Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-03-12-Speech-2-160"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020312.8.2-160"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, many congratulations to the rapporteur. She has produced a very well-balanced report. It proposes sensible amendments which will not impose unreasonable burdens on firms, but which will improve the directive and reduce the risk of hearing loss resulting from exposure to noise at work.
That is what this proposal is all about. Too many workers within the European Union continue to be at risk of hearing loss due to exposure to noise at work. Mrs Thorning-Schmidt has shown herself to be reasonable and willing to listen to reasonable and reasoned argument and evidence. She did, after all, withdraw many of her initial amendments, tabling new ones which move closer to, or back to, the common position on a number of elements including key action and exposure limit values.
But others in this House are straining to carve a new and retrograde path in the social field. For the first time in conciliation in the social field we are seeing moves, particularly on the right and centre groupings of the House, to weaken significantly common positions established in the Social Affairs Council, and even, at times, to exclude significant sectors of activity from the legislation altogether.
We have seen this in relation to this proposal on noise and the parallel proposal on vibration. Compromise Amendment No 23 on the music and entertainment sectors is a response to such a danger. Do not get me wrong: it might conceivably be necessary to weaken the common position when new information or evidence previously overlooked comes to light, but in my view that has not been the case in the examples I mention. We have instead seen something tantamount to a panic response to concentrated, manipulative lobbying and adverse media coverage fed by deliberate disinformation and misinformation. These developments are to be deplored.
At least two factors seem to be at work. Firstly, lobby groups have woken up to the pressure points in the codecision procedure. They know how to apply political pressure, much of it far from evidence-based, on Parliament. They think we are the weakest link, and the signal we are sending them is that they are absolutely correct.
Secondly, too many Members of this House delight in issuing press releases seeking to trivialise legislation that is entirely necessary, justified and proportionate. They will not let facts get in the way of seeing their own name in print and it is not hard to see why so many ill-informed articles have appeared concerning this proposal. They have been fed by grossly misleading or totally factually incorrect press releases and briefings from Members of this House.
I hope that we can all grow up quickly and bring a little more dignity and integrity to our role as co-legislator. My own father finds it difficult to converse with my infant son because of industrially-induced hearing loss. That seems to me a very good reason to promote sensible legislation like this."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples