Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-02-14-Speech-2-128"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060214.22.2-128"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
This is a classic example of the often painfully slow nature of the European decision-making process.
The proposal on which we voted today has been on the table since 1992, even though it addresses an issue as crucial as the protection of workers’ health.
It has taken 13 long years for Parliament’s approach to prevail.
The text that has just been adopted addresses the exposure of workers to artificial radiation and excludes natural source radiation from the scope of the directive. It was decided that, in accordance with the subsidiarity principle, the latter is an issue that should be addressed at national level, depending on national conditions and needs.
I voted in favour of this report because I agree that it is unworkable for the EU to oblige employers in the 25 Member States to assess the health and safety risks to workers exposed to sunlight. I feel that assessments of this nature should be carried out at national level, commensurate with the situation in each country.
Under this directive, employers must implement measures relating to choice of equipment, workplace design and length of time of exposure with a view to preventing or reducing their employees’ risk of being exposed to artificial radiation."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples