Brussels, 15/07/2005 (Agence Europe) - The European Parliament's Committee on Employment and Social Affairs approved on Tuesday 12 July by 22 votes to 1 and 23 abstentions the report by Csaba Öry (EPP-ED, Hungary) on the proposal for a directive on worker exposure to the risks of optical radiation. The report is being examined in second reading according to codecision procedure. The directive aims to prevent or, where appropriate, make an early diagnosis of damage to the eyes caused by exposure to radiation by construction workers, park wardens, police officers and other professions. It may also prevent long term risks for health such as skin cancer due to natural radiation from the sun.
A common position was finalised on 18 April by the Council (see EUROPE 8843). The Council states that employers should carry out risk assessment tests for radiation from artificial sources and for natural radiation from the sun. The latter is an innovation. The draft directive states that, for the very first time, a number of responsibilities will be incumbent upon employers in relation to exposure to natural sources of radiation. The previous versions have never mentioned the fact that solar radiation risks could be a professional hazard. Craft workers and SMEs in the construction sector are opposed to the inclusion of natural radiation risk as they see this as an additional constraint on companies as well as a risk that their legal liability could be committed in an “unjustified and disproportionate” manner in so far as it is impossible to determine the exclusively work-related origin of such exposure (see EUROPE 8988). Also, MEPs of the EPP-ED Group, supported by the Liberals of the ALDE Group, disagree with the Council on this key point and have submitted two amendments during the vote on the Csaba Öry report in the aim of only retaining protection against ratification radiation. They consider that the directive goes too far and that it is up to national authorities - and not the EU - to asses the risks due to prolonged exposure to sun and hence to determine the response to such risks. They remain, however, of the view that it is appropriate to regulate, at EU level this time, on the problems caused by exposure to radiation from artificial sources (lasers for example) and accept the provisions of the Council's common position on the issue. They trust, however, that the Commission will develop a practical guide for employers to help them better understand the technical provisions of the directive.
MEPs of the Greens/EFA and PES Group, for their part, do not agree with the EPP-ED position on the case of natural solar radiation. They consider risks related to natural sources of radiation should be an integral part of the directive as well as adequate protection to be implemented. Following the adoption of amendments by the EPP-ED and ALDE groups, they therefore abstained from the final vote in parliamentary committee. European trade unionists had also been highly critical of the text, considering that it did not go far enough to protect workers against the risk of exposure to solar radiation. Stressing the fact that medical sources show a growing incidence of sun-related skin cancers especially among workers of certain professions such as building workers, they called for the persons concerned to be informed of these risks and for them to be encouraged to use protection (see EUROPE 8988).
Everything will depend on the September plenary session which should conclude the examination by parliament in last reading.