The proposed Optical Radiation Directive has a long history. It was created approximately twelve years ago and was passed in the first reading in the European Parliament already in 1994! European officers have been working on the final form until now.

At the plenary session in the first week of September, the European Parliament will vote on the proposed directive in the second reading. Heated discussions about the final form have been going on since the spring.

The main subject of dispute is whether this directive should be limited to artificial sources of light (which nobody is questioning) or if it should also deal with natural sources of radiation, such as sunlight and its effects. Equally disputed is the question if the responsibility of the protection against the adverse effects of sunlight radiation lies on the employee or if the responsibility should be transfered to the employer.

The directive proposes that the employer should be responsible for health protection and safety at work, and therefore should be responsible for the protection of employees against sunlight radiation. One discussed version suggests that the employer should evaluate the risks of health and diseases for employees exposed to sunlight radiation, so that it would be possible to designate and implement measures necessary to minimalize these risks. Should the evaluation reveal potential risks, the employer must elaborate and implement technical and organizational measures with the goal of minimalizing these health and safety risks.

The directive gives further orders to member states to implement measures that guarantee satisfactory health supervision over employees with the objective to prevent and identify early all harmful health effects related to the exposure of employees to light radiation.

A group of MEPs, in which I am included, proposes to exclude natural light sources, such as sunlight radiation, from this directive. We believe that natural sunlight does not belong to this directive and that it is incorrect to transfer part of the responsibility for the protection against it to the employer. A strong argument for this opinion is a fact that it is not possible to separate the effect of the sunlight radiation on the human health during work and during leisure. The effects of sunlight radiation add up. Within the fraction EPP-ED (European People's Party and European Democrats) also emerges a compromise. According to this view, the question of protection by employees against sunlight radiation should be resolved under the competence of governments of individual member countries.

According to my opinion, this solution is is an excuse and it is harmful. It is an excuse as it transfers the decision responsibility to national governments, not because the national governments could resolve the problem better, but because the EU institution does not know how to handle it. It is harmful as it gives room to different, incompatible and unstable solutions. As a consequence, it may result in limiting the movement of people and employees withing the European Union.

I believe that common sense will prevail during the voting at Strasbourg and that the natural sunlight will be removed from the directive. Should this not be the case, I cannot vote for this directive.