Select Committee on European Scrutiny First Report


  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


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2003
Prepared 8 January 2003