Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-12-04-Speech-3-149"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20021204.9.3-149"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, to follow on from the rapporteur’s closing words, both I and the PPE-DE Group are happy with the report and with the compromise which has been reached. I think that this report lays another important stone in the edifice of health protection for European workers, even if, unfortunately, it will still be far too long before we have common European protection standards. In this particular instance, the first proposal dates back to 1993. The noise directive was certainly no easy task, with the Council and Parliament taking up somewhat different positions. But the whole purpose of the conciliation procedure is to bring about agreement even so. Such agreement is, by its very nature, always a compromise but, as I said, we all have reason to be satisfied with this particular compromise.
Objectively speaking, noise protection has been increased; the previous speaker explained the technical data and details. But what is important is that it is clear-cut; there are no grey areas or confusing discretionary powers when it comes to implementation. The employer’s obligation to provide hearing protectors, check they are effective and make sure people wear them is new. This sets out employers’ general duty of care without any room for misunderstanding. My group was also concerned that an allowance should be made for the music and entertainment industry when it comes to applying the directive. This is a welcome move for reasons of legal truth and legal clarity because it makes no sense to have to keep turning a blind eye to the fact that the directive applies to orchestra members in theory but is never applied in practice for reasons of comfort or on aesthetic grounds. It is therefore simply more honest to allow a transitional period here and let the individual Member States and social partners decide what they want to do themselves.
I should just like to emphasise that, however pleasing it is on paper, this directive needs to be applied in practice. I am becoming more and more convinced that employee protection directives look very pretty on paper but that nobody actually wants to implement them. That may have something to do with economic developments, but it is precisely during hard times that we need to make sure that directives are implemented. I say that with one eye very firmly on the candidate countries because we must set a very clear example here too."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples