Mr President, first of all I would like to say that my delegation intends to back the Skinner report on the Proposal for a European Parliament and Council Directive amending for the second time the Directive concerning minimum health and safety requirements. The key issue of health and safety protection for workers is a matter of concern to us all. No one is prepared to expose themselves to the accusation that they are anti-social, and it is undoubtedly justifiable to have minimum regulations in the European area. It also accords with the EU Treaty, and so we will give the rapporteur the respect due to him. But I am at a loss as to why MEPs manoeuvre themselves time and again into predicaments where they either face the accusation of being of an anti-social disposition, or else risk becoming a laughing stock. I certainly cannot see why mature adults should be dictated to on how they should climb ladders, or get down them, or why a risk assessment should have to be completed before a ladder is used; or why there should be an instruction to the effect that, two people should not climb a ladder at the same time, if at all possible, or even one stating that time spent up a ladder should not exceed half an hour, or – a peculiar refinement – 25% of total working hours. The Skinner report will go down in parliamentary lore as ‘the ladder report’, and the people of the European Union will justifiably ask themselves whether we do not have anything better to do than produce legislation on things they take for granted, which should in fact be a matter for in-house experts and have no place either in an EU directive or an associated report produced by the codecision-making Parliament! In fact this is not the first time that a report with a social component has contained such absurdities. When MEPs have to rack their brains over matters such as the physical constitution of Europeans, in order to establish standards for the average size of tractor seat, or the conditions under which panicled tomatoes – the Austrian word is Rispenparadeiser – can enter the market, this shows an MEP’s job description, but also the raison d’être of the European institutions, in a poor light, to say nothing of the fact that such detailed provisions and over-regulation can become counter-productive. The same applies to national legislation on protection for workers, incidentally. Despite all the financial incentives, protective measures of this kind are apt to deter employers from taking on apprentices, thereby contributing to youth unemployment rather than helping to alleviate it. In addition, however, the Skinner report raises the fundamental question as to what Europe should do and what it should not do. In other words, it is about competences and the judicious application of the subsidiarity principle. We cannot, and must not, evade the issue any longer. This is not just because of the Intergovernmental Conference and the organisational form of the European Union, which must find a satisfactory solution in view of the forthcoming enlargement. This issue has to do with the acceptance of the Union by the people, which is the subject of much complaint. We need more Europe where internal and external security is concerned, more Europe when it comes to looking after our interests in the global competition, in currency policy and in the completion of the single market. But what we do not need is a Europe that makes inroads on the autonomy of governments, regional administrative bodies, and lastly, the individual, and which takes away the individual’s right to an opinion. I therefore intend to use this report as an opportunity to highlight the demand for a debate on competences after the Intergovernmental Conference.

Political group: PPE-DE