Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-09-06-Speech-2-014"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050906.6.2-014"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
".
Mr President, I thank Mr Őry for his excellent work as rapporteur. He worked very closely with all the shadow rapporteurs, improved an already pretty good common position and produced a good draft report for the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs. It is only a pity that that good work was put in jeopardy by the stance taken by his own group, the PPE-DE, and a faction in the Liberal Group on one aspect of the proposal: the provisions relating to the occupational risks arising from exposure to natural radiation.
Sadly, we have come to expect totally misleading and sensational press releases from the right, misrepresenting important pieces of health and safety legislation. When we worked on the issue of industrial noise, we were accused of trying to ban bagpipe playing in Scotland. Our work on the risks of whole body vibration was evidently to stop farmers from driving tractors after only three or four hours, even at the height of the harvest. Now our work on this proposal is presented as an attempt to force citizens to carry umbrellas. This is absolute nonsense. The Commissioner himself said that the original proposal envisaged a far lighter-touch approach to natural radiation than artificial sources.
However, this time I sense something more than an attempt to grab cheap tabloid headlines, something more ideologically driven. I believe that those sitting behind Mr Őry and trying to undermine his work think that, with the stalling of much of Europe's social agenda, they have a chance to push for deregulation and the renationalisation of important elements of the social legal base. If that is so, then let me tell them that they should think again. We will do all we can to stop them in their tracks and continue to improve, and not undermine, worker protection.
In reality, our amendments on natural radiation have nothing to do with the ridiculous stories fed to the media. We are trying to do three positive things. First, to make explicit what is already implicit in the proposal. We are not talking about expensive duties being imposed on employers. Where the employer finds a risk associated with natural radiation, information will be provided to workers. In the vast majority of modern occupational settings there will be no risk.
Secondly, by taking the sentence from the Council, granting Member States a role in determining the criteria to apply to the risk assessment in the light of national circumstances, we are acknowledging the obvious fact that, as both speakers have already said, the risk from natural radiation is somewhat lower in Newcastle than it is in Naples.
Thirdly, we are trying to provide greater legal certainty for employers. Although the right try to deny it, the 1999 Framework Directive clearly imposes a duty on employers to assess all occupational risks. The 1992 directive on construction sites certainly goes further and specifically mentions environmental considerations. We should use this proposal to introduce greater legal certainty. That is exactly what we are trying to do in our amendments, by seeking to highlight the provision of information to workers.
We are talking about a very serious risk. According to Cancer Research UK, skin cancer is one of the most common cancers in the UK. Cases of skin cancer there have more than doubled since the 1980s. The UK now has more cases of skin cancer than Australia. More than 69 000 new cases are diagnosed in the UK each year and over 2 000 people die each year in the UK from skin cancer.
That is not specific to the UK. In Germany, skin cancer among agricultural workers has risen by between 15% and 20% over the last decade alone. Please take a look at the statistics in your own countries. This is a global, not a national, phenomenon. So let us use the EU-wide legal base we have to provide greater protection for all our workers."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples