Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-03-12-Speech-2-161"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2002-03-12"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Exposure of workers to risks arising from physical agents (noise)2
dcterms:Language	"en"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20020312.8.2-161"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2002-03-12-Speech-2-1622
lpv:speaker	lp:Elizabeth Lynne2
lpv:spoken text	"Mr President, if the rapporteur's original draft report had gone through and had been accepted, it would have decimated industry across the EU. Yes, by all means protect workers, but do not throw workers out of work! It was essential that hearing protection should be taken into account, and I congratulate those industries and everybody else who convinced the rapporteur of the need to do so. If this had not been the case, with the exposure limit set at 87, hammering steel at 95-100 decibels, bottling at 98 decibels, and pig-feeding at 100 decibels would have ceased to exist, as would the construction and mining industries. Cement works and part of the engineering industry would have been decimated. I recognise that the rapporteur has moved and I welcome that. I welcome the fact that she has moved from daily measuring to weekly measuring in exceptional circumstances, but I would like her to move further to weekly measurements, to go back to the main body of the text as in the common position. I am very pleased that we have got the compromise amendment on music and leisure, whatever the rapporteur says: to have five years' exemption for the music and leisure industry, for the Commission to do a report, and then to come back to this House, but to consult with both sides of industry. I hope it goes through and I hope all MEPs will vote for it. Otherwise, we will have the ridiculous prospect of bar staff wearing ear-muffs when people go in to order a pint of beer. I am also glad that we have a chance to debate this because if it had been rejected on a second reading in committee, we would have had no chance to debate this today in the plenary session – no chance to put forward the amendment to exclude music and leisure for five years, and Parliament's view would not have been taken into account. So I say to those people who voted against the report in committee: if you had got your way, there is no way we would be standing here today."@en1
lpv:spokenAs	member; ELDR (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 substitute; Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 member; EMPL (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 unknown; Liberal Democrat Party (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 member; Delegation for relations with the countries of South Asia and the South Asia Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) (2002-02-07--2004-07-19)3
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"Lynne (ELDR )."1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph