|
Mr. Boswell: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the tissue of argument from the Government is that although we do not need to do it, it would be a good idea if others did, so that they would have something in place? The argument is not about any domestic need, and possibly not about any overall European need, but about the apparent non-compliance or non-interest of other member states. I invite him to share with the Committee any view as to whether those who have not previously taken an interest in this subject will now be stimulated or fired to do something material about it.
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: My hon. Friend speculates about the real motives for the directive and he may be right. It is a slightly rum area in which to choose harmonisation, because sunlight is not harmonised in Europe. The amount of sun falling on people in northern Finland is rather less than on those in Malta, which is now a member of the EU.It is slightly dotty to pick light as area in which to harmonise.
The Government do not now support this harmonisation for its own sake; they say that they will be much more pragmatic and empirical in assessing the need for legislation. There is a constant refrain from British business that we, with our strong administrative system, implement things that we sign up to, whereas that is perhaps not true in Hungary, Slovakia and the Czech Republic. Who knows? However, we know that those countries have been criticised by the European Commission for not fully implementing their obligations and perhaps the directive will be another example of that. Why take the risk when the case for legislating has not been made and the Government have made that point?
My hon. Friend has repeated the point about there being no impact assessment and this measure not being cost-free. The obligations on employers are laid out in the directive. We do not know how many employers will be affected, but they will have to assess the risk, reduce the exposure, undertake health surveillance and provide information and training to workers. Either that will not be done, in which case the employers will be in breach, or it will be done and there will be a significant extra cost.
Many of the small firms that I meet in my constituency constantly complain about a blizzard of new regulations that are undermining in the long term not only their international competitiveness, but their ability to take on new workers in a competitive environment.
There is also the official cost. Scores of talented and well-trained officials, both here and in Brussels, have been poring over this directive for months, perhaps years. Should not they be better employed in cracking down on the real health hazards, mentioned by the
Column Number: 19
hon. Member for Luton, North, that need to be tackled and could increase the health and safety of our own workforce? Even at this late stage, I suggest that the Government rethink this matter to bring their rhetoric better into line with their actions.
4.58 pm
Jane Kennedy: The right hon. Gentleman argues his case on Europe forcefully and with some passion, and has always done so. I seek to reassure him on Lisbon and the regulation agenda in terms of the EU, that we will be using our presidency this year to influence the development of the EU health and safety strategy.
We will ensure that better health and safety is provided by ways other than regulation; that is our objective. The right hon. Gentleman dismisses that as rhetoric, but nonetheless that is the objective that we set ourselves. He also asks whether we need the directive and says that our arguments in the detail of the document demonstrate that it is not required. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North discussed, although it might be argued that we do not need the directive in the UK, directives are necessary to ensure consistency and, as I have said, a level playing field across the single market.
Mr. Boswell: I do not intend to intervene extensively on the Minister unless it is necessary. Does she agree that it would be a mistake to say that such consistency comes from the extension of the directive to all member states? The test of that consistency is whether the directive is taken seriously and implemented by all member states.
Jane Kennedy: That is unarguable; I agree with the hon. Gentleman's analysis. It is fair to say that the UK, with its long-established industrial economy, will have already encountered and dealt with many of the problems that some directives seek to address, and that the impact of such directives in the UK will be negligible. However, that will not be the case for some other member states, in which—for a variety of reasons, such as the make-up of their economies, or their lack of technical capacity or resources to address the issues—directives are necessary for the reasons mentioned and to set basic standards. In that way, British business is not placed at a trading disadvantage, and directives ensure that suitable protections exist for UK citizens who choose to live and work in other member states.
David Cairns (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab): May I strongly reinforce the Minister's point? In the past couple of years in my constituency we have lost jobs in the low-skilled, high-volume part of the electronics sector to some countries in eastern Europe, some of which have acceded and some of which are trying to accede. My argument has been that, on some issues such as health and safety, such countries have lower standards than in the UK; that is partly why we have lost those jobs. Raising standards across the EU benefits British jobs as well. Is not the argument
Column Number: 20
fallacious that because we have already gone above those standards, they are not relevant to jobs in this country? They are directly relevant.
Jane Kennedy: My hon. Friend is right. Earlier, I mentioned two regulations; international standards that ought to apply to employers and businesses working in this field. However, there is also a third standard; the British standard BSEN 60825, which gives guidance on achieving a good standard of laser safety. That was mentioned earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North and by the hon. Member for Daventry.
The guidelines set exposure limits designed to protect people from well established effects of exposure. Although outdoor workers are not made subject to those guidelines, it is important that the Committee should understand that the proposal under consideration will generate costs only to those employers in the UK who are not already complying with the existing requirements and, in the case of artificial sources in particular, with the international guidelines. The effect of the regulation can only be beneficial.
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Surely an employer who is complying will nevertheless have a range of new duties, as is specified on page 34:
''The proposal places a range of duties on employers. These include the requirements to assess risk . . . undertake health surveillance and provide information and training''.
Employers may be doing some of those things, but there are new duties to assess the risks as well. They may not be doing that at the minute. They may be protecting workers overall, although not according to the specifications in the new directive.
Jane Kennedy: The right hon. Gentleman raises an important point. Employers may not be as proactive as the directive demands in assessing risk. However, the development of risk assessment is new in many areas of British industry. One of the side-effects of making compulsory employers' liability insurance has been that employers, working increasingly with the insurance industry, argue that if proper risk assessments are carried out and workplaces become healthier and safer as a result, insurance premiums should reflect that. Although they may not have been the norm in the past, risk assessments are increasingly becoming so. That requirement was always there. Employers who have not fully adopted their responsibilities will be required to do so as a result of the directive.
Mr. Boswell: While we are on the subject of risk, will the Minister reflect on the fact that many members of the Committee might have felt happier if, in the interests of European harmonisation and common standards, the directive had concentrated on the specific point risks involved in, for example, the operation of lasers? It might have been an indication of Europe's good will had it dropped proposals in relation to outside solar radiation, which are much woollier, less specific and much more difficult to enact. Had it done that, we could have seen that there was,
Column Number: 21
arguably, a problem, but people in industry and, indeed, members of the Committee would have been more relaxed about the introduction of these proposals.
Jane Kennedy: It is an interesting dilemma, which I frequently face in discussing health and safety. There is an almost natural instinct to prefer specific regulation over a broader approach. Such an approach might be based more on partnership working between employers and employees, and I have seen that developing in some industries. I hope that I can reassure the Committee by saying that, working with the Health and Safety Executive, we intend to
Column Number: 22
implement the directive as simply as we can. We shall involve industry and those affected to ensure that its implementation is helpful. I hope, therefore, that the Committee will give it a fair wind.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Committee takes note of European Union document No. 10678/04 and ADD 1, a draft Directive to protect workers from the effects of optical radiation; and supports the Government's position that the proposed Directive is broadly acceptable and that the Government will work with Member States to secure a Directive that achieves adequate worker protection with minimal burdens on business.
Committee rose at six minutes past Five o'clock.
| 
