Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-04-24-Speech-3-139"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020424.8.3-139"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, this is a splendid evening. I think that everyone who is concerned to secure a better working environment for European workers has reason to be satisfied. The Council and Parliament have succeeded in reaching agreement on a ground-breaking new directive. As far as I know, this is the very first time that genuinely binding rules have been laid down governing the shocks or vibrations to which workers are exposed in the course of their employment. That is why, of course, there have also been strong exchanges of opinion along the way. We have had a lively discussion as to whether the scientific basis was in order. We have heard from many, in fact a great many, lobbyists, and not all of them took a positive view of the preparation of these binding rules.
By means of this directive, we have, however, achieved recognition that vibrations – both hand and arm vibrations and whole body vibrations – constitute a health risk. That is gratifying, for damage to health may be associated with exposure to such vibrations in the course of one’s work. It is also gratifying that everyone – the Commission, the Council and Parliament – have agreed upon a method of limiting vibrations and other physical agents. The method involves introducing both action values and limit values that should never be exceeded. In the light of the fact that we are concerned here with a completely new area within legislation governing the working environment, I believe that the conciliation achieved is really good, and I should like to say that directly to Mr Herman Schmid and the Confederal Group of the European United Left/Nordic Green Left because the conciliation strikes a reasonable balance between commercial considerations and worker protection. It is a very big gain in itself that we are now in actual fact acquiring a directive. It is not something we knew all along that we would obtain, but all European countries are now obliged to take the problem of shocks and vibrations completely seriously.
On behalf of the Group of the Party of European Socialists, I have therefore accepted that the limit value for whole-body vibrations should be set at that level proposed by the Council in the common position. When the directive has been in force for a certain amount of time, we must see whether, on the occasion of a future revision, we can reduce the limit value further. There has been a lot of focus upon whole-body vibrations, but I should like to emphasise that Parliament has in actual fact reduced the action value from 0.6 m/sec2 to 0.5 m/sec2. That, I think, is a very important victory, since the action value is a very crucial figure. Why is that the case? Well, it is because it in actual fact entails a duty on the part of employers to take the problem of vibrations seriously and to actively prevent workers from being exposed to powerful vibrations. When the action values are exceeded, employers must come up with practical action – that is why they are called action values – by, for example, changing the way in which the work is organised or investing in better equipment. It is precisely this method which, on the one hand, provides flexibility and, on the other hand, attaches a very great deal of importance to prevention in preference to actual orders and bans. It is this preventive effort which, in my view, is the most important thing for employers now to begin to engage in.
I also think that the conciliation creates a good framework for a sensible implementation of the provisions of the directive. The reports, which are to be implemented at the same time as the directive is implemented, must also contain examples of good practice. In that way, good experiences in one Member State can contribute to other countries’ learning something from these. It is the same principle which we have just been talking about with regard to employment policy and which can perhaps also be used within the working environment. Transition periods will of course be required to ensure that industry is given time to adjust to these new provisions, but the Council’s common position contained a number of transition periods which were a little too long, and this matter too has also been successfully straightened out. In the cases of agriculture and forestry, to which special conditions apply, there is still, however, a transition period of as long as twelve years. That is a long time, but it means that we shall be quite certain that these businesses too are able to adjust to the new provisions.
I must also put forward a couple of critical observations. It is difficult for ordinary people who are not involved with the EU on a daily basis to understand that it takes such a long time to prepare a directive. When people hear that the first proposal concerning physical agents goes right back to 1992, the reactions are very critical. Can it be right that it should take us more than ten years to complete the negotiations for putting a directive in place? It does not increase people’s faith in the decision-making process. I would therefore once again urge the Commission to table proposals for directives on the two physical agents for which there are still no directives, namely electromagnetic fields and optical radiation. Turning now to something more positive, I would thank the Council and the Commission for their really fruitful cooperation, on a completely informal level too, and I would also thank the rapporteurs from the other political groups. The cooperation has been very constructive, and we have in actual fact ended up with a result that we can all be proud of."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples