Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-09-20-Speech-3-093"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000920.7.3-093"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". – I should like to congratulate Mr Skinner for skilfully managing to formulate a series of compromises which strike a good balance between the different interests involved.
Finally, we cannot accept Amendments Nos 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 21, 23, 24, 25 and 26. This is not a question of a political disagreement but simply that Amendments Nos 6 and 7 change accepted standard texts while the other amendments repeat what is stated elsewhere. We must endeavour to keep Community legislation as straightforward as possible and avoid any inconsistencies in the overall framework. This is especially important in the field of health and safety where businesses sometimes have in implementing rules because of their complexities.
With regard to Amendment No 1, the issue is already covered by the text. In the same way, the definition of “collective fall protection safeguards” given in Amendment No 8 is not necessary. These safeguards have already been mentioned in the basic directive and there is no risk of confusion.
Also Amendment No 21 is unnecessary as this area is already covered by Directive 92/57/EEC and it refers to a specific paragraph. Here again, if we repeat something that has already been defined, it is a potential for conflicting interpretations. Amendment No 5 is covered by Amendment No 22, which is accepted as it stands. Amendment No 6 covers training, which is already incorporated in Recital 7, and research, which is beyond the scope of this directive. Furthermore, Recital 7 uses a standard form of words. There are thus several reasons for not accepting Amendment No 6. Amendment No 7 advocates a change in Article 2(3). This is established standard wording and the Commission therefore cannot accept a change to it.
Amendment No 23 cannot be supported by the Commission as the issue of health and safety committees in enterprises has been appropriately addressed in the framework directive and according to it, detailed regulation is a matter of subsidiarity for all Member States. Amendments Nos 24 and 25 must be rejected because training is already adequately covered, especially following Amendments Nos 16, 19 and 22. In spite of its simplicity, the Commission cannot support Amendment No 26 as we prefer to specify the circumstances for the use of ladders.
To sum up, I am happy that we agree on all main issues and our differences lie in a few technical points. I repeat my appreciation of your extensive work and it will improve the protection of workers in this field. We will improve the protection we intend to provide with this initiative.
This has led to a document that has clearly won considerable approval, which is quite an achievement on this very important political issue. This text is a good answer to Mr Bushill-Matthews’ voters and what Europe does for them. It is something concrete and it concerns people is every day lives. Using the enterprises’ language, I should like to say that this directive is based not only on social solidarity and social justice, but on competition issues as well. That is why we try to help applicant countries to develop and implement health and safety policies.
These health and safety policies are the Commission’s first priority in the social agenda. Apart from undertaking the specific commitments set out in this agenda, we are starting to prepare a communication on health and safety and future strategies for health and safety. The European Parliament has many new ideas and we expect your contribution to this communication.
If we turn to the current text, this is the second amendment of Directive 89/655 EEC concerning the minimum safety and health requirements for work equipment. It aims to prevent falls from heights by setting minimum requirements for the use of the relevant work equipment such as ladders and scaffolding. Falls from heights account for more than 10% of occupational accidents and one in ten of such falls results in permanent invalidity or death. This is a particularly serious problem, which is costly for business and society and which, more importantly, causes suffering and human tragedy for the people directly involved and their families.
The current proposal is a very important step towards doing something concrete about this. I welcome your broad support. It is obvious it is something more than bureaucracy.
Since my reply must deal with the technical details because of the rules of this procedure, I have to stick to the written text. On your amendments and the ideas behind the amendments, we are happy to accept Amendments Nos 2, 3, 4, 9, 11, 15, 20 and 22 as they stand. On the text of Amendments Nos 10, 13, 14, 18, the Commission agrees with the principles behind the changes proposed and can agree with most of the texts put forward. However, we do propose a few changes or additions, mainly to be sure that we take account of all possible situations and do not create any unintended holes in the safety net we intend to provide with this initiative.
On Amendment No 10, we agree with the inclusion of a reference to a prior risk assessment, but would prefer different wording in order to specify the circumstances for the use of ladders. Similarly, on Amendment No 13 we share the desire to ensure that there is no implied obligation to use mobile platforms, but we believe that this is best achieved by the original wording with the possible addition of the phrase “of adequate dimensions”.
Also, Amendment No 14 will improve the directive, but in order to avoid any risk of a different interpretation in the future, we would prefer a slight change to the wording, which would include retaining the requirement to prevent the sections of a multi-section ladder from moving relative to each other. This is because even slight sudden movements that do not threaten the security of the ladder may cause the worker to lose balance and fall.
We agree with the main idea behind Amendment No 18 and the references to the securing of the decks and the prevention of unintentional movement. However, we must oppose the reference to “load-bearing surfaces” as they will cause confusion over what is meant by “deck”. We also must oppose the reference to planks forming the scaffold deck as this implies that scaffolding systems that use prefabricated boards are not covered. Likewise Amendments Nos 16 and 19 need only slight modification to avoid difficulties in interpretation later on."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples