Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-09-06-Speech-2-028"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2005-09-06"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Health and safety at work: Exposure to optical radiation2
dcterms:Language	"de"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20050906.6.2-028"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2005-09-06-Speech-2-0292
lpv:speaker	lp:Harald Ettl2
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; Delegation for relations with the Mashreq countries (2004-09-15--2007-03-13)3 member; Delegation to the EU-Bulgaria Joint Parliamentary Committee (2004-09-15--2006-12-31)3 substitute; ECON (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)3 member; EMPL (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)3 member; PES (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3 unknown; Sozialdemokratische Partei Österreichs (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, employers have always treated workers’ need for protection as if it were a trifling thing. Not only, for example, did it take decades to get occupational illnesses recognised as such, but the provision and wearing of ear protectors in training establishments was not, for a long time, regarded as health protection either, and now artificial and optical radiation, something of such great importance to workers has become a fit topic for polemics by the redtop press. Where this proposal for a directive on optical radiation is concerned, we should go back to what the Council proposed. It is no more than a polemical trick to compare natural sunlight with a sunbed. There is, after all, a difference between a worker being exposed to extreme solar radiation for the whole of the day, and a person doing some sunbathing – which, if they are sensible, will be for a brief period of time. In considering these things, we have to bear in mind the demonstrable sharp increase in the risk of skin cancer in Europe, a risk taken by building workers, forestry workers and other workers exposed to the sun in the open air. Requiring employers and health and safety officers to provide information on extreme weather conditions when these occur is surely not to demand disproportionate expenditure on their part, and is something that should be taken seriously. Greater legal certainly also makes perfect sense from the point of view of both worker protection and insurance and is a necessity. It might be added that Members of this House should, where workers are concerned, be guided in their decision-making by an awareness of their problems rather than by ignorance."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph