Mr President, the first question to be asked about this report is: Why do we need this directive? It is very interesting when you look at the statistics because the exact reasons become clear. Almost 10% of all occupational accidents involve falls from heights. One in ten of those involves permanent invalidity or death. Across the European Union in any one year there are approximately half a million falls from heights in the workplace. 300 000 of those result in absences from the workplace of more than three days and 40 000 result in serious injury. Unfortunately, 1 000 are fatal. Many of these accidents – many of which can be avoided – come about because of the poor use of scaffolding or ladders. In the UK, the Health and Safety Executive, the body looking at accidents in the workplace has estimated that some 30% of all prohibition notices in the United Kingdom are issued for unsafe scaffolding alone. In fact, 90% of all accidents on ladders come about because of the misuse of ladders. These are statistics gathered by industry groups and others and not because of equipment failure. Figures published recently by the European Agency for Health and Safety in Bilbao suggest enormous variations between Member States in the incidence of falls from heights. Such variations suggest that health and safety levels are not the same for all workers across the European Union. That is why we need to establish minimum requirements with a view to protecting workers from falls from heights. The current cost, both in personal terms and those of the workers and families affected and in terms of economic costs to industry and the social and health protection systems, warrants legislation in this area. Billions of pounds are spent caring for workers who have been injured or become ill. This can largely be avoided. The background to this proposal suggests additional reasons for having this legislation. This is an amendment to an existing directive on the general minimum requirements for work equipment at work. A proposal to include scaffolding in an earlier amendment to the directive was rejected by Parliament, thanks to many of my colleagues on the other side of the House. The directive finally adopted covered only two specific types of work equipment: mobile equipment and equipment for lifting loads which are very important areas in their own right. This directive will rectify this serious omission. If we do not include falls from heights, the only certainty is that there will be more and the rate will increase. If Parliament rejects this addition, then it must hold itself responsible for the consequences. The Commission’s original intention was to present a proposal for a scaffolding directive. However, because serious falls from heights do not occur only from scaffolding, the scope has been widened to include protection for workers from all manner of falls from heights. Although falls from heights occur in circumstances where ladders and scaffolding are not present, the main focus of the proposal is on scaffolding, ladders and rope access, as you will see as you read. The current rules in many Member States apply only to the building industry, so another important factor is that the scope is extended to other sectors. Also it is important to stress as some seem mildly confused about this, that this proposal is based on Article 138, previously Article 118a, which laid down the minimum requirements for ensuring a better level of protection for workers health and safety. We are not dealing with the construction, the concept or the design or work equipment, but with the risks to the health and safety of workers using the equipment. It does seem to me that there are some people in this House who are a little bit dim in grasping that. The importance of working at heights and having this directive is clear also. Some have questioned the validity of this legislation and they are free to do so. However, contrary to what has been suggested, this proposal does not merely suggest training people to use ladders, nor does it outlaw the use of ladders. What it does is provide for safe use of ladders and other equipment. I wonder whether the critics of this report have ever worked on construction sites as many of us have. I wonder whether they would accept that there are many people who know exactly what this legislation can bring about. Finally, concerning the amendments tabled, which I have only just seen today, I welcome Amendments Nos 22 and 25: Amendment No 22 as a second choice if Amendment No 5 falls and Amendment No 25 as a recital as it hits the tone of my report very well. However, for consistency’s sake and with regard to the framework directive which is the basis of this whole legislative approach, I cannot accept the others at present.

Political group: PSE