Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-09-21-Speech-4-109"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000921.4.4-109"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
".
This proposal typifies the belief of this assembly that, for every ill in society, the solution is a new law and – when that fails – to create another.
The success or otherwise of a law depends on the nature of its enforcement, and the skill/experience of enforcement officers, which cannot be addressed by this directive.
This was recognised in 1972, when the Robens Committee Inquiry on health and safety in the UK, addressing the dynamic of excessive resort to law-making and its effect on enforcement, observed: “. . . the sheer mass of this law, far from advancing the cause of safety and health, may well have reached the point where it becomes counter-productive.”
The response by the government of the day was the Health [amp] Safety at Work Act 1974, a highly effective legislative model reducing the law to a few simple principles and duties, spearheaded by a new enforcement agency.
Although these developments were hailed as a major contribution to health and safety at work, the Commission has consistently undermined this Act. Ever since it began legislating in this area, it has confused the issue, making enforcement progressively more difficult. It should desist now, and this assembly should reject this directive."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples