Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-09-20-Speech-3-092"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000920.7.3-092"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, let us be absolutely clear about the fact that there is no one in this Parliament who wants anything other than the best. Let us make it clear that no one in this Parliament wants anything other than that the number of accidents, especially fatal accidents, should fall in all workplaces around our splendid continent and in our Member States.
Let us, however, at the same time make it absolutely clear to one other – and I am addressing a number of speakers here – that different answers can be arrived at to the question of what is the correct level of political decision-making at which to make these important decisions. After listening to Mr Hughes, to the British Labour Government and also to others in Britain, I am extremely confident that they are deeply committed to finding answers to these questions. After listening to Mr Menrad, I am very confident that the German Christian Democratic Party is thoroughly engaged with these issues in Germany. I can guarantee that all seven parliamentary parties in Sweden, especially my own Christian Democratic Party, are concerned about the matter. I can also assure you that public opinion and the trade unions are very committed to the issue and want to enact laws which will lead to a very significant reduction in the number of deaths due to industrial accidents.
What is it, then, which leads us to believe that it is at the level of the European Parliament, representing countries with more than 15 national parliaments, that the right forum for decision-making is to be found? In the light of the subsidiarity or proximity principle, allow me to express my doubts about the extent to which this issue is suited to being dealt with specifically in the European Parliament.
Amendment 14, paragraph 4.2.2, for example, reads as follows: ‘Before portable ladders are brought into service, their feet shall be prevented from slipping by securing the stiles at or near their upper or lower ends, by any anti-slip device or by any other arrangement of equivalent effectiveness. As a priority, ladders should be secured firmly using all possible means. Ladders used for access should be long enough for their uprights to protrude sufficiently beyond the access platform. Ladders in several sections shall be so used as to ensure that they are secure. The holding of the ladder by another person as a safety measure shall not be allowed.’
This text is well meant and perfectly in order legally. I can absolutely assure you that, at home in Mora in Dalarna, where I live, as well as in the Swedish Parliament and also in all other national parliaments, these matters are being carefully looked into. In view of the subsidiarity principle in the Treaties of Maastricht and Amsterdam, is it right of the European Parliament to legislate at this very high level of detail? Instead what we ought to be doing is aiming for a directive which specifies our objectives. In that way, we can allow the Member States themselves, their people and their elected representatives in national parliaments and governments to be responsible for the existence of regulations ensuring that working life does not involve unnecessary risks. Allow them to determine how to frame the rules so as to fulfil the requirements of the directive in the best way. National legislation is being enacted in this area to add to the existing national laws. The two sides of industry are also extremely active in this area.
We Swedish Christian Democrats shall be voting against this report on the basis of the subsidiarity principle."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples