Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/1999-12-01-Speech-3-163"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.19991201.13.3-163"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, this is a report on health and safety. There have been many, but this report stands out because it will be the first report to be adopted under codecision, provided that, tomorrow, the House agrees with our recommendations to indeed approve the agreement with the Council. I believe that this is what is of such historic importance about this report. In fact, it is also the first report in the social sphere that has ever gone through under codecision. Parliament has always made a fuss about the fact that not enough emphasis has been placed on the social dimension in legislative practice.
We did not encounter a great deal of problems with the Council regarding this report. This is also reflected in the number of amendments which this Parliament brought at second reading. We do have to note, of course, that all this took rather a long time. This special directive implements the framework directive which was adopted in 1989. Our first reading was in 1996. It is now 1999. The directive will not enter into effect until 2003. This illustrates that it sometimes all takes longer sometimes than expected. If we consider the numbers of people still being killed due to unsafe working conditions, then more urgency is needed.
So what was the key point in the negotiations with the Council? This is when codecision proves so important. It mainly concerned the publication of what we have agreed upon here. We at the Parliament requested right from the outset that companies be informed of European legislation. This legislation is, of course, also included in national legislation, albeit in a covert way. Moreover, national legislation is far from adequately disseminated. Initially, the Council was strongly opposed to this. We went through some tough negotiations. It is, of course, a little ironic that a provision which may prove important to all companies should be kept more or less concealed.
This brings me to my second point of concern. We now have more or less an actual framework of minimum directives in terms of health and safety. This is of great importance. A number of countries have not yet implemented certain directives. The Commission should be commended for bringing a number of these countries before the Court of Justice over the past couple of years and also for the fact that changes have been made. But it appears that it still takes much longer to tackle countries in this sector than it does in others. This is regrettable. Practical benchmarking, however, which is very important, is still not up to scratch because, after all, what it comes down to is that more or less the same minimum requirements apply within a company, be it in Denmark or in Spain. This benefits competitive relationships but it mainly benefits those employed within those companies.
If there is no exchange, if the practical benchmarks are not equal, then something else is still lacking. We have the strong impression that this still has not been regulated terribly well. This is the very reason why this vade mecum, as we called it initially, is so important. It may be of interest that this vade mecum has now turned into a guide. Why is this? It is because the Council could not come to terms with the word “vade mecum” for some unknown reason. The term vade mecum is understood in most European countries without any explanation, without a translation and a complex, long, reasonably procedural title will, of course, be less easily understood. But Parliament made this concession. We will not dwell on this any further.
It remains important, however, that everyone is informed of these directives and, above all, that they can apply them. A whole raft of companies do not apply those directives properly. This is not because they refuse to, it is simply because they are not sufficiently aware of the possibilities for applying them. Such a guide may be helpful in this, and this is how we voluntarily reach not harmonisation but minimum standards. I think that this is how we will gradually grow closer together.
I would ask the Commission to take a much harder line on this practical benchmarking than it has done in the past. We have a new Commissioner and I know that she has a great deal of experience in this field. Maybe we can expect fresh momentum in this respect too."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples