I beg to move,
That this House, mindful that noise is probably the most widespread and underestimated of industrial hazards, and aware that much more needs to be done not only to protect the hearing of workers but also to make more extensive, fair and equitable arrangements adequately to compensate those already injured by industrial noise, calls on Her Majesty's Government to adopt more rigorous standards to regulate and reduce industrial noise levels, including further statutory requirements to control noise at source, together with requirements that appropriate standards be incorporated in the design and development of industrial premises, machinery and equipment; further calls on the Government immediately to implement the recommendations of the Report of the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council, Cmnd. 8749, published in November 1982, and in particular the recommendations:—(i) that occupational deafness should be prescribed in relation to any occupation involving work wholly or mainly in the immediate vicinity of prescribed processes; (ii) that the time a claimant is required to have worked in a prescribed occupation should be reduced from twenty years to ten years; (iii) that the period since leaving a prescribed occupation within which a claim must be made should be increased from twelve months to five years; (iv) that the Department of Health and Social Security should ensure that audiological testing should be carried out only by fully qualified people; (v) that the word `permanent' should no longer appear in the statutory definition of PD48 (occupational deafness); and (vi) that a standing working group of the Council should be set up which would collect evidence on noisy occupations not covered by the occupational deafness scheme; and notwithstanding the important role of such a group, further calls upon the Government immediately to recognise that the present categories of occupational deafness contained in Schedule 1 of the Social Security (Industrial Injuries) (Prescribed Diseases) Regulations 1980 are anomalous and inadequate, leaving out of their scope many cases of industrial deafness clearly attributable to occupational causes, and forthwith to amend the Regulations accordingly, taking into account in so doing the very large number of successful common law claims in which damages are conceded by employers and their insurers but which do not at present qualify for any benefit or compensation under the existing statutory arrangements, thus bringing British practice and law nearer to that of some other industrial countries which have more beneficial arrangements; and calls upon the Government to press vigorously for the international adoption of these higher standards so that no country may gain an unfair advantage in world markets from the exploitation of the health and well-being of its workers.
We have had an agreeable debate today, and I do not wish to say anything that might make the day any less agreeable. I wish to express my appreciation of the fact that the House has conducted its business today in such a way that I am able to speak on my motion. I have no complaint about the fact that, in the previous debate, the Under-Secretary of State for Employment to some extent anticipated my remarks. I do not think that he intended to pre-empt anything that I or anyone else might say. Indeed, I very much welcomed some of his remarks about noise and occupational deafness. I assure him that if he pursues, as doubtless he will, the interest he has already shown in this matter, he will be able to rely on a great deal of support not only from me but from the House in general, and certainly from my hon. Friends who have shown a consistent interest in this subject over a long period.
My motion inevitably straddles different Government Departments. I would not expect the Under-Secretary of State for Employment to respond to those issues which are quite properly the responsibility of the Department of Health and Social Security. While I would have been glad had a Minister from that Department attended, I would not expect on a Friday, when there is always some doubt about whether we will reach other motions, a Minister from the Department of Health and Social Security to be present, although I hope that at the conclusion of the debate the Under-Secretary of State for Employment will ensure that not only the motion but the remarks that I shall address to the House are drawn to the attention of his right hon. Friends.
I am glad to see my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. Welsh) in his place. He has returned from Doncaster, where he had an important constituency engagement, to take part in the debate, if he is fortunate enough to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am particularly grateful to him not only for the consistent interest he has shown in this subject but for his invaluable advice and help in drafting the lengthy motion before the House. I confess to having some direct and personal interest in the subject. I do not know whether I am of the upper age scale to which the Under-Secretary of State referred. I am, however, one of those who has to pin his ear to the amplifier as I am partially deaf in at least one ear. I attribute this not to advancing years, but to my former industrial experience in the engineering industry.
More important than my personal experience is that of many of the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley and myself who suffer partial deafness and hearing difficulties incurred in their occupations. I think in my constituency of the number of cases that arise in the engineering industry, particularly the railway workshops at Doncaster, the coal mining industry and the glass manufacturing industry. In many cases such people have inadequate scope for securing a remedy. The motion before the House draws attention to some of the anomalies and inadequacies of present statutory arrangements under which people can seek compensation.
I understand that little can be done in many cases to restore the hearing of those who have been injured. Most cases of industrial deafness, I am informed, are irreversible. I share the Minister's view that many people seem to think that all that is needed is the passing of an Act of Parliament. Notwithstanding what the Minister has stated about the expectations that people attach to legislation, it lies within the power of the Government and the House to take some action. It is our duty to try to ensure that people who incur industrial deafness have adequate opportunities to seek compensation. More important, it is our duty to try to ensure that far fewer people in future are disabled, with all the misery and unhappiness that is consequential upon that disability, by industrial noise.
The principal target that we should seek to achieve is to cut down industrial deafness and therefore the cost of compensating deafness. Many hon. Members know that this can be done and also know why it is not done—the cost, and our competitiveness in world markets. I hope that I am not unfairly representing the Minister's remarks. There was, however, an implication that desirable things should be done but cannot be done because they would affect adversely the competitiveness of British industry in world markets. I understand that view. I hope, however, that the hon. Gentleman is not arguing that we should stand still until we have persuaded all our competitors that they should accept the standards that we think appropriate or that we should be prepared to sacrifice the well-being and health of our workers by accepting lower standards.
I wonder whether adequate research has been done into the cost to industry and to the economy of failing to take action that has long been advocated but which we are told would adversely affect the competitive edge of British industry. I refer to the cost of compensating needless disability—a matter pursued by the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown) earlier today. I recall, as will the hon. Gentleman, my return as junior Minister to the Department of Employment in 1974, when the Woodworking Machines Regulations 1974 were in gestation. The hon. Gentleman came to see me on behalf of the furniture workers' trade union to insist that we should include in regulations what is now implemented as a consequence of his representations—that is, the statutory requirement of a noise limit of 90 decibels.
We were bitterly opposed by the officials of the Department. The Health and Safety Executive had not been set up. Its predecessor, the factory inspectorate, and its officials, supported the Department and bitterly opposed us. Despite their opposition, we went ahead. Their line was that it was much more desirable, instead of proceeding in a piecemeal fashion, to have across-the-board noise limits. They said that they were on the threshold of doing that and that if the hon. Gentleman and I would only have patience there would be across-the board limits.
That was in 1974. We are nine years on and still waiting for those limits. If I could have looked ahead and had an almanac to tell me that we would have this debate today, I would not only have proceeded with more vigour to ensure that we got that requirement in the Woodworking Machines Regulations 1974 but I would have been keen to ensure that it applied to other appropriate regulations rather than having to wait for across-the-board provisions that never come.
We still have the same voluntary code that was introduced in 1972, which years ago the industrial health advisory committee of the Department of Employment said should have statutory backing. As long ago as June 1980 the Under-Secretary of State for Employment said that the Health and Safety Commission was considering proposals for legislation within the framework of the 1974 Act. That was nearly three years ago. We are entitled to ask what has happened. Where is that legislation?
I say to the Minister, if I may be presumptuous enough to give him some advice, that he does not want to let those people get away with this "Yes Minister" stuff about setting up committees. Those people say to each other that they will con the Minister and wait until he has moved on to the Home Office or somewhere else and then they can do the same to the next one. There are some good people in the Minister's Department, but he should watch out. There are many Sir Humphreys in Whitehall and there are one or two at Caxton house.
I understand the arguments about cost, but I hope that the Government will not continue to use that as a pretext for inaction. Those arguments can be overplayed. I understand what the Minister said about the need to try to get other countries to march in harmony with us, but I hope that he will not allow that to be an excuse for inaction. I am as concerned about the health and safety of workers in France, Belgium, Australia and Canada or anywhere else as about workers here. I hope that the Government will press for the adoption of international standards. I hope that, despite the Government's manifest contempt for the International Labour Office, they will continue to press it for vigorous action on the adoption of international standards.
The other leg of my motion deals with compensation for deafness. Recently The Observer carried a report with the headline:
Severe rules on work-deaf to be relaxed".
There was no question mark at the end of that heading. It was a categorical assertion. I was disappointed to read that that report, by the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council, has not yet received the endorsement of the Government. One of the purposes of drafting and tabling my motion was to press the Government for an immediate response to the report in the most positive way.
My hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. Welsh) must have drawn considerable satisfaction from the report, as its principal recommendations are what he pressed the Government for in the debate on 14 December 1981—the relaxation of the 20-year and 12-month rules. The then Minister commented that when the council's recommendations were available they
will be looked at with care and sympathy by the Government."—[Official Report, 14 December 1981; Vol. 15, c. 136.]
That report has now been with the Government since November. I hope that we shall soon see some care and sympathy in response to its recommendations, as was promised my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley. I hope that the Secretary of State for Social Services will write to me when the report of today's debate has been published and let me know how quickly we will see that sympathy and care.
There are other anomalies in the existing regulations which are not adequately or properly responded to by the national advisory council. There are, for example, the types of problems that I have encountered—no doubt other hon. Members have too—in my constituency. The Social Security (Industrial Injuries) (Prescribed Diseases) Regulations 1980 give a narrow list of the occupations in which people may suffer deafness and those who, if they pass the 20-year test and the 12-month rule, may qualify for some form of statutory compensation.
The first is the case of someone who has been employed for 20 years in
The use, or supervision of, or the asssistance in the use, of pneumatic percussive tools".
Provided that those people have worked with such tools for 12 months before the application for statutory compensation, they may have a case. That means that someone who has worked with, for example, a pneumatic hammer or a riveter and suffers deafness may have a claim. The regulations refer to
The use, or supervision of or assistance in the use".
Therefore, the person helping him, whom we call a dolly in the engineering industry, who goes deaf, may also have a claim. So does the foreman in his office 400 yards up the shop because he is a supervisor, but the poor chap who has been pusing the brush around that area for 20 years has no claim at all.
The regulations refer to
the use of high-speed grinding tools, in the cleaning, dressing or finishing of cast metal or of ingots, billets or blooms".
Anyone who has been employed in a boiler shop will know that the most agonising noise that anyone can endure is the sound of a grindstone being operated inside a welded cylinder.
My final point, which is also referred to in the motion, relates to the number of claims that succeed at common law but which are barred from compensation under this scheme. There are many such cases in my constituency, including those of people who have worked in glass manufacturing, railway workshops and coal mining. It is inexplicable to them that they suffer crippling injuries, incurred in the course of employment, as the jargon has it, yet they cannot qualify for any state benefit or compensation as they would be able to do if they suffered from other industrial injuries. That seems to me and to them to be contrary to the principles on which the industrial injuries scheme was founded.
I hope to leave time for my hon. Friends to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hope, as he suggested by a nod of his head, that the Minister will pass on what I have said to the Secretary of State for Social Services and the Secretary of State for Employment so that we can have their comments on what has been said today and, which is more important, they can show by their actions that we have persuaded them of the need to do more not merely to reduce industrial noise but to help those people who have suffered industrial deafness.
I support the motion of my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker) on industrial noise and industrial deafness. I must be brief because of shortage of time, but the matter should be given more time for debate. The last time that it was debated was when I introduced an Adjournment debate in December 1981. I was surprised that it was so long ago, because to me it seemed as though it was only three months ago.
The reason is probably that after the age of 35 there are only six months in a year.
I am grateful for the Minister's comments about deafness during the previous debate. Deafness is not accepted as the evil that it is. I am reminded of the story of the gentleman who took a blind lad to the circus. Afterwards he was asked whether he had enjoyed it and he said "Yes, but I felt sorry for those who are deaf and who could not hear the beautiful noises of the animals." It shows that the incapacitated think seriously about others, but generally deafness is not accepted or talked about as much as it should be.
My right hon. Friend quoted the words of the Minister of State for Health and Social Security during that Adjournment debate. He said:
I assure the hon. Gentleman that the recommendations that the council makes when its review is completed will be looked at with care and sympathy by the Government."—[Official Report, 14 December 1981; Vol. 15, c. 136.]
I am sure that that is true. I have every sympathy with the Minister of State, and I am sure that the Government think the same way. The report has now been out for four months, and I am grateful for its recommendations. It still leaves much to be desired, but, as the Secretary of State said earlier, one cannot move the world overnight. Its
recommendations are welcome, and I hope that the Government will accept new recommendations that will improve the lives of those who suffer from industrial deafness.
An important recommendation in the report is the extension to the "immediate vicinity". It has been extended to any occupation involving work wholly or mainly in the immediate vicinity of the prescribed process. The recommendation will bring many individuals into the scope of the regulations. Another recommendation is that the additional audiological examinations should not overburden the National Health Service, but the Health Service has given an assurance that it will not be so overburdened. It is strange that justice has not been done to those who suffer from industrial deafness because audiological examinations could not take place. They were considered to be too heavy a burden on the NHS. This recommendation goes some way to alleviating the problem. Hon. Members on both sides of the House should support the recommendation.
The fourth recommendation is that a claimant should be required to have worked for 10 years in the prescribed occupation. That is still not good enough, but it is a step in the right direction. Canada, the United States of America and European countries have no time limit. In those countries, if one becomes deaf in the first six months of employment, one will receive the industrial deafness benefit. Britain is the only country in the free world that has such a long time limit. If the Government accept the recommendation, 20 years will be reduced to 10. I trust that the Minister will pass those comments on to the DHSS, and to the Minister responsible for implementing these recommendations. A total of 10,500 claims have been made for industrial deafness benefits in the 25 months to 29 September 1981, but only 1,850 were accepted. That was due to the application of the infamous 20-year rule. When the period is reduced to 10 years, many more people will come into the net. I want to see justice done. That is one of the main features of the recommendations. Britain should get nearer to Europe in the way in which it treats its workers.
The fifth recommendation is vitally important because the period from leaving a prescribed occupation within which a claim must be made should be increased from 12months to five years. That was explained by my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster. That is good. This provision will allow claims to increase by 10 per cent. Justice will be done to those claims. The nation should be pleased and the Government proud to accept a recommendation of that description.
The sixth recommendation (vi) provides that the DHSS should ensure that audiological testing is carried out by fully qualified people. An arrangement has been reached with the DHSS on the standard of audiological technicians and consultants. Hon. Members can be assured that examinations will be carried out by fully qualified people. It is wrong for examinations to be carried out by those who are not fully qualified. I hope that that recommendation is accepted. The 12th recommendation states that the word "permanent" should no longer appear in the statutory definitions of occupational deafness. I welcome that as it allows the well-tried practices that are employed in other prescribed diseases to continue. Doctors can re-examine the matter.
I recommend that the standing working group of the council, recommended in the 17th paragraph, should be set up. I trust that the Government will accept this recommendation. New industries and new technologies are beginning to become involved. If a council is set up, it will help to prevent deafness.
Hon. Members have waited a long time for the report by the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council in accordance with section 141 of the Social Security Act 1975 on the operation of the provisions for occupational deafness and on whether these should be extended. The report has arrived. I hope that the Minister will take cognisance and implement these findings as soon as possible.
I do not wish to concentrate on the recompense aspect which has been so admirably put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. Welsh) and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker). I declare not a financial interest but two special interests. I have one in each ear. I am profoundly deaf. I am principally concerned with prevention. I wish to underline some of the points made by my right hon. Friend. Deafness is a disability that receives little sympathy. People do not understand it because they cannot see it.
There are many things that can be done to deal with industrial deafness. First, I urge a lowering of the permitted level of decibels. Secondly, there should be a six-month check in occupational health services. That will not necessarily fall on the NHS; it could be done by a company medical officer. For example, Heinz, which makes excellent baked beans, operates a six-monthly check on all noise departments in its factories.
Thirdly, we think about mufflers, yet our knowledge of technology and acoustic ability means that we can reduce the acoustic level—
It being half-past Two o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.