Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-03-12-Speech-2-158"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020312.8.2-158"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, with regard once again to the Rules of Procedure, I want to say that my business following the debate is not to criticise anything the Commission has said but, rather, to comment on aspects of what my fellow MEPs here in the House have stated. I am now, then, embarking upon my speaking time.
Noise is a major problem in European workplaces, and I believe it is important to emphasise that this directive is good for workers and that it does not affect anyone else. As has been discussed, there are many misunderstandings as to who is affected by this directive. We know that noise can have incredibly harmful effects. The possible effects of noise are very well documented. We are talking about tinnitus and permanent loss of hearing. I believe that combating noise in the workplace is the best thing we can do to prevent injury at work and to prevent employees being permanently excluded from the labour market. It has therefore surprised me a great deal during the debate on this issue in the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs that, for example, the Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party, which normally attaches incredible importance to doing something for handicapped people in the EU, has not shown greater interest in efforts to prevent people from being handicapped by damage to their hearing, for that is at all events the best strategy of all. We also know that the existing noise directive from 1996 is out of date and does not provide employees with sufficient protection. The common position with which we are now being presented is far better, for an actual limit value is being introduced for the first time. It is an important step that such a common minimum level should be established for the whole of the EU. The amendments adopted by the committee improve the common position on a range of points, and I am pleased about the support which many have said they will give. The biggest improvement can be achieved if we set great store by the preventive strategy, and I believe that that is a right and proper principle.
I turn now to the music and entertainment industry. This is a much discussed subject in connection with which the Group of the Party of European Socialists has entered into a compromise, by which we stand, with the Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party and the Group of the European People’s Party and European Democrats. I must not, however, disguise the fact that this is an impairment of the common position, and it is interesting that we now see a European Parliament that attaches less importance to protecting employees than the Council of Ministers does. This is a new development, and I would ask the public to note the fact. We support the compromise proposal because it has been important to us to avoid having the common position rejected in the European Parliament. And, as we heard, there was a real risk of that happening. That would have been clearly unacceptable for, then, employees would only have been protected at the 1996 level. We have therefore accepted the compromise, and that of course also shows that we have been incredibly sympathetic to what the music and entertainment industry has told us in connection with this matter. I would also say to my fellow MEPs in the House that we have perhaps sometimes been too sympathetic. By that, I mean in fact that some MEPs have not been critical enough of what the industry has said. Rumours of the worst kind have circulated about this matter. I have been accused of wanting to close down the whole of the pop industry in Great Britain and of wanting to prohibit the bagpipes in Scotland. It is all complete and utter nonsense, of course. Naturally, we must listen to what society around us says, but that does not mean we simply have to roll over. We have a compromise proposal I can live with. I am in actual fact extremely satisfied with it. It will mean that the entertainment industry will only be covered by the directive after five years and, in the intervening period, we shall call upon the Commission to carry out an investigation of how the directive will affect the music and entertainment industry. The Commission will subsequently assess whether it is necessary to exempt the industry from the directive or to regulate it in some other way. I believe this compromise proposal will make it clear how much exaggeration there has been in this matter and also make it clear that even people in the music industry are very seriously affected by the damage to their hearing that we are in actual fact trying to combat.
Finally, I wish to emphasise that I should like to have seen us achieve more in terms of improving workers’ protection. That has not been possible, but what is now crucial is that, tomorrow, MEPs support those proposals which in actual fact improve the common position and ensure that we attach more importance to the preventive side. I urge all my fellow MEPs to support the proposals now tabled by the committee, together with the compromise proposal."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples