Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-02-13-Speech-1-184"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060213.16.1-184"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Please allow me to briefly summarise the main stages of this complicated legislative procedure, as a result of which we can now debate the third reading of the Directive on Optical Radiation.
The procedure started with Framework Directive 89/391/EEC, which provided a comprehensive regulation for the entire issue of health and safety at work, and created the legal framework for a single approach to all possible risks that may arise at the workplace. Section 16 of the Framework Directive stipulates that individual directives must be created to address risks of various types. These are required because such regulations would allow for a more accurate adaptation of the general stipulations of the Framework Directive to specific situations. The adaptation of the content of general obligations to individual risk types is very much in the interest of employees and employers, because this is how the law of the European Union can be implemented in practice, and it can create competition neutrality and guarantee greater safety. If the content of the obligations is not unequivocal, employers will have difficulty proving that they did comply with the provisions of the law, which may lead to legal disputes of unpredictable outcomes. It is also in the employees' interest that the protection in the area of health and safety at work, which is the inalienable right of each European citizen, as stipulated in Section 137 of the Treaty of Rome, should be implemented through efficient articles of law that are easy to apply in practice.
The preparation of individual directives has been ongoing for the past decade and a half. The Directive on Optical Radiation is meant to cover the fourth extremely important area after noise, mechanical vibrations and electromagnetic radiation. As originally envisaged by the European Commission and Council, this fourth directive would have addressed the treatment of optical radiation originating from both natural and artificial sources. However, there are some significant differences between these two areas, in terms of intervention and risk level reduction. Therefore, during the debate of the second reading of the Directive, the European Parliament passed on to Member States the entire regulatory competence regarding solar radiation risks. However, it was subsequently found that this decision violated certain European Union competences, as it would have prevented the application of the stipulation contained in Section 137 of the Treaty of Rome, which stated that the minimum level of requirements applicable in the area of health and safety at work should be set within EU frameworks, for each risk type. This was why the Council and the Commission were unable to accept the decision of Parliament taken at second reading, and a reconciliation procedure followed. In the course of the reconciliation procedure, the Council accepted the majority of the amendments made by Parliament, and only suggested two substantive and two formal alterations. The most important substantive amendment suggested that the scope of the Directive should not include optical radiation from natural sources, as the foundations of a pan-European agreement for setting minimum EU requirements in this area had not yet been laid down.
However, legislators are not disputing any of the issues concerning artificial radiation, and it would be expedient to introduce the individual directive providing precise regulation in this area right now, this year. The Parliamentary Delegation accepted these arguments, but in all other issues the Council accepted the position of the European Parliament. Consequently, it was the wording proposed by the Parliamentary Delegation that was included in Section 8 concerning medical surveillance, and in the relevant preamble paragraph. We can say that the reconciliation procedure was rapid and successful beyond our expectations, and a final agreement was reached as early as December 2005.
Consequently, this is what I would like to ask my colleagues and Parliament to support during the voting."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples