|
Mr. Hopkins: It is a pleasure to be in Committee for the first time under your chairmanship, Mr. Caton, and I hope to be under your chairmanship on many future occasions. I apologise for being slightly late and for missing some of the Minister's earlier remarks, but I hope that my comments will be helpful. The Conservative spokesperson referred to Euroscepticism and, on economic and constitutional matters, I consider myself to be sceptical. However, I support the European Union on this proposal because it is important to establish minimum safety standards in all areas. We have a good record and if the measure makes safety better throughout Europe and in Britain, too, it would be a good thing.
On page 72 of the document, the Health and Safety Executive suggests that the regulatory impact assessment will show that the cost of the proposal to the UK would be low. There are uncertainties about the effects of light and it is best to err on the side of safety rather than to be too negative about the proposals. I have experience of industry and I recall several occasions, over my modest, long life, when serious problems were discovered too late, the most obvious of which is asbestos, which is still causing immense problems throughout the world. Many more people are likely to die from the effects of asbestos that was inhaled decades ago.
Several chemicals are similarly dangerous. I worked in the aircraft industry in which trichloroethylene was used for cleaning. I did not use it, but I walked through laboratories in which it was used. I now know that such chemicals store in the fatty tissues of the body and that, over time, people can die. Moreover, people who have worked with such substances die young. The link between machine oils and testicular cancer was discovered only two or three decades ago.
I was always careful to make sure that I wore ear defenders in the vicinity of loud noises. A colleague aged 30 did not wear ear defenders. When his wife accused him of being deaf, he went to his doctor who said that he had good hearing for man of 75. I remind hon. Members that he was 30. I was particularly keen to defend my ears because I like music and did not want my high frequencies destroyed by noisy air
Column Number: 15
blowing rigs. I was always careful, but others were not. In all spheres, we must make sure that people are aware of the dangers to themselves.
Mr. Boswell: I am not seeking to pick a quarrel with the hon. Gentleman, but to reinforce what he says. Does he agree that, if there is a risk, there is equally a duty on employers to remind their employees of it and to insist as far as is humanly possible that the safety equipment that is provided is used? On a more general point, does he agree that as there is such a huge range of occupational risks from exposure to certain elements at work and that if such risks might be less easily perceptible, such matters should be properly set out, analysed and legislated on by Europe, rather than assumed to be risks that are not adequately explained to the Committee or those in other member states?
Mr. Hopkins: I agree. Compliance with well-known safety measures is important. In another incarnation, I used to serve on the TUC's construction industry committee. We had a serious problem with construction workers not bothering to wear their hard hats. It was only when they were under threat of losing their employment that they wore their hard hats. Now wearing them is accepted, whereas before not doing so was regarded as macho and wearing them was seen as soft. That kind of attitude among employees is still common. People also did not wear their seatbelts while driving. Unfortunately, we must occasionally encourage people, with a bit of pressure, to do the right thing for their own sake. That is perhaps an example of the nanny state, to which I am not averse in many respects.
People are still unaware of the dangers of light to eyesight. Twenty years ago, a good friend who was keen on topping up her suntan went to a commercial sunbed practice. She was not properly warned to wear goggles. She went on the sunbed for some time and although she doubtless got her suntan, she did serious damage to her eyes. That was temporary, thank goodness. She was unaware that ultra-bright ultraviolet light can cause serious damage to eyes. It is important for people in business to be aware of that, to ensure that anybody affected by what they are doing does the right thing and to make us all aware of the dangers.
Awareness is fundamental. A little scientific understanding and teaching in schools is important. We cannot see some of the things involved. We are becoming more aware of the effects of radiation from the sun, because of the ozone layer, for example. We cannot see ionising radiation, but it does us damage, as can small trace amounts of many chemicals. It is important for the state to involve itself in such matters, to seek to find dangers wherever they exist and to legislate to ensure that we do not damage ourselves. The state also needs to ensure that employers comply with regulations and that we, whether as employees or consumers, take the right steps.
Column Number: 16
I am in favour of erring on the side of safety, even if that means legislation that is seen to be a little overstated in the first instance; in time, it may prove to be a good thing to do. I hope that we will support the conclusions of today's debate and understand that the Scrutiny Committee is concerned about the burdens and costs on employers, and about ensuring that all of us are safe and that we are not affected in a damaging way by light in any form.
Lasers were invented when I was young. Before they came along we were unaware that light could be made so powerful. One does not want to go into the modest physics—I did study physics to an extent—but we were not aware of how powerful they could be. A focused laser can now weld the retina to the eye and save one's eyesight. It can do all sorts of wonderful and incredible things just by using a small point of light. It can burn thin layers off the lenses of eyes and enable us to see better. Light can be extremely dangerous but it can also be beneficial when used carefully. I hope that we continue to take steps to ensure that everyone is safe, whether at work, at play or in the home.
4.48 pm
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I am attending this Committee not as a permanent member, but as a member of European Scrutiny Committee. One of the ideas that my Committee has put into the modernisation programme is that having recommended a subject for debate in Standing Committee, we should, if possible, attend—or at least follow up our interest—to ensure that the scrutiny process is completed.
My Committee examined a great many proposals from the European Union. Last year, we considered 1,080 new proposals, only a tiny proportion of which were debated. This one has been recommended, not only for its substance, but for the wider story that it may tell about the Government's regulatory programme, their drive for better regulation and, in some respects, even about proposals for deregulation.
I have quoted from the Prime Minister's speech last year to a CBI conference in which he proposed that new regulations should be matched by other regulations being abolished. There is some history to the proposal before us. There has been a sequence of physical agents directives, the most notorious of which in farming circles, is the vibration directive, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) alluded. It will eventually mean that those sitting on tractors for more than a certain number of hours a day will be subject to time limits. A lot of farmers in my constituency doubt that that is practical and enforceable throughout the European Union, especially in the new member states.The measure arose out of the correct identification of problems such as white finger condition, suffered by people using power tools. That grew, as things do in Europe, into the proposal that there is a hazard called all-body vibration, which grew into the proposal that the measure should extend to agriculture, for those sitting on tractors.
Column Number: 17
In my view, that discredits the idea of health and safety. I agree with some of the arguments of the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins) that there are hazards that are not properly addressed. However, instead of concentrating on such real problems that are not properly enforced and ensuring that rogue employers comply with rules, the regulatory system simply expands into new areas all the time.
That is why I am interested in the Prime Minister's comments on earlier proposals, going right back to when the Lisbon process was launched five years ago. The EU said, rather boastfully, that it had to become the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world. I understand from recent press reports that that aim is to be ditched as unrealistic; the gap between ourselves and our competitors is widening in some respects.
At the same time as the Lisbon process was launched, the presidency conclusions stated:
''Further efforts are required to lower the costs of doing business and remove unnecessary red tape, both of which are particularly burdensome for SMEs.''
The Prime Minister made a lot of that proposal to reduce unnecessary burdens when he reported to the House. He said that the Lisbon Council
''marks a sea change in European economic thinking. It points Europe in a new direction—away from heavy-handed intervention and regulation, towards a new approach based on enterprise, innovation and competition.''—[Official Report, 27 March 2000; Vol. 347, c. 21]
Government Ministers make the same points every time there is a European summit. I do not want to weary the Committee on this, but that point was made at Barcelona in March 2002 in the presidency conclusions; after the Seville European Council, the Prime Minister again said
''Our campaign for simpler, better regulation, with proper consultation with business and industry, was endorsed.''—[Official Report, 24 June 2002; Vol. 387, c. 611]
The Prime Minister says that his campaign in Europe is succeeding, and yet we read that this proposal on regulating the amount of light falling on workers did not involve a consultation with small businesses in our country. Therefore, how are we to read this as anything other than lecturing other countries about what they should be doing while failing to live up to those standards ourselves? I have already mentioned the Prime Minister's speech to the CBI, which also shows a big and growing gap between words and deeds.
I return to the specifics of this proposal. If it was desirable to regulate against excessive light exposure and if that truly was a pressing problem, I would have some sympathy with the hon. Member for Luton, North. However, that is not the Government's view. The explanatory memorandum signed by the Minister on 26 October last year states:
''The Government does not believe that the risks from optical radiation necessarily warrant additional action at Community level''
''that there are few significant health and safety grounds for a new Directive on optical radiation''.
Column Number: 18
In that case, why are we doing it? The Government do not believe that it should be done. The Prime Minister says that it should not be done, and if it should that it should be preceded by consultation, impact assessment and cost-benefit analyses. Yet here we are with a new directive that breaches all these rules. That is our point.
|
