15 Protection of workers from risks arising
from physical agents (electromagnetic fields and waves)
| (24551)
—
—
| Draft Directive on the minimum health and safety requirements regarding the exposure of workers to the risks arising from physical agents (electromagnetic fields and waves).
|
| Department | Work and Pensions
|
| Basis of consideration | Minister's letter of 26 August 2003
|
| Previous Committee Report | HC 63-xxviii (2002-03), paragraph 4 (2 July 2003)
|
| To be discussed in Council | 20-21 October 2003
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Cleared
|
Background
15.1 Council Directive 89/931/EEC[24]
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. In February 1993, the Commission put
forward a proposal[25]
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.
A key requirement was that worker exposure should be assessed;
and, where it is found to exceed certain specified limits, employers
would have to introduce programmes to reduce risk by technological
or organisational means. They would also have to restrict access
to areas presenting risks; provide personal protective equipment,
information and training for workers, health surveillance, and
a choice of work equipment and design of work places. A subsequent
version of the proposal was produced in July 1994[26]
following the Opinion of the European Parliament, but was not
adopted.
15.2 The Council has, however, since considered individual
measures dealing with protection against vibration[27]
and noise,[28] and the
current document — which was put forward by the Danish Presidency
in December 2002 — addresses the acute risks arising from
exposure at work[29]
to high levels of electromagnetic fields and waves (EMFs). As
we noted in our Report of 2 July 2003, the Government has identified
a number of important differences between this text and those
produced earlier. These include:
- a reduction in the number of
risk assessment levels;
- the inclusion of action values, based on reference
levels set by the International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation
Protection (ICNIRP);
- the removal of a requirement for the mandatory
use of personal protection equipment;
- an entitlement to health surveillance when exposure
reaches the reference levels.
15.3 The Government also expressed concern in an
accompanying initial Regulatory Impact Assessment that the approach
in the draft proposal differs from that currently in force in
country, in that, once the electromagnetic field strength exceeds
the relevant reference level, it requires exposure to be reduced
to a minimum, whereas the UK approach merely requires further
investigations to be carried out to ensure that the (higher) exposure
limits set by the ICNIRP have not yet been exceeded. Since the
UK believes that, compliance with those exposure limits affords
sufficient protection and control to prevent any instance of ill
health, it is concerned that the proposal may result in unnecessary
costs being imposed, and its aim in the negotiations has been
to align the proposal more closely with the ICNIRP approach, so
as to ensure a minimal impact on industry, whilst avoiding risks
to worker health and safety.
15.4 In our conclusion, we noted that the text now
on the table has been poorly drafted and uses a bewildering array
of terms to describe the different exposure levels at which steps
might need to be taken. Nevertheless, we said that it appeared
from the comments in the Explanatory Memorandum and Regulatory
Impact Assessment that the benefits were likely to be negligible,
but the costs — where these can be assessed — extremely
high. We therefore suggested that that there was, on the face
of it, a strong case for our recommending a debate in European
Standing Committee C, but we added that much would clearly depend
upon any further Regulatory Impact Assessments which the HSE was
able to make, and, more particularly, on whether there was any
likelihood of the proposal in its present form being adopted.
Consequently, we decided for the time being to continue to hold
the document under scrutiny, and to await further developments.
In doing so, we also stressed the importance of the Government
keeping us informed of the progress of discussions in the Council,
and of it alerting us if it appeared that an agreement might be
in sight. We added that we expected the Government to maintain
a scrutiny reserve until we had been able to take a further view.
Minister's letter of 26 August 2003
15.5 We have since received a letter of 26 August
2003 from the Minister of State for Work and Pensions (Mr Des
Browne), in which he says that, as a result of a number of meetings
held at official level the Italian Presidency is aiming to reach
political agreement in the Council on 20-21 October. He adds
that, although no Member State has opposed the principle of a
Directive, a number of significant revisions have been made to
the text circulated by the Danish Presidency, as a result of which
the proposal is now broadly in line with the concepts of which
the ICNIRP guidelines are based. In particular:
- it is now explicit in the text
that there is no risk to exposure below these limit values;
- the various limit values proposed are now the
same as those used under the ICNIRP;
- in particular, there is an increasing acceptance
by the other Member States and the Commission that any action
should be geared to exposure, rather than reference, values;
- the text now focuses on preventing or reducing
risk (which can be achieved by compliance with the limit values)
rather than reducing exposure (which has no benefit below those
values); and
- the detailed requirements on health surveillance
have been removed and have been replaced by a broad provision
for "appropriate" surveillance.
15.6 As a result, the Minister says that the potential
costs of the measure have been significantly reduced as compared
with those in the earlier Regulatory Impact Assessment, which
were derived from inappropriate requirements which have since
been removed. He adds that the revised cost implications will
be drawn out in a further Regulatory Impact Assessment, which
will be produced once political agreement has been reached in
the Council.
Conclusion
15.7 We have noted from this further information
provided by the Minister that the approach proposed would now
be broadly in line with that currently applicable in the UK, and
that, as a result, many of the concerns expressed earlier by the
Government about the possibility of unnecessary costs being imposed
would no longer arise. In view of this, we are now content to
clear the document.
24 OJ No. L 183, 29.6.89, p.1. Back
25
(14430) 5059/93; see HC 79-xxv (1992-93), paragraph 5 (21 April
1993). Back
26
(15504) 8392/94; see HC 48-xxvi (1993-94), paragraph 11 (19 October
1994). Back
27
(19934) ; see HC 34-xiii (1998-99), paragraph 7 (17 March 1999),HC
34-xviii (1998-99), paragraph 5 (5 May 1999), HC 23-xxx (1999-2000),
paragraph 10 (22 November 2000) and HC 28-i (2000-01), paragraph
7 (13 December 2000). Back
28
(22228) - ; see HC 152-i (2001-02), paragraph 40 (18 July 2001). Back
29
It does not apply to any wider public exposure, arising (for example)
from mobile telephones or overhead power lines, and nor is it
concerned with long-term exposure effects. Back
|
