23. PROTECTION OF WORKERS:
RISKS ARISING FROM NOISE
| (23455)
—
COM(02) 229
| Proposed amendments to the Council's Common Position on a draft Directive on the minimum health and safety requirements regarding the exposure of workers to risks arising from physical agents.
|
| Legal base: | Article 137 EC; co-decision; qualified majority voting
|
| |
| Department: | Work and Pensions
|
| Basis of consideration: | Minister's letter of 15 November 2002
|
| Previous consideration: | HC 152-xxxv (2001-02), paragraph 18 (3 July 2002)
|
| Committee's assessment: | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision: | Cleared (decision reported on 3 July 2002)
|
Background
23.1
A 1989 Council Directive provides a framework for the introduction
of measures to improve the safety and health of workers at work
by laying down the general principles to be followed, and, in
February 1993, the Commission put forward a proposal[65]
for a further, more specific Directive, which would have set out
harmonised requirements for protection against noise, vibration,
optical radiation and non-ionising electro-magnetic radiation.
An amended draft was subsequently produced, restricting the proposal
to protection against vibration, whilst leaving scope for other
physical agents to be brought within the same framework by similar
Directives.
23.2
This was accordingly followed in January 2001 by a draft text[66]
from the then Swedish Presidency dealing with noise. The intention
was that this should replace the existing Council Directive, which
requires workers where average daily exposure exceeds a lower
limit of 85 dB to receive adequate information and training and
to have ear protectors available; where exposure exceeds an upper
limit of 90 dB, ear protectors must be worn and the areas in question
must be both clearly signed and subject to restricted access.
23.3
The main effect of this text would have been to reduce the level
of exposure at which these measures would have to be taken. However,
although the UK regards the link between hearing damage and noise
exposure over a period of time as well established, it considered
that the existing Directive should lead to significant reductions
in noise-induced hearing damage. Consequently, it took the view
that priority should be given to encouraging better compliance,
and that the Presidency proposal was not proportionate.
23.4
In their Report of 4 April 2001, our predecessors noted the Government's
view, and the apparently large difference between the possible
costs of the measure and its potential benefits. In view of this,
they left the document uncleared.
23.5
We first considered the proposal on the basis of a letter of 3
July 2001from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the
former Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions
(Mr Alan Whitehead), and, in the light of the information provided,
we cleared the proposal on 18 July 2001.
23.6
The current document sets out the Commission's response to the
amendments to the Council's Common Position proposed by the European
Parliament at its second reading on 13 March 2002, and was the
subject of an Explanatory Memorandum of 22 May 2002 from the Minister.
This said that many of the Parliament's amendments which the
Commission was prepared to accept were minor, and could be supported
by the UK. However, the Government did not support the Commission's
acceptance of two of the amendments. The first would leave the
upper exposure action level expressed as an average unchanged,
but would reduce the corresponding peak exposure level
from 200 pascals to 112 pascals, whilst the second would provide
workers with the right to an audiometric examination at the lower
action value. The UK considered that there is virtually no health
risk at 200 pascals, so that the proposed reduction in the peak
exposure action level (which, in decibel terms, is considerably
less dramatic than it appears) would produce no benefit. Similarly,
as it believed there was virtually no risk to hearing at the lower
action value, it considered there was no need for potentially
very costly audiometric examinations.
23.7
In his Explanatory Memorandum, the Minister indicated that the
period for the Council's second reading of the proposal, including
the European Parliament's amendments, could extend until 12 July.
If there were then still differences between the Council and
Parliament, the matter would be referred to conciliation. In
our Report of 3 July 2002, we noted the situation, and in particular
the UK's reservations about the changes proposed by the European
Parliament on the peak upper action limit and on the right to
an audiometric test at the lower action value. We commented that,
whilst we did not think these would justify our maintaining a
scrutiny reserve, we thought it right to draw these differences
to the attention of the House. We also asked to be kept informed
of any subsequent developments
Minister's letter of 15 November 2002
23.8
We have now received a letter of 15 November 2002 from the Minister
of State for Work and Pensions (Mr Nicholas Brown), saying that
a Conciliation Committee has recently approved a joint text, which
is expected to be adopted formally by the Council and European
Parliament. Among the changes he identifies are an upper exposure
peak action value of 140 pascals (as compared with 200 pascals
at present, and the 112 pascals proposed by the Parliament), and
a provision that, instead of an automatic right to audiometric
testing at the lower exposure action level, such testing should
be available where a risk to health has been identified. The
final version of the proposal would also contain a two-year transitional
period for the music and entertainment industry. The Minister
adds that this outcome represents a satisfactory position from
which the UK can begin implementation.
Conclusion
23.9
We are grateful to the Minister for this further information,
which we are drawing to the attention of the House.
65
(14430) 5059/93; see HC 79-xxv (1992-93), paragraph 5 (21 April
1993). Back
66
(22228) -; see HC 28-xi (2000-01), paragraph 7 (4 April 2001)
and HC 152-i (2001-02), paragraph 40 (18 July 2002). Back
|
