Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-09-06-Speech-2-022"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050906.6.2-022"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I would like to remind the House that the minimum health and safety requirements applicable to the workplace are already defined as a European competence by the Single European Act, and that employers have been obliged, since as long ago as 1989, to carry out risk assessments, train workers and inform them, providing protective equipment when necessary and keeping documentation relating to these measures.
The specialised directive with which we are concerned today does no more than lay down the framework for these measures, and does so in a balanced and appropriate manner, including in those situations in which we cannot keep tabs on the source, and so I cannot for the life of me understand why the employers’ associations are opposed to such legal certainty. After all, the only alternatives they have are to resort to simple actions such as the provision of notices or up-to-date information on health risks or else to run the risk of court rulings recognising occupational illnesses. I cannot understand why they do not go for the cheaper option, and so I regard the CSU amendment as making for greater legal uncertainty and as detrimental particularly to small businesses."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples