HL Deb 07 February 1989 vol 503 cc1504-19

7.40 p.m.

Lord Allen of Abbeydale rose to move, That this House takes note of the Report of the European Communities Committee on Visual Display Units [22nd Report, 1987–1988, HL Paper 110].

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should like to begin by thanking the members of sub-committee C and our witnesses, especially Dr. Hunter from the Brussels secretariat. As the report explains, we did not agree with everything that he proposed but we greatly appreciate all the trouble that he took and all the help that he gave. I must apologise to those who have been studying our report that the attempt to be helpful by putting the relevant paragraph numbers into the summary of the recommendations on page 14 slightly misfired as we managed to put in the wrong number but such things, alas, happen.

For once this is not an occasion when we are pressing the Government to think again; but it is right that we should spend a little time discussing the issues raised in the report, given that they affect so many people and that so many fears and apprehensions are held.

Early last year, the European Commission put forward a proposal for a framework directive setting out measures to improve and safeguard the safety and health of workers and supplemented that general directive by five detailed directives on specific issues. That foray by the Commission into the well being of workers in the workplace was generally welcomed, but that welcome did not extend to the draft directive on visual display units. That is the directive which the sub-committee decided to examine and which forms the subject of the report that we are discussing.

It is important to bear in mind that that directive is only part of the much wider and generally satisfactory approach. The draft directive sets out in some detail the steps to be taken to see that VDU work does not compromise the health or safety of the operators and deals, for example, with eye testing, seating, lighting, training and information for operators about health risks. However, before I go on to talk about the report two issues of a rather more general character arise. The first is that most of our witnesses thought that a code of good practice would suit the problem better than legislation by way of statutory regulations; but Dr. Hunter explained to us that under Article 118A of the Treaty the Commission was bound to look for legislation to implement directives dealing with health and safety matters, and that codes of practice were not a sufficient compliance. That is a fact of life which could well be relevant to other Commission proposals.

Secondly, much of the evidence related to provisions in the draft directive requiring compulsory eye tests to be carried out by qualified opthalmologists, but it then turned out that that was a mistranslation. In the original French text, there was no requirement for compulsory tests and when there were tests the only requirement was that they should be carried out by those who were skilled in such tests. That mistranslation caused a great deal of wasted effort. I wonder whether the Government know of any way of avoiding a recurrence.

I must confess that I could not help thinking about the communication difficulty which the baker had in explaining to the bellman his problems over the snark: I said it in Hebrew—I said it in Dutch; I said it in German and Greek; But I wholly forgot (and it vexes me much) That English is what you speak!

To return to the draft directive, we heard a good deal from our witnesses about health hazards of various kinds. There can be no doubt that VDU use is at times responsible, for example, for musculo-skeletal disorders and for stress; but we were impressed by the evidence which suggested that those problems could best be met by good office management, by proper attention to the ergonomics of the workplace and by suitable pacing of the work. We heard too about eyesight problems, and although there seemed to be little evidence of the VDU work causing permanent visual defects, it can well happen that previously unrecognised abnormalities are disclosed. There are good grounds for providing for arrangements for eye testing and spectacles.

The area where there were most fears was the possible effect on pregnancy. It is worth making the point at this stage that the Social Affairs Council recently reached a common position, as the modern phrase goes, on amendments to the parent framework directive proposed by the European Parliament. One of those amendments was that provision should be made for special protection for high risk groups such as pregnant women.

Research has been going on in a number of countries, but so far it seems that the evidence linking adverse effects on pregnancy with VDUs is inconclusive. We were told that there is no biologically plausible cause for any such link. But the fears exist, and that question, which is exceedingly complex, will have to be looked at again when we have the results of the study currently in train in this country.

Our conclusion, to put it briefly, was that in the present state of scientific knowledge, and with all due deference to the points made by my noble friend Lord Baldwin in the debate last week, it would be best to rely upon good office management, good workplace design and consultation with those who work with VDUs.

We thought that it was a mistake for the Commission to have gone ahead, as it told us, merely because of the weight of public concern and not on a scientific evaluation of the risks. It seemed to us that the scientific evidence over the whole field was far from conclusive.

There are some other reasons for caution. It is not much good going for statutory regulations if they cannot be enforced. There can be no doubt that enforcement here would present formidable problems to the Health and Safety Executive inspectors and local authority environmental health officers. There is then the highly relevant fact that two international bodies—the International Standards Organisation (ISO) and the European Committee of Normalisation (CEN)—are working in this field. CEN includes members of EFTA as well as the Community countries. Its findings, I believe, are mandatory, but as I understand it, it has a discretion to allow member states to choose between codes of conduct and legislation. We thought it wrong to go ahead with the draft directive when these other discussions on precisely the same issues were in progress.

Given that this is a debate squeezed into the dinner hour, I am making a rather shorter speech than perhaps the importance of the issues warrants. The lights also seem to be fading as we proceed. However, I must find time to say that both the Health and Safety Executive and the TUC have issued admirable booklets of guidance but neither body could say how widely these booklets were read and still less how much they were acted upon.

To summarise, I wish in conclusion to ask the Government whether they have any comment on the two general points I raised earlier: whether they agree, broadly speaking, with the sub-committee's conclusions as set out in the report; whether they have any thoughts about extending the publicity for the excellent guidance which is already available; and what the present state of play is both on the discussions in Brussels on the draft directive and also on the CEN and ISO deliberations. When one thinks of the vast number of VDUs in use and the ill-effects which some of them have undoubtedly caused and the widely held fears about them, this is a topic which, as I said at the outset, is of quite considerable importance to a great many people. I beg to move.

Moved, That this House takes note of the Report of the European Community Committee on Visual Display Units (22nd Report, 1987–1988, HL Paper 110).—(Lord Allen of Abbeydale).

7.52 p.m.

Lord Hunter of Newington

My Lords, I am glad to speak in this very short debate about visual display units and to give support to the chairman of Sub-committee C, the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale. I must explain that I have only recently become a member of the European Select Committee but I wish to make a few comments about our experiences and perhaps make one or two suggestions.

If one thinks what are the basic requirements for legislation about health hazards and matters of that nature, the first requirement is to have a body of expertise that understands the meaning of scientific evidence and the possible pitfalls. Some years ago I chaired a committee in Europe to do with medical research and one of our principal recommendations was that the Commission should strengthen its scientific advice.

The second is to have the views of employers and trade unions as to what is the best way to proceed. As the noble Lord, Lord Allen, has said, in this country this is well understood and through the Health and Safety Commission and its executive these matters are well handled. They have discovered in the light of wide experience that one does not really want to legislate when one is dealing with a moving situation; for example, when new technology is being introduced. I do not think there is any doubt that if the proposals about the VDUs had been made by the Health and Safety Executive then there would be recommendations and not proposals for legally binding regulations.

There are other important aspects about this which one might call the two "Cs". One is cost and the other is contempt. Taking the second of these first, if regulations are inadequate, unsuitable, unnecessary or misdirected, then the consequence is that the countries concerned begin to view regulations of this kind with contempt and are in danger of ignoring them. One has also to recognise the wide variation of existing conditions in European countries. In one of the more advanced technologically, like Germany, there would be no difficulty in producing what is required in the situation to do with VDUs; that is, improving the general conditions in the offices from the point of view of lighting, positioning, and so on. The fact is that in this regard good office design and management are the important requirements.

When it comes to cost, we have a glorious example concerning a topic which your Lordships' House must be very tired of; that is, the cost of eye testing. But as the noble Lord, Lord Allen, has said, this difficulty was compounded by translation difficulties from French to English which produced in the English version a requirement of eye testing by opticians. If it were implemented it would be enormously expensive for someone, perhaps the employers, and much of it would be unnecessary. But once again one wants to avoid unnecessary expense, particularly in some of the less affluent countries in the Community.

Lastly, I wish to say, in light of my brief experience, that there is a very important difference between the status, authority and methods of proceeding of the Commission in Brussels and the way that we would proceed in this country. In Europe when a treaty base permits a choice of instruments, the choice of the form of presentation of the instrument is initially by the Commission. Once this choice is made by the Commission, the formal position is that it can only be amended by the unanimous decision of the Council of Ministers. But the Commission can be persuaded to change the instrument of its own volition if it sees that there is significant opposition in the Council.

In these circumstances it is, I believe, very important for the Commission to get the best possible advice and not have the Council of Ministers making decisions, as has been said, on the basis of public concern, as has happened with VDUs.

7.55 p.m.

Earl Baldwin of Bewdley

My Lords, I hope I may be forgiven if I slip away a few minutes before the end of the debate, if that is the way the time goes. Otherwise I shall not get home tonight. I am not a scientist and I do not operate a VDU. My reason for taking part in this debate is that I have some acquaintance with the nature of allergic reactions referred to in the report. I wish to add some thoughts to the evidence that has been gathered by the committee.

I am involved with an allergy support group. The reason the group exists and the reason I have had to study some of the literature is that mainstream scientific medicine has not yet quite caught up with what is happening to people who react strongly to foods, chemicals, inhalants and electromagnetic fields. I think this is reflected in the type of evidence which the committee received, or perhaps did not receive.

Those operating in the field of clinical ecology, now more usually known as allergy and environmental medicine, are familiar with the effects on patients of exposure to VDUs. I see that both Dr. Mackay and Professor Wilkins in their evidence linked this with fluorescent lighting. That is certainly borne out by the experience of allergy patients. It is all part of a wider picture of what some people in the field call "electronic smog". I have read that man is exposed nowadays to some 200 million times the background radiation of his forebears—I do not know how accurate that figure is—from TV transmissions, power lines, microwave appliances and the like. It seems that he may be imperfectly adapted to it. Those who are doing work in this area include Dr. Jean Monro of the Lister Hospital, who now has her own clinic in Hertfordshire. She has published research jointly with Dr. Cyril Smith of Salford University. Drs. Dowson, Kenyon and Lewith from Southampton are also working in this field. There are of course others.

They are finding some interesting facts. The strength of the current or field appears to be of less importance than its coherence. It seems to be a matter of resonance with the human electrical field, which is itself very weak—of harmonic interaction. Thus there is probably no traditional dose-response relationship. Furthermore, there may be no absolutely safe lower limit. All this may be less surprising to those who have a knowledge of homeopathy, with its infinitesimal doses, than to those in the more traditional medical areas.

A weak electrical field appears to be no guarantee of a lack of patient response. The symptoms people exhibit are a lot wider than such symptoms as skin rashes. They run the whole gamut of allergic reactions, and these can be severe. Among the commonest symptoms are psychological ones. I emphasise that in view of the reference to psychological symptoms in the report, where the inference is that signs of stress in office workers have psychological causes.

Popular opinion notwithstanding, it is the virtually unanimous experience of practitioners in this branch of allergy over about 50 years that physical causes, whether food colourings, petrol fumes or electrical influences, can switch on and off the symptoms of depression, fatigue, anxiety or overactivity. In such cases no amount of counselling or good office management, as recommended in the report, is going to meet these people's needs. I should add that I am not saying that psychological causes cannot exist as well. That is far from the case. The point is that physical causes are common and are usually overlooked. The numbers who are at present susceptible to these influences seem to be rising, but they are hard to estimate in absolute terms.

I want to refer, quite quickly, to one or two of the arguments that feature in the report. If and when this debate is studied later on, I hope my remarks may be taken in conjunction with what I said in the debate on pollution on 1st February to which the noble Lord, Lord Allen, was good enough to refer. I remarked on evidence and proof and what guidance science can and cannot be expected to give. That will save repeating my arguments.

On page 6 of the evidence Dr. Mackay of the Health and Safety Executive states that as the fields surrounding VDUs do not exceed national or international standards, we are on pretty firm ground now in saying that visual display units are very unlikely to represent a physical hazard to the user". With respect, that must be nonsense. Just look at how the safety limits have been coming down and down over a wide range of substances for many years. Those substances include X-rays, lead, the pill and others that I mentioned last week. Just look at how national standards vary wildly. I think the Russian standard on some electromagnetic emissions is about 1,000 times tighter than ours. Then consider the gaps in our knowledge about the effects of 'VDUs. Those were recognised in the report. One informed source told me that the present standards are almost entirely arbitrary.

To me, the words I quoted are verging on the reckless. That is all the more so as we know that official research on the actual health effects of VDUs is not only inconclusive but, to quote Dr. Mackay himself on page 7 of the report, "very difficult methodologically". He goes on to say that a UK study is being done, hopefully to confirm in our own minds that there definitely was not a problem". I was again somewhat taken aback, as I did not think scientists conducted studies with the intention of finding anything. I believed they set out to discover what the facts were. But perhaps the witness there was speaking in the heat of the moment.

Again on page 7, mention is made of studies which "by and large" do not suggest that there is an "excess risk to pregnancy". I take that to mean that there are some studies which show a risk to pregnancy. Should that not be a signal to proceed with extreme caution until a great deal more is known? We are dealing with human beings, not research statistics.

My final worry about the report centres on the argument of the CBI on page 19, which is accepted by the committee in paragraph 53. It is to the effect that in the absence of hard evidence and reliable research, it follows that a directive is not warranted. I do not believe that that does follow. It is one of those plausible arguments which is too readily accepted in this country where potential environmental health hazards are embraced until proved to be detrimental. As I argued in last week's debate, these decisions are political ones to take. They go wider than the scientific case. I hope I am not being unfair in pointing out also how often the argument about costs to industry seems to come out on the winning side, and how seldom the consumer is given the benefit of the doubt. But doubt there is. It is simply not the case, as I have tried to show, that The scientific consensus from people who have a disinterested concern…has consistently said that VDU's are safe. I am quoting from evidence on page 42.

There is no time to go into why the evidence from environmental medicine is disregarded by mainstream medical science. It has to do, I think, with the emergence of a new paradigm in the understanding of health, and the two-generation timelag before new ideas gain acceptance. Historically, the pattern is familiar, but the consequences for the sick are unfortunate.

I find this a most interesting report, but I conclude by urging those who take the decisions to look as widely as possible for their evidence and to use science as their servant and not as their master in formulating policies that affect our health.

8.5 p.m.

Baroness Turner of Camden

My Lords, I wish I were able to welcome the report of the Select Committee on visual display units. I am afraid I cannot do so. I had hoped that the committee would recommend support for the European directive. As we have heard, it has not done so, despite the evidence it received and despite some of its own conclusions.

Over the past decade and a half, the number of VDUs in use has increased very substantially, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Allen, when introducing the report. In 1985 it was estimated that around 2 million VDUs were in use in Britain. The number is now much greater. There is no doubt at all, as the committee itself says, that the widespread use of VDUs has significantly altered the work pattern of office based employees. During this time, the number of complaints of health problems by office workers has increased. I know that from my own experience as a trade union official for many years in a white collar union. Twenty years ago, those who sought union assistance on health and safety questions were almost all in manufacturing industry, or else working in laboratories. Now that has changed and there are significant numbers of complaints from office workers, mainly women. Many of these complaints are associated with VDU work.

The committee agrees that there is widespread concern about the possible effect of VDUs on the health of workers. I can myself attest to that. In my own union, the Manufacturing, Science and Finance Union—I was formally an official of ASTMS, one of the founding unions of MSF—about 40 per cent. of our 650,000 members work in offices. It has been our experience that many employers have introduced VDUs with little or no consideration for the workers involved. Often the VDUs have simply appeared on the premises. Employees often get worried and upset when this happens.

As a result of our research, and also that of other organisations, including trade union international organisations, it would appear that there are five main categories of possible hazard associated with VDUs and five main categories of possible injury. There are the repetitive strain injuries, known as RSI, then there is musculoskeletal strain, stress, skin rashes, eye disorders and also possible reproductive hazards. All these conditions are specifically referred to in the report. All are covered to some extent by the directive.

The committee itself apparently believes that there is a link between these conditions and VDU work. As regards repetitive strain injuries, the committee says that there is little doubt that these are associated with work on VDUs. However, the committee believes that most problems can be resolved by good office management. That is fine, but in many cases there is not good office management. Where that is the case, injuries will tend to continue and even increase.

