has done much to advance the cause of workers' rights. But despite its valiant efforts, several categories of workers still labour in what can only be termed Dickensian conditions. Junior hospital doctors in this State who are contracted for a nominal 39-hour week, routinely work in excess of 60 or even 70 hours in the average week. Road hauliers bringing cargo across Europe can often find themselves driving through the night and the early morning to make their delivery. Rail, sea and offshore workers also work excessive hours.
Mr Flynn points out that the directive is an attempt to deal with the effects of these long hours on the workers concerned. But there are other safety considerations, not least those of patients being treated by an exhausted junior doctor and others using the services provided by overworked and weary employees. To reinforce this point, Mr Neil Kinnock, the EU Transport Commissioner, estimates that some 1,800 road fatalities in the EU every year are attributable to fatigue among drivers of trucks and buses.
It is to be hoped that the new proposal will be supported by the Government and by the Mr Blair's administration in Britain - which has adopted a constructive approach towards the EU - when it reaches the Council of Ministers. During the Tory era, the British government adopted a very negative approach to the drift of EU social policy, famously securing an opt-out from the EU Social Chapter in the Maastricht Treaty. In part, this was fuelled by the notion that such an opt-out would give Britain a competitive edge over other EU states as industry sought a `safe haven' from tough new EU strictures.
It has not worked out quite like that. This State, for example, which has adopted a broadly progressive approach towards workers' rights, has secured more than its fair share of inward investment. And in Britain itself, many larger multinational companies already adhere to directives passed under the Social Chapter.
Mr Flynn's new directives are no more than a sensible and well judged addition to the body of EU social law. They should form a routine part of social legislation affecting workers' rights in every civilised state.