3 Protection of workers from risks arising
from optical radiation
| (26027)
10678/04
—
+ ADD 1
| Draft Directive on the minimum health and safety requirements regarding the exposure of workers to the risks arising from physical agents (optical radiation)
|
| Legal base | Article 137(2); co-decision; QMV
|
| Department | Work and Pensions
|
| Basis of consideration | Minister's letter and SEM of 15 November 2004
|
| Previous Committee Report | HC 42-xxxv (2003-04), para 2 (3 November 2004)
|
| To be discussed in Council | 7 December 2004
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | For debate in European Standing Committee B
|
Background
3.1 This document deals with the long and short-term effect on
the eyes and skin of the fourth and last element, optical radiation
(light), contained in a broader proposal originally put forward
by the Commission in February 1993.[6]
In the case of artificial light, it would require action to be
taken when exposure limit values based on guidelines set by the
International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection
(ICNIRP) are exceeded, whilst as regards exposure to the sun it
would simply require the risk to be reduced to a minimum by, for
example, the use of protective clothing.
3.2 We noted in our Report of 3 November 2004 that
the Government regards the text as broadly in line with the UK's
views, and intends to oppose any moves to introduce inappropriate
action values at levels below the internationally well-established
exposure limit values, as well as calls for "inappropriate"
health surveillance requirements. It will also call for a full
cost-benefit analysis to be carried out by the Commission, but,
in the meantime, we were told that the Health and Safety Executive
had been preparing a Regulatory Impact Assessment, which will
show that the costs of the proposal in the UK would be low and
would not impose any undue financial burden on industry. Notwithstanding
this, we said that we thought it sensible to have a sight of that
Assessment before taking a final view.
The Regulatory Impact assessment and Minister's
letter
3.3 We have now received from the Minister of State
for Work at the Department for Work and Pensions (Jane Kennedy)
a letter and supplementary Explanatory Memorandum of 15 November
2004, enclosing the promised Regulatory Impact Assessment. The
latter confirms that the proposal adds little to existing requirements
in the UK under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, though
it does define more precisely what is required. It also stresses
that, although large numbers of people may be exposed to optical
radiation at work,[7] the
risk in the great majority of cases is low. The Health and Safety
Executive (HSE) has not therefore attached great priority to this
area (and is unlikely to do so in future), though it has produced
guidance leaflets on solar exposure which, if followed, should
ensure compliance with the eventual Directive.
3.4 As for the potential costs and benefits, the
Assessment says that the HSE has received few reports of ill health
or injury from exposure to optical radiation, and that most of
these relate to the misuse of lasers, and hence to poor compliance
with existing law, whilst in the case of exposure to the sun,
it is not possible to identify the contribution of occupational
exposure as opposed to that arising from leisure activities. However,
it suggests that an increasing awareness of the risks could lead
to "substantial but unquantifiable" health and safety
benefits, whilst a harmonised level of protection across Europe
would also be beneficial.
3.5 The Assessment has, however, sought to quantify
the potential costs, which it says would affect many sectors,
notably agriculture, forestry, horticulture, construction, leisure,
outdoor maintenance, entertainment, research, medicine, engineering,
manufacturing and communication. Such costs would arise from
the need for employers to familiarise themselves with the proposals,
to determine and assess any risks, to provide information and
training, and to take action to reduce exposure. Overall, it
suggests that the costs in the first year would be between £2.19
and 4.58 million, and that the estimated annualised costs over
the first ten years would be between £1.47 and 2.25 million:
the first of these equates to between £70 and £99 for
a typical firm, though, in so far as it was unlikely to have to
implement an action plan, these figures would be lower.
3.6 In her letter, the Minister summarises the current
state of play on the proposal. She says that the Presidency text
has a good logical structure, which draws a sensible distinction
between the two main risks (from industrial and other processes,
and from strong sunlight). As such, it is acceptable to the UK,
and she does not expect any further changes to be made before
it is submitted to the Council on 7 December. She also says that,
although the Commission assessed the benefits of its original
proposal in 1993, that assessment related essentially to the noise
aspects, and that the UK has called regularly in the recent negotiations
for an impact assessment on optical radiation, but to no avail.
She adds that a cost-benefit analysis carried out by the UK at
the time of the original proposal suggested that the ratio of
costs to benefits would be between 4.5:1 and 6:1, whereas the
current Regulatory Impact Assessment, although leaving certain
practical implications to be addressed after the measure is adopted,
shows low costs and unquantified benefits, which reflects the
"much more sensible" revised proposal.
Conclusion
3.7 Whilst we are grateful to the Minister for
this further information, we are concerned about this proposal.
Quite apart from the absence of any impact assessment by the
Commission, it is clear from the Regulatory Impact Assessment
carried out by the Health and Safety Executive that the risks
to workers in the UK from optical radiation are low, and arise
in the main, not from the lack of adequate measures, but from
poor compliance with existing legislation. In the circumstances,
we find it hard to see the justification for what is proposed,
and we therefore believe that, before the Council takes any decision
on this document, it should be debated in European Standing Committee
B.
6 The other three elements were noise, vibration and
electro-magnetic radiation, which have now been enacted as Directives. Back
7
For example, the National Radiological Protection Board has estimated
that about 1 million outdoor workers may be exposed to the sun;
that about 2.1 million people work in places where lasers are
used (though few are likely to be sustain exposure above the specified
levels); and that, although about 2.4 million people work in places
where broadband sources are used, only 400,000-1.3 million are
at any risk from possible inadequate controls, with considerably
fewer likely to suffer exposure above recommended limits. Back
|