In offices where there is not good management, and also where trade union organisation is weak or nonexistent, employees will tend to make light of this condition for fear of losing employment, thus making things worse for themselves and rendering evidence more difficult to come by. The committee says that more should be done to ensure that guidelines on the use of VDUs are met. The noble Lord, Lord Allen, made reference to the very good guidelines which exist. But again there is no compulsion, and thus nothing is likely to be done.

One cannot emphasise too often that a good employer will do the right thing without rules or a directive. The rules and directives are required for the bad employer of whom numbers still exist, particularly in areas where there is high unemployment and where there is competition for the available jobs.

Musculoskeletal disorders produce pain in the back, neck and shoulder and also sometimes in wrists, hands and legs. That is another condition associated with VDU work. The greater the length of time spent on intensive VDU work without rest or pauses, the greater the risk of developing that type of disorder. That can be prevented by limiting the length of time spent on VDU work each working day, redesigning jobs to include a variety of tasks and ensuring that VDU work stations are ergonomically designed. Those matters are covered by the Commission directive. However, again the Committee believes that good management is the solution. Of course it is. Again I emphasise that one does not find good management everywhere.

The same recommendation is made in relation to stress. It is acknowledged that there is probably less stress if the operator has control over his or her workload. The Committee accepts that some employers could do more to ensure that operators have occasional breaks. But, again, no compulsion on employers is recommended. Again the Committee seems content to rely on exhortation and goodwill.

Moreover, there is also evidence that operators suffer from skin problems more frequently than office workers not doing VDU work. I have noted from time to time that women's magazines carry letters from readers complaining about the condition, and asking what they should do. The recommendations usually relate to maintenance of appropriate humidity levels and prevention of excessive temperatures. A Swedish study undertaken in 1988 compared skin diseases among VDU operators with other non-VDU office workers. It appeared that there was a higher degree of skin soreness and other forms of dermatitis among VDU operators than among other workers. That point has already been referred to in the speech made be the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin of Bewdley.

Reproductive hazards have long been of concern. There is a great deal of controversy surrounding the possible association between VDU work and adverse reproductive outcome—miscarriages and foetal damage. It is admitted that scientific studies have been rather limited and the results not clear. Quite obviously, more work needs to be done in that area. Meantime, it seems right that women who are or are trying to become pregnant should be able to transfer to non-VDU work if they wish to do so. Certainly my own union has negotiated such arrangements with a number of employers.

As for eye disorders, the Committee itself says that it believes that there is an association between eye complaints and VDU use, and that there is a case for routine testing of people who experience difficulties with VDUs. However, paragraph 47 of the report says that it is not felt that there is a case for insisting that all employers should meet the cost of special glasses required by an employee for VDU work. Again, many good employers do so already. Why should not the bad employers come up to the level of the good? If glasses are needed to do the employer's work, why should he not bear the cost?

The directive itself is a very moderate document. Its purpose is the laudable one of protecting the safety and health of workers. It specifies that employers shall be obliged to perform an analysis of work stations in order to evaluate safety and health risks and should take remedial measures where necessary. It stipulates that there should be adequate training of workers, and adequate information—something very lacking where there is not good office management. It provides for the consultation of workers or their representatives. It specifies that there should be appropriate eye examinations, and that workers should be provided with special glasses, if an examination reveals that they are required. I noted what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Allen, in presenting the report, with regard to translations; but I am sure that problem can be sorted out.

Those are very moderate measures indeed. As I have already said, most good employers would find no difficulty at all in complying with them. The very valid point is made by the Commission that safety measures in the long term are of benefit to employers since they tend to reduce the amount of time lost by employees. Why should good employers who already do the right thing suffer competition from bad employers who simply save on safety measures instead of spending money to ensure the health and safety of their employees?

I do not think that it is adequate to say that the public concern, which admittedly exists, can be met by explanation and by the recommendations of the report. That is sufficient where good office management exists; but what of those situations where it does not?

Nor is a code of practice adequate. That is also made clear in the report. It is clear that a code would not meet the requirements of the directive. It would appear to be the directive or nothing. Therefore the committee should have recommended support for this very moderate directive. Failure to do so will not allay public concern—quite the reverse. Because the committee has not recommended support for the directive, I cannot commend the report to your Lordships' House.

8.15 p.m.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Skelmersdale)

My Lords, I have listened with much interest to the helpful and constructive points made by noble Lords during the course of this important debate. When we started I thought that unanimity would break out in the Chamber, but clearly that was not to be.

Your Lordships' Select Committee on the European Communities has produced a detailed and incisive report on the European Commission's proposal for a directive on VDUs. As the noble Lord, Lord Allen, has said, the VDU proposal is one of six proposals for workplace health and safety directives. They are part of the programme to establish minimum standards of health and safety at work under Article 118A of the treaty. There is growing recognition that it is important that competition in the single market is not distorted by differences in health and safety standards with which employers in different member states are required to comply. If those differences are not redressed, industry in the United Kingdom—where health and safety standards are high—could be at a disadvantage with our competitors.

The new treaty provision in Article 118A provides specifically for Community measures on health and safety at work reflecting the belief that a truly common market needs to ensure comparable, high standards of health and safety for all its workers. The Government support that belief.

However, as I made clear in answer to a parliamentary Question from my noble friend Lord Oxfuird yesterday, we are particularly conscious of the importance of not imposing unnecessary burdens on industry, particularly small businesses. I am glad to say that the United Kingdom secured this as a specific requirement in Article 118A. We are doing our utmost to ensure that it is fully respected. But we are not seeking exemptions from the requirements for small businesses. Rather, we are looking for provisions that are flexible and sensible enough to be applied in all workplaces as appropriate, and which avoid unnecessary administration and cost burdens. Against that background I agree with the comment on page 5 of the Select Committee's report that the draft directive on VDUs warrants closer investigation, and I am very glad that we are debating it this evening.

The stated aim of the directive is to lay down minimum safety and health requirements to protect VDU workers. It would require member states to take all necessary measures to ensure that VDU work cannot compromise the safety and health of workers. It would require employers to analyse VDU work stations to evaluate safety and health risks. New work stations put into service two years after the directive comes into force would be required to comply with the minimum standards set out in the annex to the directive. These mainly concern the ergonomic design features of the VDU display and keyboard, and of the work station—desks, chairs and ancillary equipment such as lighting. Employers would be required to adapt existing work stations so far as is reasonably possible to comply with those minimum standards.

All workers would be given adequate training before starting work with VDUs and at regular intervals thereafter. They would also have to be given health and safety information. Eye examinations would be a requirement for all workers before starting VDU work, with special glasses being provided if the eye test showed this necessary. Employers would be required to consult their employees or their representatives about the measures to comply with the directive.

The proposal covers an area of public interest. It is estimated that some 3 million people curently use VDUs, and the number is steadily rising, while many more of us benefit from the greater efficiency which they bring. Technology is advancing—for example, in the design of new portable machines and laser technology.

It is important that the approach we adopt, while ensuring adequate attention to possible health and safety levels, does not inhibit desirable advances in design. I took careful note of the remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin of Bewdley, in that respect, because I have been responsible in the past for many of the subjects he touched upon.

We do not in the United Kingdom at present have legislation requiring specific health or safety precautions for users of VDUs, but employers' general duties are laid down in the Health and Safety at Work Act to ensure—so far as is reasonably practicable—the health, safety and welfare at work of all employees. As the House will know, the Act enables enforcing authorities to take action if a situation arises in which VDUs are causing a serious hazard. In addition, the Health and Safety Executive—for which I was glad to hear the full approval of the noble Lord, Lord Hunter of Newington, both with respect to its understanding and to its ability and practice of acting when necessary—has issued guidance on VDUs including a useful free booklet. Over a million copies have been distributed. I have arranged for copies to be made available in the Printed Paper Office of your Lordships' House.

In addition, the Health and Safety Executive is encouraging trade unions and the CBI to undertake proper education of workers on the realities of work with VDUs. The Government certainly support this process of disseminating sensible information. These arrangements amount to a flexible approach for providing information about possible risks and how to deal with them.

It would be possible to make regulations under the Health and Safety at Work Act relating specifically to VDUs and such regulations would probably be required if the directive goes through, but the view of the Executive and the Commission, with which the Government agree, has been that this is neither necessary nor appropriate. Your Lordships' Select Committee considers that the scientific evidence of major health hazards is weak and I believe it is too tenuous to justify more rigid requirements in an area where technological change makes flexibility essential.

Part of my work in the Department of Social Security takes me into headquarters buildings—I have now completed my second tour—where our staff, especially in the clerical grades, make great use of VDUs. I frequently stop and talk to officials using this equipment and inquire as to headaches, backaches and the like. Only last week I was in a general office where I was told that headaches did not persist after the operative had got used to the equipment, and it was particularly interesting to be told that in the office in question only half of the officials wanted improved lighting. As a result prismatic lights are to be installed in the next few weeks in one end of that particular room. I believe that this is the right approach—flexibility is the name of the game. This directive is far too prescriptive.

We warmly endorse the Select Committee's main conclusion that there is inadequate justification for the directive. We share the view that most of the problems, such as musculoskeletal disorders and stress, that can be associated with VDUs—I do not think that there is any argument between us about that—can be prevented by good management and work organisation, with effective information and training. This can best be achieved by our continuing to provide accurate information and encouraging employers.

Why did the European Commission decide that a directive on VDUs was necessary in the first place? That is indeed a very good question and the answer is far from self-apparent. The European Commission in evidence to your Lordships' Select Committee said that the directive was a response to the vast volume of concern about work with VDUs although there was little hard evidence of serious health risks. The Government feel that public concern is not in itself sufficient justification for a directive. I appreciate that what I have just said is anathema to the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, but I hope that she will follow my next few words very carefully indeed.

This begs a very important question which the noble Lord, Lord Allen, very nearly asked: why is it necessary to introduce such a measure at a time when work is well advanced in international standards-making bodies—the International Standards Organisation and its European equivalent (CEN)—on a new international standard for ergonomic aspects of VDUs in offices? These standards will cover much the same ground as the directive, but in greater detail and with more countries participating. I should add that the United Kingdom is both chairman and secretary of the relevant sub-committee of the International Standards Organisation through the British Standards Institute. We are therefore well placed to contribute to the discussion. The Government welcome the Select Committee's recommendation that the Community should await the publication of the ISO and CEN work before deciding whether there are grounds for a Community measure.

That is essential to the Government's support of the Select Committee report. I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Allen, that the ISO work is a set of multi-part standards covering screens, keyboards, lighting and so on, to some of which I have already referred. Some of these are very well advanced as draft international standards. Others will become draft proposals this year. It is probable that voting upon them in CEN will occur at the same time as in ISO in the next year or so, therefore it is hoped we shall probably know the results in 15 or 18 months' time.

I also endorse the view of the noble Lord, Lord Hunter, that the Commission and the Council of Ministers should be properly advised by experts. That point has been made regularly over the past eight years when I have been listening—and sometimes responding—to reports and comments from Members of your Lordships' Select Committee on the European Communities. I hope that the latter—namely, the Council of Ministers—is properly advised by its own national networks, including in our case of course the experts in your Lordships' House.

Sometimes the scientific and technical advice of the Commission leaves a certain amount to be desired and I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hunter, on that point.

It would be most unwelcome to industry if the directive was implemented in its present form. There would be substantial costs in modifying equipment and implementing additional measures such as eye tests. The directive would constrain the development and use of new kinds of equipment. Article 10 provides for the annex (which contains the detailed requirements for VDUs and work stations) to be adapted to technical progress, but the Government share the Select Committee's view that this process may have drawbacks.

In dealing with the details of the directive I propose to concentrate on Articles 5 and 6 and the annex which set out the requirements, and Article 9 which deals with eye tests.

Whether or not Articles 5 and 6 are acceptable will depend largely on the content of the annex. This would require all VDUs to have a separate keyboard and so prevent the use of many portable computers and other equipment. Requirements for work desks, document holders and position of VDUs would be costly and perhaps impossible to meet in some situations, such as where VDUs are built into specialised work stations.

The directive is also too wide in scope. It would apply to all work with VDUs however intermittent or occasional and to many kinds of equipment not commonly thought of as a VDU; for example, pocket calculators.

A good deal of concern has already been expressed about the requirement in Article 9 for workers to have eye tests which would be costly for employers. There is no scientific justification for pre-employment eye testing. Workers with existing eye defects are not especially likely to suffer eye problems when using a VDU. Eye problems from VDU work are caused by fatigue; the structure of the eye is not affected. VDUs do not place greater demands on the eyes than other office work. People who wear bifocals may need special glasses for VDU work, but such problems are best dealt with individually as they arise.

Nonetheless, I note your Lordships' view that there is a case for routine eye testing for people who experience difficulty working with VDUs. The Health and Safety Executive will of course want to consider this and I shall undertake that it shall do so. If eye tests are necessary, Britain has a comprehensive network of High Street opticians that employers could use. They have no need to set up their own testing facilities. I am advised that under the directive, as the Committee believe it to be drafted, the cost to industry would be some £13 million a year.

I spoke those words advisedly because I took the point that the noble Lord, Lord Allen, made about the mistranslation from the French. On behalf of the Government, I very much regret this unfortunate occurrence. Regrettably, with nine official languages in the European Community, mistranslations sometimes occur. Our officials take every opportunity, and will continue to do so, to impress upon the European Commission the importance of getting those documents correctly and properly translated.

It is perhaps understandable that there has been interest in the possible health hazards of VDUs. Many workers have had their working routines profoundly changed by computers and other aspects of new technology. Naturally some people will experience feelings of concern and will focus these on the equipment itself. VDUs are a case in point.

There have been allegations that VDUs cause miscarriages and other pregnancy problems but there is no substantive evidence that any such hazards actually exist. The Health and Safety Executive is, however, investigating this and two other health-related matters in the context of VDUs, as the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, knows. Nonetheless there is no substantive evidence as yet that any such hazards exist. This is the Government's view. The Government therefore welcome the Select Committee's recommendation that employers and trade unions should make every effort to educate and inform people about the realities of using this equipment. The Health and Safety Executive will continue its own efforts to do so.

In conclusion, the Government agree with the recommendations of your Lordships' committee that there is inadequate justification for the directive. We shall attempt to win support for our view in negotiations in the European Community.

I apologise that I have spoken rather longer than the average length of speech in this debate. I am extremely grateful on behalf of the Government that through the good functioning and workings of the House we have been able to contain this debate within our allotted time.

8.31 p.m.

Lord Allen of Abbeydale

My Lords, we have had a most interesting short debate. My experience suggests that it would have been disquieting if we had managed to produce a report which received unanimous approval. That would indeed give grave cause for suspicion. I listened with careful attention to what the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin of Bewdley, said. I should like to study in Hansard in more detail his very interesting remarks. He seemed to me to pick with unerring exactitude some of the evidence given to us which caused us some disquiet. I am always suspicious of a sentence that misuses the word "hopefully". The example that he chose was one that made us scratch our heads when we heard it.

On the interesting speech by the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden—I resist the temptation to call her my friend!—I venture to suggest that perhaps she underrates the problems of enforcement, of ensuring that one has good office management by regulation. I also take the point that the TUC evidence—which did not reach the heights of eloquence that her speech reached tonight—did not altogether coincide in its conclusions with the views that she so clearly put to us today. I am comforted with the thought that the next time we are debating a report from Sub-Committee C we are likely to have the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, speaking in support of the report as she has now been good enough to join the sub-committee.

In general, I find myself in agreement with the Government. That is not a universal experience for me. I am grateful for the information that the Minister has been able to give us. I should like to rub in the point that he made: that in our report we are not slamming the door and saying that everything is perfectly all right, and that nothing needs to be done. There are various inquiries going on. In particular, we have these international discussions. We shall all have to consider the subject again when we have the result of those discussions.

I should like to thank those who have taken part in the debate. I commend the report to the House.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Viscount Long

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.40.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

[The Sitting was suspended from 8.34 to 8.40 p.m.]