Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-09-06-Speech-2-016"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050906.6.2-016"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, over the past months, a media furore has spread half-truths and untruths in the shape of ludicrous shaggy-dog stories. The only thing about the so-called minimum health and safety requirements regarding the exposure of workers to the risks arising from physical agents (optical radiation) – as the title puts it – to gain a firm hold on the public mind was that Brussels, in its mania for regulation, sought even to outlaw the rays of the sun, requiring barmaids to refrain from wearing low-cut dresses and even banning footballers from wearing shorts in future. I am sure that I do not need to point out to the House that this directive is solely concerned with prevention and with protective measures in the workplace and with improving precautions against skin cancers – not least as an occupational illness.
Essentially, we would have no need of rules and regulations if, for example, the old dress codes to deal with natural optical radiation were still in place, with it being taken for granted that someone working in the sun would wear a hat and clothing to protect the skin. Nor would we have much need of them if the sun’s ultra-violet rays were not constantly being made more dangerous by the depletion of the ozone layer. It is, alas, an established fact – and one to which a number of Members have referred – that incidences of skin cancer have multiplied over recent years, particularly among those working in construction and agriculture, neither of which can be regarded as privileged occupations.
The question that we have to answer today is whether or not we want to protect these workers better against optical radiation, just as we do against noise, vibration and electro-magnetic radiation, and do so, moreover, to an equal degree in every Member State, and whether or not we want to guarantee the recognition of skin cancer as an occupational illness throughout the EU. We must not shuffle off our own powers and responsibilities onto the Member States, who are responsible for implementation.
While health is a fundamental asset for every individual, it also has an economic dimension, so we should adopt the Council’s proposed minimum requirements – remembering that they are minimum requirements! – while rejecting Articles 4 and 5, which have been completely watered down. As a matter of principle, we Greens share the Socialist Group’s position and call for minimum standards for proper protection at work in all EU Member States."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples