The following also attended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119 (5):
Kennedy, Jane (The Minister for Work) (Lab)
Purnell, James (Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's Treasury) (Lab)
Boswell, Mr. Tim (Daventry) (Con)
Irranca-Davies, Huw (Ogmore) (Lab)
Heathcoat-Amory, Mr. David (Wells) (Con)
4 pm
The Minister for Work (Jane Kennedy): Committed though I am to the Government's determination to eradicate the sick-note culture, I must say that a sick note this morning for this Minister would not have gone amiss.
The proposal that we are considering today forms an element of the European Union's occupational safety and health strategy. In the United Kingdom, there is no legislation specific to occupational exposure to optical radiation. It is therefore controlled by the application of the general duties of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999. That legislation requires employers to reduce risk, to carry out and record risk assessments, to provide information and training and to undertake appropriate health surveillance. However, the general legislation does not specify the optical radiation exposure levels at which action must be taken.
Control is informed by existing international and national guidelines. The main international guidelines are those published by the International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection and the International Electrotechnical Commission—the IEC—for lasers. The proposed directive calls up the ICNIRP guidelines for artificial sources of optical radiation; otherwise it adds little to the existing legislation. The proposal is not expected to have a significant impact on UK industry. However, it will contribute to maintaining balance in the single market to complete the suite of physical agents directives and provide protections in the specialised area of work activity where they are needed. For those reasons, the Government support the proposal.
The Committee has before it the explanatory memorandum that I submitted on 26 October, my letter of 15 November and the supplementary explanatory memorandum of the same date that covered the regulatory impact assessment for the proposal.
The Chairman: We now have until 5 o'clock for questions to the Minister. I remind members of the Committee that questions should be brief and asked one at a time. There is likely to be ample opportunity for all hon. Members to ask several questions.
Mr. Tim Boswell (Daventry) (Con): I thank the Minister for her helpful and clear introductory statement, but it might set matters in context if she told the Committee whether, within the existing general regulatory remit affecting optical radiation—type 1 in
Column Number: 4
respect of lasers and so on and type 2 in respect of general outside sunlight—there has been a significant prosecution of an employer, for example, for not safeguarding employees under existing UK legislation.
Jane Kennedy: Exposure to the sun is usually a matter of personal choice, but it can be an issue for some people who work outdoors. In addition, some industrial sources of optical radiation have the potential for significant hazardous exposure. Under current UK regulatory arrangements, the normal risk assessments apply and an employer is required to carry out risk assessments in the usual way. I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman immediately whether there have been prosecutions. I am not aware of any, but I am sure that I shall be inspired in a few minutes.
Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory (Wells) (Con): We have been promised many times in the past that we will not go ahead with regulations without a cost-benefit analysis showing that the benefits outweigh the cost. Yet, the directive before us shows a present-day value cost of between £15 million and £21 million, whereas the benefit is ''unquantified''. Why are we regulating?
Jane Kennedy: We are regulating because doing so demonstrates our support for the European Union's strategy for a safer and healthier working environment throughout the EU. Although British industry will largely not be affected by the steps that we are taking today, the proposal will enable it to compete on a fair and level playing field with businesses operating in other countries that will, as a result of the directive, be required to comply with standards similar to those that apply in the UK.
Mr. Boswell: In that connection, and following the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), although I accept that the measure will bring other European countries into the net, if we are not disposed to regulate—we have carried out an impact assessment, which is annexed to the Minister's documents—why, on the Minister's argument, should we support a European proposal that is not accompanied by any documents?
Jane Kennedy: All of the documents that I understood were necessary for today's debate have been annexed, and the regulatory impact assessment is attached. The explanation that I have given of the logic behind the step that we are taking today is clear. Four directives arose out of the European Commission's determination in 1993 that it would advance minimum health and safety requirements for workers who are subject to exposure and risks arising from physical agents. The directive before the Committee today is the final one of the four and it complete the whole EU structure to support and protect workers who work in such environments.
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Another assurance that we have always had is that regulations will not go ahead without full consultation. Page 70 of the documents states:
''The fast pace at which the Directive has been negotiated has meant that there has been no time to consult British small firms.''
Column Number: 5
Why is that?
Jane Kennedy: As the document says, the process was conducted at some speed. We are not aware that small businesses in the UK will be unduly affected. The position will be corrected when the RIA for transposition into UK law is prepared.
Mr. Boswell: The Minister has just explained that three parts of the overarching framework are already in place within European legislation and that the directive is the last one. Will she tell the Committee, either now or at a later juncture in our discussion, how many prosecutions there have been, and in which EU member states, for infractions of the other elements of the four, which are already in place? In other words, have we identified some serious occupational problem that is being proceeded against elsewhere as well as in the UK?
Jane Kennedy: Again, the hon. Gentleman catches me in a position of not being able to answer on the number of prosecutions that have arisen.
The directive is not the fourth stage of the strategy to improve health and safety across the EU, but the fourth of four directives arising from the physical agents directive that was proposed in 1993. At that time, a number of European states disagreed with the proposed steps. As a result, the EU took back the original proposals and broke them down into the four stages that we have considered. The directive before the Committee is the fourth of those stages.
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: When the Prime Minister spoke to the Confederation of British Industry conference on 18 October last year, he commended the approach of the Dutch presidency and said that he would pursue, in particular, its idea of a ''one in, one out'' rule for regulation, whereby new regulations would have to be matched by deregulatory measures. Will the Minister tell us which regulation is going out in order to match this one going in?
Jane Kennedy: The Prime Minister was not necessarily talking about one for one on the same issue. We have done a lot of good work to reduce the burden on British industry and the directive is not expected to place an undue burden. On the contrary, it could be seen to be helpful to British businesses that are competing with other businesses across the EU. As a result of the directive, the regulations will be the same throughout the European Union.
Mr. Boris Johnson (Henley) (Con): The Minister says that the directive will not place an undue burden on British industry. Will she give an indication of what kind of burden it will place on British business? Does the directive mean that a firm would have to conduct a risk assessment before sending employees into the sun and could be liable to litigation if it fails adequately to conduct that assessment and warn its employees of the risks involved?
Jane Kennedy: Under the 1974 Act, employers have a responsibility to their work force to consider the risks that employees face when going about their business,
Column Number: 6
which involves those working within a building or in other environments. The Health and Safety Executive does not believe that the regulatory framework in the UK will change to any great degree. Risk assessments already have to be made and employers in the UK are used to complying with that requirement and carrying them out. I think that most of them would welcome a step that requires such assessments to be done by employers throughout the European Union operating in the same areas, many of which are quite technical, such as the development of laser technology, and so on. I do not think that it will necessarily be a disappointment to British business to hear that we are considering the directive today.
