Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-02-13-Speech-1-190"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060213.16.1-190"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, this directive is all about sunlight emissions, but I feel we would be better off listening to Beethoven’s Moonlight Sonata. I should like to begin by saying that I am, of course, in favour of this proposed legislation. I am disappointed, however, with the outcome of the conciliation process, and in particular the role played by Parliament. The negotiations on this Directive, which is sometimes referred to as the sunlight exposure directive, have instead been more reminiscent of a second-rate soap opera. Initially, the experts, the European institutions and the Member States agreed that it would be necessary to add further legislation to the general regulation on health and safety at work that would have simplified the legislation on protection from optical radiation and made it workable. Similar legislation was adopted in the previous period, in relation to noise, vibrations and electromagnetic radiation. What is more, nobody has referred to the very modest limit values for exposure to optical radiation, as set out in the annex to the proposed Directive.
The rapporteur, Mr Őry, has shown tremendous determination and I should like to congratulate him for seeking a compromise. Nevertheless, it was his political group that had opposed the inclusion of all natural sources of optical radiation in this Directive. It strikes me as rather absurd that fierce opposition to clearly defined rules and standards for informing workers and protecting them against sunlight radiation has come principally from those Member States in which there is already a decent level of protection, whereas countries such as Italy, where much greater effort is required, did not raise any fundamental objections. Perhaps the Italians know, in short, that information on and prevention of illness at work is cheaper for workers than doing nothing.
The Directive on optical radiation would be a practical step, bringing not only improvements in the protection of the workers, but also a simplification of European legislation. The situation that confronts us today in this area is far from what I would consider a reduction in unnecessary bureaucracy. I fear that in the future legal disputes will be unavoidable."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples