Committee on Employment and Social Affairs Ordinary meeting
Legend
Transcript markers
- text Sentence being played
- text Search result
- text Intervention cited by the link you opened
Click a sentence to play the video from that moment. Select text to quote it with the speaker, timestamp and link.
More options
EMPL European Parliament
Follow its sittingsLi Andersson
And I will now give the floor to the rapporteur, Miss Janelle, to report back from the trialogue.
Yes. I will do it in Spanish.
Speaker 2
Thank you very much, Chair. So, I wanted to share with the members of the MPAL committee just a brief overview of the results of the second trial log that we held yesterday on the traineeship directive. Now, the trialogue was held in a constructive atmosphere, in my view, and it allowed us to make progress on clarifying the various positions around the table and identifying possible points of convergence. Although, as is to be expected, there continue to be a number of large differences on several points. But it is important that we have that first stock-taking in order to see where the positions were and to identify those points where we could come to an agreement.
The second trial log focused on three blocks: the implementation and the scope of the directive, the agreements on traineeships, and nondiscrimination. And with respect to the scope of application and the aim, that's the first part. Now, again, we're just explaining our positions, not trying to come to any agreements. But on the Parliament side, we were really insisting on two points that we consider to be key here. One, maintaining the training component as a defining aspect of a traineeship, and also the fact that we don't want traineeships to be diluted by having them equated to upskilling and reskilling, which actually apply to anybody of any age. Now, our exchange of views made it clear that we need to continue the dialogue in order to help understand each other's positions, but also that the Council will need to start introducing some flexibility between its Member States if we want to ensure true progress in negotiations.
The second part relates to the traineeships agreement and nondiscrimination. Here, we based our work on the results of the technical work that has been done in the past few weeks, and I would like to thank the technical teams for the very hard work they have done, which allowed us to start finding points of convergence in the different positions on a number of different points. With respect to the traineeship agreement and the Parliament side, we continue to clearly defend the idea that this is a key, central part of all of this because it is what will give legal certainty to this labor relationship between a company and the trainee, and it will ensure that the whole training component will not just remain on paper. And we'll also facilitate the work of labor inspectors if there are any irregularities. And so here, we'd like to say that we do need to continue with the informal exchanges along the lines of what the Commission presented, and the final point, which is non-discrimination.
Now, the positions are not that far apart as they might seem to be, but there are some points that are absolutely key to us, which we really feel we need to keep. First, when we talk about a worker and make a comparison between those doing the same or similar work in the same working environment, there is also the idea of limiting as much as possible the various justifications for differentiated treatment to ensure that we uphold the principle of nondiscrimination. And then, thirdly, the relationship with respect to the social partners should be clear enough that, under no circumstances, would it ever be interpreted as a way to somehow undermine or weaken a non-discrimination clause to be included in the directive, and it really is meant to improve protection. So, a room document was presented by the Commission, and the Council and the Parliament thought this was a step in the right direction and would form a good basis for our continued work at a technical level. So, from the Parliament side, we reiterate our willingness to continue working constructively to ensure a well-balanced report.
And so, we will continue with this work, maybe not as quickly as we would have liked, but we will be moving in the right direction. Thank you.
Li Andersson
Thank you very much. And the third trial log for this file is scheduled to take place on March 24. So work will continue on a technical level and in the following trial logs. Now we are ready to move on to the votes. We have 5 votes today, so please check that you have your voting cards.
Speaker 5
And the first vote will be on the adoption of the draft reports on the European Semester for economic policy coordination, employment, and social priorities. And I will first read out the full or substitute AMPO members who are replaced by non-AMPO members. Mr. Ratke is replaced by Mrs. Mertens.
Li Andersson
Mister Falca is replaced by Mister Papesku. And Mr. Sevindal is replaced by Mrs. Petal Hansen. Sorry. It's okay. Good.
Alright. We are then ready to start. Compromise amendment one: those in favor, those against, abstentions. Adopted. Compromise amendment C, those in favor? Those against, abstentions, adopted.
Compromise amendment six: those in favor? Those against? Abstentions ? Adopted. Compromise amendment seven: those in favor?
Against? Abstentions ? Adopted. Compromise amendment 13, those in favor? Against, abstentions, adopted.
Compromise Amendment Four is a roll call vote. I open the vote. I close the vote, and it is adopted with 30 in favor, 14 against, and 5 abstentions. Your machine is not working. Yeah.
In that case, I think it's Compromise Amendment 2. Those in favor? Those against, abstentions, adopted. Compromise amendment three is a roll-call vote. I open the vote. I close the vote, and it is adopted with 39 in favor, 4 against, and 7 abstentions.
Compromise Amendment Five is a roll call vote. I opened the vote. I close the vote, and it is adopted with 29 in favor, 19 against, and 1 abstention. Compromise amendment nine: those in favor? Those against and abstentions are adopted.
Amendment 176: Those in favor? Against? Abstentions ? Rejected. Check.
Speaker 6
Do you want to check? Okay. I open the vote. I close the vote. Rejected, but it was maybe good to check because there was only one.
Let's see.
Li Andersson
Compromise Amendment 11. Those in favor, those against, and abstentions are adopted. Amendment 184 is a roll-call vote. I open the vote. I closed the vote.
Adopted with 33 in favor and 16 against. Amendment 216, those in favor? Those against? Abstentions rejected. Compromise amendment eight: those in favor?
Those against abstained; the motion was adopted. Compromise Amendment 14, those in favor? Those against, abstentions, adopted. Compromise amendment 10, those in favor? Those against?
Abstentions ? Adopted. Compromise amendment E, those in favor? Those against, abstentions, adopted. Compromise amendment 12: those in favor?
Those against, abstentions, and adopted. Compromise amendment H, those in favor? Adopted against abstentions. Compromise amendment A1: those in favor, those against, abstentions. Adopted. Compromise amendment A: those in favor, against, abstentions. Adopted.
Compromise amendment B: those in favor, against, abstentions. Adopted. Compromise amendment G: those in favor, against, abstentions. Adopted. Compromise amendment D: those in favor, against, abstentions. Adopted. Compromise amendment F: those in favor, those against, abstentions. Adopted. And the final vote is a roll call vote.
I open the vote. I close the vote, and it is adopted with 38 in favor, 11 against, and 3 abstentions. Next vote will be on the opinion on the interim report on the proposal for the multi-annual financial framework for 2834. Alright. Compromise Amendment 2.
Those in favor? Those against? Abstentions are adopted. Amendment 13. Those in favor?
Those in favor? Against? Abstentions ? Maybe we should check this one. I open the vote for Amendment 13.
I close the vote. 24 in favor, 26 against, and one abstention. So, rejected. Amendment 83: those in favor, those against, abstentions. Rejected. Amendment 105: those in favor, those against, abstentions. Rejected.
A compromise amendment three is a roll-call vote. I opened the vote. I closed the vote. Adopted: 42 in favor, 3 against, and 7 abstentions. 42, 3.
42. Okay. Okay. Yeah. Compromise amendment four: those in favor?
Those against? Abstentions adopted. Compromise Amendment Five is a roll call vote. I open the vote. I close the vote.
Adopted with 34 in favor, 13 against, and 5 abstentions. Compromise amendment six: those in favor? Those against and abstentions are adopted. Amendment 124, those in favor? Those against and abstentions are rejected.
Amendment 125, those in favor? Those against, abstentions, and rejected. Do you want to check? Yes. Okay.
We check 125. I open the vote. I close the vote. Oh, it was adopted. 25 in favor, 21 against, and 6 abstentions.
And amendment 23, those in favor? Those against? Abstentions ? Rejected. Okay.
Keep your hands up properly, also because then it's easier to see. So, at 23, I open the vote. I close the vote. That's it. 24 in favor, 15 against, and 13 abstentions.
Alright. Compromise amendment seven. Those in favor? Those against? Abstentions are adopted.
Amendment 140. Those in favor? Those who are against? Abstentions are rejected. Amendment 141.
Those in favor? Against, abstentions, rejected. Compromise amendment eight: those in favor? Those against abstained; the motion was adopted. Amendment 145, those in favor?
Against and abstentions rejected. 143, those in favor? 153, those in favor? Those against? Abstentions ?
Let's check this one. 153, I open the vote. I closed the vote. Adopted: 20 in favor, 17 against, and 15 abstentions. Compromise amendment nine: those in favor?
Those against abstentions were adopted. Compromise amendment 10, those in favor? Against and abstentions adopted. Compromise amendment 11, those in favor? Against?
Abstentions ? Adopted. Compromise Amendment 12 is a roll-call vote. I open the vote. I close the vote.
26 in favor, 19 against, and 7 abstentions, so it is adopted. Amendment 186, those in favor: 186. Those in favor? Those against? Abstentions ?
Rejected. 188. Those in favor? Those against? Abstentions?
I'll check this one. 188, I open the vote. I close the vote. Adopted with 26 in favor, 25 against, and 1 abstention. 192, those in favor, those against, abstentions. Going to check 192 as well.
I open the vote. I close the vote. Adopted with 25 in favor, 21 against, and 6 abstentions. 194, those in favor. Those against and abstentions are rejected.
Compromise amendment A, those in favor? Those against and abstentions are adopted. Compromise amendment one: those in favor, those against, abstentions. Adopted. Compromise amendment B: those in favor, those against, abstentions. Adopted. And the final vote is a roll-call vote.
Speaker 5
I open the vote. I close the vote, and it is adopted with 40 in favor, 5 against, and 7 abstentions. So then we move on to the EGF votes, and it's three times a single roll call vote. And first, we vote on the draft opinion on the mobilization of the European Globalization Adjustment Fund for displaced workers following an application from Belgium, in the case of Tuk Perwarre. And now, I open the vote.
Li Andersson
Close the vote. Adopted with 50 in favor and one abstention. And then we move on to the next EGF vote, following an application from Belgium, the case of CASA. I open the vote. I close the vote.
Adopted with 51 in favor and one abstention. And our last vote for today is the EGF vote, following an application from Belgium in the case of KTM. I open the vote. Oh, I see. It's actually Austria, but it says Belgium on my paper.
So, I think it's a sign of how active the Belgians are in applying for these funds. But this is an Austrian case: KTM. So, I open the vote. I close the vote. 51 in favor, one abstention, adopted.
Speaker 8
Thank you very much. Alright. We are continuing. So, can I please ask you to take your seats? Alright.
Speaker 5
Please, colleagues, we are about to start. So, if you are not staying for the next debate, please, can I ask you to take your seats or leave the room? Soon, I will. All right. We now come to the first debate on the agenda today, which is the consideration of amendments tabled for the sixth revision of the Carcinogen, Mutagen, and Reprotoxic Substances Directive, also known as CMRD 6.
Li Andersson
A very important file for the health and safety of workers in the European Union, including in sectors that are of strategic importance for the EU. I will start by giving the floor to our rapporteur, Miss Liz Petzamin, for 5 minutes. Please, the floor is yours.
Speaker 9
Thank you, Chair, and good morning, everyone, dear colleagues. Let me start by thanking all of you for the tabled amendments. I'm particularly pleased to note that the vast majority of them are in line with my reports. I will not repeat all of the elements of my draft report that I already presented in January, but I would like to highlight the main priorities. So, what we have in the reports are ambitious exposure limits for cobalt and its inorganic compounds, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and 1,4-dioxane, whereas previously there was a national limit.
Speaker 9
And there are, of course, also the additional dioxane occupational exposure limits for isoprene, in line, I'm sorry, with the recommendations of the European Chemicals Agency and of the Tripartite Advisory Committee on Safety and Health at Work. The addition of welding fumes to the list of substances, mixtures, and processes is also included, and this means that welding fumes, when they contain CMR substances such as chromium or nickel, are covered by the directive. And there is the introduction of a clear right for workers to take proportionate and regular breaks when using protective equipment, because we all know it's not always fun to have to use that, reflecting both safety and well-being considerations. We also took into account the integration of a gender dimension in the future revisions of this directive, since gender differences in exposure patterns, physiological responses, and health outcomes remain insufficiently integrated into occupational safety research. We have financial and administrative support for microenterprises and SMEs, and we have clear guidelines and recommendations to improve data collection and exposure registries because data are key for future revisions.
The limit values established in this directive should be kept under regular scrutiny and strictly reviewed at least every 5 years, based on advances in knowledge, technologies, and social, economic, and geopolitical developments. Firefighters and other emergency personnel are particularly exposed to complex mixtures of carcinogenic, mutagenic, and reprotoxic substances. And WHO now classifies firefighters' occupational exposure as carcinogenic. Therefore, we need specific risk assessments, adequate protective measures, and targeted medical surveillance for these high-risk workers. And what we also looked at is the need for sufficient and appropriate training for all workers involved.
So, to conclude, we started the negotiations two weeks ago. A lot of progress has already been made on the technical level, and we are planning to have our first shadow meeting next week, on March 5. Thank you very much.
Li Andersson
Thank you very much. I will now give the floor to the shadow reporters. I have Nora Memberek from the SMD. No. Okay.
Mrs. Keleman is speaking on her behalf. Please, two minutes each. Thank you.
Speaker 10
You, Madam Chair. And we'd like, first of all, to thank Miss Summon for covering this file. Discussions have begun at the technical level. Ms. Mubarak can't be present this morning.
Speaker 11
Apologies for that, but she has put forward 20 amendments as well. Technical discussions are progressing well. We are moving towards a number of compromises, particularly on those points that are not controversial, taking into account the recommendations of the advisory committee in future reviews of the directive, and certainly with regard to a gender equality approach, but also the inclusion in the directive of a definition of dangerous products, which is a matter of importance for us. Two points which are more controversial today are isoprene and cobalt. Isoprene, of course, is something that is still very surprising to see, but the advisory committee and the social partners have adopted a position.
Speaker 10
The council has a position, and we have a position that respects that of the social partners. While here, we see the European Commission take an isolated stance, which is very difficult for us to understand. We'd like to see favorable developments there. With regard to cobalt, it's a different question because there is a clear position of the social partners in the advisory committee and a clear position of parliament. And the majority of members, certainly speaking personally and for the SND, wish to adopt a cautious approach.
And here, someone has a different position. And we hope here that we can see positive developments, which are more than necessary for the protection of the workers concerned. Thank you.
Li Andersson
Thank you very much. And from the Patriots, I have no speaker here. And from ECR, Missus Pipaldini, please.
Thank you.
Speaker 13
You, madam, and good morning, everyone. We think that it is essential to adopt all of the proposals. This is the 6th revision of this legislation. We need to strengthen our legislative framework for health and safety at work. We need to have a clear legislative framework that doesn't have any gray areas.
So as to reinforce our industrial fabric, much of which is made up of smaller micro-enterprises, our group and our amendments have incorporated these considerations. We think we need to take a pragmatic approach if we are to ensure a high level of protection for workers. Therefore, at the same time, we feel that we need to make sure that it is possible to implement and enforce the rules within companies. So, we wish the rapporteur all the best, together with the staff involved in putting together this proposal. We feel that, when it comes to the safety of workers, we need to make sure that companies are held accountable.
Thank you.
Speaker 15
You, Madam Chair, Madam Reporter, colleagues. I'm taking the floor today in place of my colleague, who cannot be with us. The negotiations are underway. The spirit of compromise is good, and we look forward to speedy progress. Looking at the compromises, I think we can welcome a convergence of views on most of the report, particularly the inclusion of a value limit on isoprene.
Three particularly important points. One, protection of firefighters, including limit values on PAH, which is a very good thing to protect them, but we must allow ourselves to go further. There is a European recommendation for greater recognition of occupational diseases. We need to recognize that in order to better compensate affected workers. Secondly, we need a swifter process for the establishment of limit values.
That's why the capacities of the European Agency for Chemical Products need to be strengthened, which is absolutely essential when we also need to consider scientific research in this context. Cobalt will be the most difficult area. We have consensus among social partners for a transitional period, with limit values to be reviewed after 13 years. Now there's nothing stopping the social partners from agreeing. The Commission has picked this up, considering an impact study.
Speaker 19
It has made a different choice for isoprene, so we recognize that there is a consensus in our general approach in Parliament. We are in favor of reflecting the initial tripartite agreement. Thank you very much.
Speaker 18
Thank you very much, Chair. First of all, I would like to thank Robert Turs, the Robert Turs team, and all the other teams and groups too. I've understood that their negotiations have been in a very good spirit, with the genuine shared objective of trying to create a strong and precise mandate for the parliament for the forthcoming dialogues. The most difficult issue that we are still to discuss relates, of course, to cobalt, as was also mentioned by the colleagues. In the last few months, many of us have faced rather strong lobbying from some of the actors in the cobalt industry, challenging the proposed transitional period and limit values.
And I strongly believe that we should defend the scientific basis. This revision, and the ones before it, are based on. The suggested limit values for cobalt are based on the evaluation by the EU Chemical Agency and followed up by the tripartite agreement achieved in the advisory committee. The industry is also represented in the advisory committee, so I find it a bit baffling that the commonly agreed new recommendations would be a challenge to industrial actors. Nevertheless, I trust we will find a solution with the groups to this issue as well, and I'm looking forward to the meeting of all the shadows next week.
Thank you very much.
Speaker 17
Yes. And I will speak in Danish. The objective.
Here is to introduce limit values for dangerous substances to reduce the risk of illness and death. It should be a case of removing the risk of this entirely in the workplace. We haven't gotten that far yet. In that light, it's important to focus on establishing limit values. It's more important than other geostrategic or geopolitical objectives that might be in play here when it comes to ensuring healthy workers.
Speaker 20
This is a vision that has dominated the work so far, so we welcome the good spirit of work. That has very much been the focus: protecting workers and ensuring a good workplace. It's good that there has been a general consensus that we need to introduce more limit values with greater speed because it's an important issue, and we must continue along these lines. So it's no secret that I believe we need to focus on the work and the danger that workers are put in from motor emissions. So, there's a fundamental agreement on the direction we are going.
Speaker 17
And so, I find it difficult to understand why we would not be in agreement on respecting the position of the social partners and experts. We can't accept workers' lives being jeopardized when we have clear evidence of what needs to be done. It would undermine our credibility if we fail to continue in this direction. The conversations that are underway in Denmark, for example, on introducing limits, are clearly pushing us in this direction, and we will very much look forward to a good outcome of the work.
Speaker 21
If there are other members who wish to take the floor, we have time for a catch the eye. I'm starting with Mr. Danielsen, who has already asked for the floor. Thank you, Cher. Also, thanks to the rapporteur and all the shadows for the work done. I will speak in Swedish.
Speaker 23
Every year, around 100 people die of cancer as a result of being exposed in the workplace. This is a cancer that is preventable. This is built on how we organize work. And these are also workers, not white-collar workers, who are mostly exposed. So the unions, with support from this European Parliament, have asked for limit values for 50 different substances for a number of years.
Speaker 24
In this proposal, we add four different substances. This is good, but it's not enough. The Commission has chosen not to include isoprene. This is inexplicable. We need to protect our workers from exposure.
Speaker 22
We need to work preventively for firemen and other people who cannot avoid being exposed. We also need to guarantee that we find replacement substances. Thank you very much.
Li Andersson
Thank you very much. I have no other requests for the floor at this point. So I will give the floor next to Gordana Matalyan from DG Impulse Occupational Health and Safety Unit for the next three minutes. Please, the floor is yours. Thank you very much.
Speaker 25
Indeed, occupational safety and health is crucial for the commission, especially with regard to its quality job agenda, because keeping workers safe enables not only saving their lives and their well-being, but also achieving competitiveness at EU level. As you are aware, the commission follows a very well-established procedure before any of its proposals in the area of OSH, which is asking the scientific opinion of the ECAS RAC, but also having an external study that serves as the basis for a thorough impact assessment, which is then also discussed with various stakeholders, and in particular, the advisory committee on safety and health, which gives advice to the commission. And following this thorough impact assessment and the consultation of the relevant stakeholders, the commission has proposed the sixth amendment of the CMRD, or the Kartikensen mutagenesis reprotoxic substance directive. And with regard to all that was said, the commission has not proposed, it's true, a limit value for isoprene because the impact assessment that was the basis for the proposal did not demonstrate that there was added value in proposing such a limit value. As regards cobalt, indeed, as it was said, we followed scientific advice and have proposed it according to the opinion of the advisory committee that also follows this advice.
And, in order to enable businesses to adapt and preserve their competitiveness, it has proposed a transitional value. As regards hazardous medicinal products, the commission has not added a specific definition as the definitions in the directive itself already contain the specification that any product that contains a carcinogen, mutagen, or reprotoxic substance falls under the scope of the directive. And, as regards reviewing constantly the limit values, this is something the commission already does, based on scientific expertise, but also on the basis of national implementation reports that are submitted by each member state every five years. So, based on their feedback, scientific opinions, and consultations with various stakeholders, the commission proposes when the state of science and socioeconomic aspects are required. So, the Commission is ready to fully support the negotiation process and to achieve speedy progress on this file.
Thank you very much.
Li Andersson
Thank you very much. And then it's time for the rapporteur to conclude the debate. So, please, Missus Salman, you have the floor.
Speaker 9
Yes. Thank you for your valuable contributions, all of you. I note once again with satisfaction that there is broad consensus on most elements of this file, and I'm looking forward to continuing our constructive negotiations. It is very important to me that we deliver on a strong and balanced Parliament's mandate that benefits all workers across the EU, while also safeguarding Europe's strategic autonomy in a rapidly changing world. Thank you.
Li Andersson
Thank you very much, and I wish everyone the best of luck for the compromise negotiations. The vote is scheduled for April. Then, we move on to the motion for resolution on the need to reduce work-related fatalities and the consideration of the draft motion. The sponsor of this motion is Ciara Gemma. In 2023, 3,298 fatal accidents and 2.82 million nonfatal accidents happened at work in the EU.
The AMPL committee decided to draft a motion for resolution in order to stress its support for the introduction of the Vision Zero approach to occupational accidents and diseases, calling for an ambitious roadmap to reduce accidents and fatalities at work, as well as to enhance prevention measures and the enforcement of existing occupational health and safety rules and legislation. At the same time, the committee also deems it necessary to introduce a European Day of Remembrance to commemorate the victims of accidents at work and occupational diseases. We also sent a letter to EVP Minzato last summer, calling on the Commission to introduce a European Remembrance Day to reinforce the importance of workers' protection and to provide a safe working environment for all. For the consideration of the draft motion, I will first give the floor to the sponsor, Miss Gemma, for the next five minutes. Please, the floor is yours.
Chiara Gemma
Thank you, madam. Honorable members. Now, the proposal for resolution we are putting to the committee today addresses a subject that deals with the social heart of Europe: the need to reduce accidents, illnesses, and deaths related to work, including raising awareness through a European Remembrance Day for the victims of work-related accidents and in honor of the dignity of workers. Now, this fits in with the focus on labor that we are currently engaged in, in this house. Now we have the framework directive 89,391.
We have the strategic framework 2021 to 2027, and we have the resolution from 03/10/2022, which has expressed our commitment to Vision Zero. Now, recent figures show that although progress has been made, we do find ourselves in a serious situation. In 2023, there were 3,298 work-related fatalities and around 2.8 million accidents that were not fatal but involved at least four days of absence from work. And then, there is a whole range of fatalities linked to occupational diseases. Now, preventing accidents and occupational diseases is a fundamental element of European social policy and is essential if we are to have the freedom of movement of workers.
Freedom of movement of workers will only work if there are high standards that are enforced in terms of health and safety. There are a number of sectors that have very high levels of accidents and work-related fatalities, like construction, seasonal agriculture, and transport. Therefore, we need to take clear responsibility within the labor market within the EU. So these figures all affect individuals, families, and communities. They particularly hit high-risk sectors like construction, transport, manufacturing, and agriculture.
But we would also like to emphasize the current changes within the workplace. We're seeing greater digitalization, automation, and greater coordination of activities. And then there have been changes in transport as well, which have actually introduced a whole series of less visible risks but that nonetheless have a significant impact. We're seeing greater pressure from companies. We're seeing a greater cognitive load, and we're finding it harder to identify where the responsibility lies in very complex production chains.
Therefore, we need to encourage a culture of prevention. We need to have a labor market that recognizes it is in constant flux. We would therefore like to propose the creation of a European Remembrance Day, not only to commemorate the victims. It will honor the victims, recognizing the human and moral implications of these tragedies, but it will also emphasize our European culture of prevention, maintaining public and political attention on the importance of safety, applying rules, and maintaining social standards. We've chosen August 8 as the date.
This is not a national day. This is a day that has a shared significance back in 1956. On August 8, 262 miners from different European countries lost their lives at Bois du Casier in Marcinelle. Marcinelle wasn't just an industrial tragedy. It was a shock for Europe, which was only just emerging at that time. It was a watershed moment in terms of collective awareness of the importance of raising safety standards and ensuring cooperation between different member states.
Marcianel happened at a key moment shortly after the Treaty of Rome was signed. Europe was still working on reconstruction, and the range of nationalities of the victims showed that labor had already become a supranational issue. So Marcianel is not an event that is commemorated by an individual member state, but it is part of our social story as Europe. It is a symbol of mobility that can't be separated from the responsibility that we all share of guaranteeing a safe workplace and dignity in working conditions. So choosing August 8 as the European Remembrance Day would recognize both our commitment to the transnational labor market and our value of ensuring a safe working place.
There are other significant events like Courier on March 10, but what we wanted to do was choose a date that has European value and emphasizes our shared responsibility. So introducing a European Remembrance Day isn't just an empty gesture, but it would be an expression of our commitment both to remembering the victims and to working towards our target of Vision Zero for work-related fatalities. We would not be introducing new obligations. All it would be doing is affirming our commitment to the Vision Zero approach to Agenda 2030 and maintaining the existing framework. Basically, our commitment is to ensuring a safe workplace for all workers.
Honorable members, European Remembrance Day will not restore the lives that have been lost, but it will remind us every time, every year, of the dignity of work and European identity. And I hope that, together with the shadow reporters, we'll be able to achieve a broad consensus.
Li Andersson
Thank you very much. And now I will give the floor to the co-sponsors, starting with Mr. Bouya from the EPP.
Speaker 27
Madam Chair, ladies and gentlemen, first of all, I would like to thank Madam Gemma for the proposal. It is a very balanced and necessary document. It reminds us that health and safety at work are fundamental to the European social model. Every year in Europe, thousands of people die due to incidents at work, and even more die because of illnesses that they encounter at work. We have strategic documents for 2021 and 2027, but we are faced today with new challenges.
The labor environment is constantly changing: digitalization, platforms, different forms of employment, aging—all of that leads to new risks and challenges. Different challenges include time pressure, mental illnesses, lack of predictability at work, and algorithms at work. All of that might need to intensify forms of work and control. This is why health and safety at work need to be comprehensive, and they need to include not only traditional threats but also those that are not seen at first sight. And in this light, I fully support the inclusion of the day of commemoration on October 8 in Bois de Casie de Marsenel.
This strategy is a European symbol of solidarity and joint responsibility for dignity at work. I would also like to underline that this day should, above all, be educational and preventive in nature. Remembering those who lost their lives is something we need to do, but what is also important is that we ensure people work and maintain standards at work—not only employees, but also the entire society—how to implement legislation, and we must not forget about social dialogue. If we talk about Vision Zero, it cannot only remain on paper. This needs to be translated into actions, training courses, support for small and medium enterprises, inspections at work, and including new threats, also psychosocial ones.
Speaker 29
I'm very happy that we will work jointly on the resolution, and I will do everything in my power to support it. We should jointly work for a Europe where no one loses their health or life because of work. Thank you very much.
Speaker 28
Thank you very much. Our next speaker is Mrs. Wind from the SND. Thank you.
Speaker 30
You. Every death in the workplace is one too many. So, we're very happy to see this resolution. Thank you to the report for the work and the proposal for a day to remember those who have lost their lives at work. But we can raise our sights a little higher.
Speaker 33
We can't just focus on remembering those whose lives were lost. We must do everything to avoid such accidents happening in the future. And that means we need to address structural issues. First and foremost, prevention. Employers have the ultimate responsibility for workers' safety, and that's why we need prevention.
Speaker 30
Most fatal accidents take place in high-risk sectors: construction, transport, agriculture, but it is something that we also see in the area of health and safety. Migrant workers have a higher risk of death in the workplace; many of them work in precarious jobs that are subject to dangerous conditions. There are far too many accidents. Not all of them have been reported. So, we have been fighting tooth and nail for an orderly approach to decent working conditions for all. Last time in Strasbourg, we voted on a proposal to regulate subcontracting.
But the tools that we need to ensure safe workplaces and keep them safe in the future were rejected by the right wing. And it's not just the physical workplace; the psychological workplace also represents threats. You can have mobbing and bullying in the workplace, and violence can have terrible consequences in terms of stress and, in worst scenarios, suicide or suicide attempts. And without oversight, we don't have a framework in which everything can be considered and improved. We need better management, especially for cross-border situations.
We need a set of sanctions that can be applied when the rules are broken. So the workplace strategy 2127 hasn't had enough emphasis on Vision Zero, and we need to recognize our responsibility to ensure that no one loses their life when they go to work. Now, this report gives us an opportunity to do something about that, and I look forward to working on it. Thank you.
Speaker 34
This subject affects us particularly because I had a car accident around 35 years ago, which is why I'm now in a wheelchair, and I was traveling home from work. So, that was more or less a work-related accident. So, it's rare that we think of this kind of scenario. We forget to think about what would happen or might happen as we travel to and from work. By law, this counts as a work-related accident, so I'm very grateful that you have produced this document.
Speaker 35
I think that the European Remembrance Day is an important gesture. But one day is not enough because protection for life is not something that should be merely symbolic. It's a practical obligation. We need to engage in prevention. That's the most important thing.
Speaker 34
Employers and employees need to be fully aware of the implications of automation and new technologies. We do need to have an effective monitoring system. We need to have more employee-friendly workplaces, but we also need to make sure that workplaces are protected. So, we need to be careful not to over-regulate. We shouldn't create excessive burdens for employers.
Speaker 36
It is in our shared interest to ensure competitiveness. So, we have a shared goal, which is that everyone should be able to go to work and come back from work still healthy.
Li Andersson
Thank you very much. Next speaker is Miss Dubois from Renew, who will speak on behalf of Mr. Alione. Thank you.
Speaker 15
You, madam. I would like to speak once again on behalf of Gregory Alioni, but also on my own because I support this. First of all, we would like to thank Miss Gemma for the quality of her work. We fully support the proposal here, which works towards recognizing a Europe that protects and encourages workers. Workplaces are places where people can thrive and learn, but they shouldn't be associated with accidents or fatalities. That is why, together with Mr. Alioni, we want to see strong protection.
We want to have a strong culture of protection across all companies. Voluntary fire workers are a key factor here. They work to avoid risks, especially the risk of fires. They engage in evacuations when there is a fire, and they make sure that workplaces are safe. Therefore, we would encourage member states to create a framework that encourages their activities in terms of rescue services and protection at work.
On the question of first aid, particularly in high-risk sectors, I can tell you that every minute counts. The chance of survival reduces by 10 percent every minute. So, really, time counts. We need to provide greater protection for younger workers, particularly because of their lack of experience. So, safety needs to start with initial training and should continue throughout someone's professional life.
Speaker 19
So, we should adapt work policies. We've seen a real risk factor in the form of increased temperatures at work, so we need to see adaptations within the workplace. It's no longer an option. It's a necessity. So, we need to prevent, train, and take action in advance to avoid further problems.
Speaker 28
Thank you very much. And the next speaker is Miss Ojisala from The Greens.
Speaker 18
Thank you very much, Chair, dear Rapporteur, and dear colleagues. Unfortunately, I cannot start with anything else than stating the probably obvious: right now, the draft resolution from the rapporteur does not match the title of the resolution whatsoever. It is clear that there is one goal for the resolution, and that is to establish a remembrance day for the victims of the tragedy at the Bordeaux Casier mine in Marcinelle. And I do not wish to diminish or in any way play down the tragedies that have taken place at workplaces over the years. They are a sad and lingering story to all the people affected: victims, their families, and everyone else involved.
However, maybe my and my team's first reaction to the draft resolution was that of disappointment and a feeling of a missed opportunity for us to bring attention to a genuine need to reduce work-related fatalities all across the union and a need to protect our workers from risks that can be avoided. And I believe that this resolution should be used to express a genuine call for action in response to the health and safety concerns workers are facing today. After all, while we should not forget the thousands of workers who have paid the ultimate price with their lives due to dangerous working conditions, it is our duty to find ways to protect people today and tomorrow. Therefore, the Greens' amendments to this resolution will touch upon at least some issues, such as extreme temperatures and climate risks at work, third-party violence, exposure to chemicals, psychosocial risks, and, of course, as colleagues mentioned, sufficient training for both employers and employees and raising awareness. So I'm looking forward to the negotiations.
Thank you.
Thank you. And the next speaker is Mr. Arvanites from the left.
Speaker 37
Thank you. When someone loses their life at work, it is true that there is a question of responsibility. There is the problem of indifference. Sometimes, these matters are even hidden away. So, there are a lot of member states that try to keep these issues out of sight.
Speaker 38
Over 2.5 million people were injured in 2024. There's a real issue in Greece. Almost every day, we have an accident, whether fatal or not. Now, in 2025, we had many deaths. 14 women died in January 2026.
Speaker 37
There were no checks. The cases have been brushed under the carpet. So, it's obvious that we urgently need to have this resolution. We do have some objections. The resolution, as it stands, focuses solely on the creation of a European Remembrance Day.
Well, obviously, we do need to remember, but I don't think that's enough. The Vision Zero approach can't be something that is merely a ritual or some kind of gesture. And in many member states at the moment, there is underreporting of accidents and fatalities. Domestic work is excluded from the directive. There are all sorts of uses of algorithms, and we need to increase our monitoring of what is actually going on.
We need to expand the scope of the directive to ensure that all work contracts are included. And that includes people who work through platforms and people who work from home. We need legislative proposals on musculoskeletal issues, psychosocial issues, and we also need something to cover weather conditions within the EU. We had the tragedy of a creative France. We had the lignite mines in 1978 in Greece.
So, we do need a day that recognizes a supranational event so we can honor the victims of work-related incidents. We need to go beyond memory. We need to move to action.
Li Andersson
Thank you. And now we have time to catch the eye. So, if there are other members who wish to take the floor, please raise your cards. I will start with Mister Danielsen from the S and...
Speaker 23
You. During the last term, we instituted a zero vision for accidents at work, and now it's time to make this a reality. This should not be just words on a piece of paper. Every year, more than 3,000 people die in our European places of work. Moms and dads say goodbye to their families in the morning, and then they don't come home again in the evening.
It's excellent to have a European Day of Remembrance to remember all these people, and I support this in my political group, but it's not enough. We need concrete demands when it comes to actual action to ensure that we prevent new accidents and fatalities. We need to make sure that all EU states follow the ILO recommendation for one inspection per 10,000 people. We make sure that we have really tough rules when it comes to the sizes of companies, so that it's not possible for great or big companies to continue not following regulations. We also have many chains and levels of companies who, in that way, can actually exploit workers.
Speaker 40
Thank you. Honorable members, in Greece, there are victims. In 2025, we had a record number of work-related deaths and 322 serious accidents, in line with the inquiry by the Confederation of Technical Companies in Greece. We have noted that, however, these official figures are much lower because employees tend to underdeclare. Lots of accidents and diseases are not reported. Accidents related to work are not mentioned.
Other forms of employment, such as marine and maritime work, are not mentioned. Freelancers are not mentioned, although they represent 20% of the workforce, nor are military activities included in the statistics. So, accidents at work are counted in Greece, but not in the same way as in other member states. There is no clear definition of what an accident at work constitutes, and certainly not what a work-related fatality is. So, many employers don't even count these fatalities.
We do need a European Remembrance Day, but we also urgently need a definition of work-related fatalities that applies across the EU. We need to recognize dangers and hazards at work, and we need to make sure that the legislation in place is applied across the EU.
Li Andersson
Thank you very much. I have no further requests for the floor. So I will now ask the Commission representative, Miss Sveitalian, to take the floor for the next three minutes.
Speaker 25
Thank you very much. So the commission appreciates the consideration and commitment to promote improvements in the safety and health of workers across the EU and recognizes the importance of commemorating those who have tragically lost their lives or have been injured in accidents at work. In this sense, it's important to join strengths and build upon existing initiatives such as the United Nations World Day for Safety and Health at Work, observed annually on April 28. It serves as a global awareness day to promote the prevention of occupational accidents and diseases. These dates coincide with the international commemoration day for dead and injured workers, organized worldwide by the trade union movement since 1996.
The commission, in collaboration with its agency EU OSHA, continues to lead campaigns regarding prevention and issuing guidance for improving OSH. In this regard, it has led several campaigns such as the 2020 to 2022 Healthy Workplace Campaign, which focused on musculoskeletal disorders, and from 2023 to 2025, the campaign on the impact of new digital technologies. EU OSHA also organizes the annual European Week for Safety and Health at Work each October, which brings together workers, employers, public administration, social partners, and various experts who share their experience to improve prevention. Given all of these initiatives, the commission believes it would be more effective to strengthen the existing observance of April 28. We are, however, open to exploring ways to enhance the recognition of April 28 at the EU level as a way of further raising awareness and promoting a culture of prevention, which will contribute to the advancement of health and safety standards and to the protection of all workers in the European Union.
We are grateful for your dedication and continued collaboration in fostering a safer and healthier work environment for every European worker. Thank you very much.
Li Andersson
Thank you very much. And now, Missus Cemma, a sponsor of the motion for a resolution, you also have the possibility to take the floor to round up the debate. Please, the floor is yours.
Chiara Gemma
Thank you, madam. I'd like to thank everyone who has spoken, and I'd also like to thank the commission for all of their constructive comments. I have taken note that there does seem to be general consensus, although there were some details that were raised in the individual comments. I've listened to the feedback about the necessity of taking responsibility. Also, listen to the criticism that has been expressed, notably from the Greens and the left, because I do think that we need to consider this as an initial discussion.
But having listened to all of the contributions, I can see that we will have a much better-structured, more detailed text that really rises to the challenge of what we're trying to achieve with this Remembrance Day. So, thank you very much for all of your input. And I will see you all on March 3 for further conversation.
Li Andersson
Thank you very much. And I think this debate has also shown the importance of this subject, so I wish you all the best of luck with the work. And with regards to the next steps, I just want to inform you that the dossier is available in 84 AM for the tabling of amendments, with the deadline of Tuesday, March 3 at 12, and the votes in the committees are foreseen for a meeting in May. And that means we are at the end of this committee meeting. We will meet again on the 16th here in Brussels, and coordinators will be meeting at eleven.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.