Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-09-07-Speech-3-103"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050907.15.3-103"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
".
Though very supportive of relevant and appropriate health and safety provisions pertaining to employees, I cannot endorse the inclusion of natural sources of optical radiation within this Directive. Employers already have a duty to assess the risk to health and safety and to introduce appropriate control measures as specified in the Framework Directive (89/391/EEC). Thus exposure to the sun is a known risk, for example to the agriculture and building industries, and is already sufficiently catered for. The inclusion of natural sun radiation in the new Directive will disproportionately affect small agricultural and construction businesses and add unnecessary administrative costs, particularly in the Northern regions of Europe.
The wildly varying climates in the various EU Member States are enough to make it clear that European legislation on natural optical radiation is not appropriate. Whilst provisions specific to exposure to artificial radiation are appropriate, the inclusion of natural sunlight radiation caused me to vote against this Directive as excessive and burdensome in its ambit and impact.
The foolishness of this proposal suggests that the people of Europe are more in need of protection from Brussels than from the sun!"@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples