Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-12-04-Speech-3-148"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20021204.9.3-148"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, I would thank the Commissioner for having eventually dealt with the other physical agents, for in that way I do not have to say that there are still elements we have missing. I am delighted, moreover, that the Commission has consistently placed the issue high on its agenda. We all know that noise is a very serious problem for the working environment. It is an area which has been fully explained in terms of science. We know that, in actual fact, very little noise is needed to cause lasting damage to hearing. We also know that damage to hearing can lead to a reduction in people’s capacity to work or to their possibly not being able to obtain jobs in the labour market ever again. It is, then, a very serious state of affairs we are talking about.
I am therefore extremely pleased at our being able, tomorrow, to adopt a directive that gives workers better protection than that which they have at present. It is, then, a better directive with which we are concerned here, first of all because we are now at long last obtaining a proper upper limit on the noise to which workers may be exposed. I should like to have seen a lower limit, which is something I also proposed. I should also like to have seen no account taken of protection from personal protection measures, but what we have here is nonetheless an improvement. The other very positive factor is that the directive systematically attaches importance to the prevention made so much of in the framework directive. Prevention is in terms of action values but, in connection with the directive, we have also attached importance to ensuring the presence of properly functioning hearing protectors.
There are, however, a number of other provisions that are to be avoided. We must implement alternative working methods that minimise exposure to noise. We must examine the work tools used in enterprises. Overall, employers’ responsibility for making the directive work is emphasised in the directive itself. The directive provides protection and, in addition, it naturally makes clear the responsibility of employers in individual work situations.
Finally, a couple of words about the music and entertainment sectors. This is a much discussed subject. We have heard about the British pop industry and about bagpipe players, all of which livened up the debate. It is not that I wish to provoke anyone with whom we have been debating this matter, but I should very much like to repeat that noise is, and remains, purely and simply noise. Irrespective of whether it sounds pleasant or unpleasant, noise can cause very serious damage to hearing. We have only to look to our own experience. We are of course aware of who is most often affected by the illness known as tinnitus. It is, in point of fact, people who have lived with pleasant noise or who have been affected by very pleasant noise, namely music. We know, therefore, that noise
noise. I am pleased that the directive recognises this so clearly. The directive also acknowledges that the music sector may possibly have difficulty implementing the directive’s provisions within the deadline that has been fixed. It has therefore extended the deadline for implementing the directive.
I am also very pleased that we have attached importance to prevention and to getting things to work in practice. We have established a transitional period, but this is also to be used for preparing standards governing the behaviour of the whole of the music and entertainment sectors. I am very satisfied with these standards because they are forward-looking and because they will, in a practical way, help the sector to observe the rules. It is also worth pointing out that those standards of behaviour, or ideas for standards of behaviour, arose in the course of the actual work done by the trialogue, and this is therefore a good example of the way in which cooperation through the trialogue can lead to constructive and positive results. It is not just a question of being combative. Good ideas emerge too, which can lead to constructive compromises, and that is something many of us are pleased about. In that connection, gratitude must also of course be expressed to the Commission for the role it has played and to the Council for its constructive cooperation.
Finally, I just want to say how pleased I am that we have achieved such a broad compromise and such considerable support here in the Chamber. I now hope that the Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party will support this compromise and so confirm what its MEPs normally say in the committee, namely that, when there is scientific data and clear evidence that an issue constitutes a problem for workers, we must also legislate to solve that problem. That is a view I hope the ELDR Group will comply with tomorrow. I look forward to our obtaining a really large majority for a good directive."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"is"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples