Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-02-13-Speech-1-189"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2006-02-13"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Exposure of workers to optical radiation (debate)2
dcterms:Language	"de"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20060213.16.1-189"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2006-02-13-Speech-1-1902
lpv:speaker	lp:Sepp Kusstatscher2
lpv:spokenAs	member; Delegation to the EU-Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia Joint Parliamentary Committee (2004-09-15--2009-07-13)3 substitute; TRAN (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)3 unknown; Federazione dei Verdi (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3 member; EMPL (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)3 member; G/EFA (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3 substitute; Delegation to the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly (2004-09-15--2009-07-13)3
lpv:translated text	". Mr President, after all the discussion of the technical details associated with this directive, I would like to make a general comment. In principle, any initiative that reduces health risks and thereby affords people better protection deserves support, and, as people spend a considerable part of their lives at work, it is logical that the various dangers there should be precisely analysed and all of them, along with all hazards to health at work, reduced to the minimum possible. I see it as an extremely good thing that the attempt should be made to lay down, across the EU, uniform minimum standards of health and safety protection. What I found really scandalous about the debate on this directive was the attempt that was made to prevent anything that might cost money. There is also something dubious about this compromise’s statement in one of its recitals that, and I quote, ‘This directive must avoid imposing administrative, financial and legal constraints in a way which would hold back the creation and development of small and medium-sized undertakings.’ I do not understand why health protection is not supposed to cost anything if the same rules apply to all, so that there is no unfair competition. By all means let services and products involving a greater health risk cost slightly more. Why should they not? Why should people in general cough up for the costs that business imposes on public health services simply because of the negligent attitude taken towards certain risks? Real competition exists only when rules apply equally and if the real costs are reflected as a matter of principle. Anything else is a short-term subsidy for individual businesses or sectors at the expense of the general public and to the detriment of workers who do dangerous jobs. What I want to see is more economic probity."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph