HC Deb 15 March 1965 vol 708 cc1030-40

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. O'Malley.]

10.52 p.m.

Mrs. Joyce Butler (Wood Green)

I rise to initiate a short debate on a highly complex and technical subject not because I have any professional knowledge of it, but because I have been deeply shocked and disturbed at the picture of muddle and indifference which has been revealed by it.

The facts are, briefly, that the Ministry of Labour proposes to introduce a ban on four known carcinogens which have been used in the rubber industry. The manufacture of these chemicals in this country was stopped 15 years ago, in 1949, because of the known risks in their use, but they continued to be imported from Germany and some firms in the rubber industry were still using them in 1960. Some small firms may even be using them today. In addition, the cable industry was still using these chemicals until 1960.

Bladder cancer, which can result from the use of these substances, may develop over a period of 15 to 30 years in workers who have been in the industries concerned. Therefore, even if all use of these chemicals had ceased in 1950, new cases could still arise until about the year 1980. It is scandalous that it has taken so long for effective action to be introduced completely to ban these known dangerous substances.

It is also urgent that all men who have been employed not only in the rubber industry, but also in the cable industry and the dyestuffs industry and in that section of the bootmaking industry where rubber soles are put on to shoes, should be traced and warned and have regular screening.

I should like to ask the Joint Parliamentary Secretary what is being done about this, because it involves not merely the 500 men who were mentioned in the Minister's statement on 15th February but tens of thousands, probably hundreds of thousands, of workers in the various industries involved, and the responsibility for tracing these men seems to have been tossed backwards and forwards between the Ministry and industry rather like a shuttlecock. I would ask the Minister whether he would accept responsibility for this and for tracing also the workers who have left the industries concerned but who still may be at risk.

I know that it is a tremendous job, but somebody must undertake it and it really would seem that the Ministry of Labour is in the best possible position to do it, assuming that the various firms concerned will co-operate, as I am sure they will. In particular, have all the firms where workers may be at risk been notified by the medical inspectorate? If this has not been done, may it be done urgently? Because it may be that many small firms are unaware of the danger.

Would my hon. Friend agree with the need voiced by the T.U.C. as long ago as 1954 and supported by medical opinion that this disease should be put on the schedule of notifiable industrial diseases? How much longer are we to wait before this is done? This is regarded as the most hopeful and most important single step which could be taken to deal with this very serious problem.

As though all this muddle and delay were not enough the indictment is even more serious, because 11 years ago Dr. Case, of the Beatty Research Institute, reported that other dangerous substances used in the rubber industry should be investigated. The facts about the suppression of some sections of his report at the request of the rubber manufacturers are now well known, but I cannot agree with the Minister that these omissions did not impede action, because as a direct result of the suppression, investigation of all possible cancer risks in the rubber industry has not been undertaken, and this, to me, is really unforgivable.

It is all the more serious since bladder tumour rates in the rubber industry have risen steadily since 1949 instead of dropping as might have been expected. At least one other chemical is suspect, and there may well be more, and it is really scandalous that men should be falling ill and dying and may be doing so because substances which should be narrowed down and identified have never been properly investigated.

In his statement on 15th February the Minister referred to a full survey of these two … industries"— the rubber industry and the cable industry, being undertaken by the inspectorate— with a view to establishing that these particular substances are no longer being used and that action is being taken to screen present and past employees."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th February, 1965; Vol. 706, c. 850–1.] I have just quoted the actual words the Minister used, but in the reports of his speech it was reported that he had said that a "full investigation" would be carried out, but, of course, this is not so, because from what he said in the House it appears that the survey is only concerned with the particular substances which have already been identified as being dangerous.

Since it is not really the function of the Ministry's inspectorate to carry out the detailed research required can the Joint Parliamentary Secretary say whether the Medical Research Council, which has been considering this matter for some months, is now going to undertake, or is actually undertaking, this research? He will know that an answer to this question is very eagerly awaited, and it really is long overdue.

There are two other questions which arise from the Minister's statement on 15th February. He said that surveys had been carried out by the Factory Inspectorate of the dyestuffs and textile finishing industries in 1960 and 1961, and the rubber and cable making industries in 1961. Can the Parliamentary Secretary say when these reports were published, and, if they were not published—the medical profession has no knowledge of them—can they be made available? I am sure that my hon. Friend will appreciate the importance of that point.

Can my hon. Friend also say why, following the survey of the cable making industry in 1961, urine screening was not insisted on as would seem to have been necessary?

This whole business is truly appalling. Only the report of the inquest on one victim, George Lucy, has brought many of these facts into the light of day. Even now more than 100 men at risk who have been traced and screened by Dr. Case and his colleagues in the past few weeks have heard nothing from the Ministry about screening arrangements, and Dr. Case and his colleagues have not been brought into consultation in any way. The matter is urgent, because there have been up to six deaths in the group of factories where Mr. Lacey worked, and four cases are under investigation.

How much longer are we to wait, both for a full investigation of all the possible hazards, and for a full-scale operation to trace all the men who can possibly be at risk? I appreciate that this whole sorry story took place before the present Minister took office, and that this past history is not really his responsibility, but his urgent action is vitally necessary now. I know that he is very concerned about it, and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to answer some of the questions which I have asked. I hope that urgent action will be taken to put right, without any more delay, some of the serious defects which have been revealed in this industry and others related to it in connection with this very serious disease.

11.3 p.m.

Mr. Peter Shore (Stepney)

I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Butler) has raised this subject. It is a matter of great importance to many thousands of people employed in the industries which have been mentioned, the rubber and cable-making industries, and the textile finishing industries. It is also a matter of great importance to the unions whose members are principally engaged in these industries, and, of course, to the T.U.C. itself, which has a very fine and honourable record in promoting better health in industry.

I accept that this is a very complex matter, and, as I have only a minute or two in which to make my points, I should like to concentrate on the three main aspects of the matter with which I hope the Minister will deal.

First, there is the need for the early detection of people who have been exposed to hazards in the industries concerned. I am aware that cytological screening units have been made available for the rubber and cable-making industries, but I put to the Minister what was so forcibly put by my hon. Friend, that it would be a good idea if this could be extended to the textile printing industry.

The second point is that it is necessary to have more effective preventive measures. We know that the Carcinogenic Substances Orders are shortly to come into force, and this is a welcome step; but there is a need for a major survey and to carry this a good deal wider into the chemicals that are used in these industries.

I note that in his statement of 15th February my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour referred to the possibility of the Medical Research Council investigating this fully. I hope that we shall get more definite answers from my hon. Friend tonight on the possibilities of this investigation.

Finally, I urge on the Minister a somewhat new approach to the whole problem of industrial health. I think that, in the past, there has been a natural tendency to concentrate on a few known and well-defined industrial diseases, and, of course, on the danger of accidents in industry. I have a feeling—and I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary will have evidence about this—that, in the future, the danger to industrial health is likely to come more and more from the use of chemicals in manufacturing industry. Because this is so, and because chemical processes in manufacturing industry are constantly changing, the result is that the industrial worker is often in the position of a guinea pig. This is not good enough. What we need, and must urge upon the Minister, is much greater research into the dangers of new manufacturing processes, before they are introduced into industry.

11.6 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Ernest Thornton)

I have listened with great interest to what my hon. Friends have said on this very important subject. It is a matter which, quite rightly, has given rise to considerable concern. I can assure the House that this concern is shared by my Department and by my colleagues in the Government. It is also fair, and, I think, encouraging, to say that I have found that it is shared by both sides of the industries concerned. We are all anxious to ensure that everything possible is done to overcome this serious problem, and to ensure that workers are no longer exposed to these risks, and, in the case of those unfortunate enough to have been exposed in the past, to give them the necessary medical protection.

The problem, as I see it, will be overcome by taking action in a number of ways as soon as practicable, and, not, I would respectfully suggest, by recriminations about what happened some years ago. I think that we have noted what happened, and that we have drawn certain lessons from it. Reference has been made to the alleged suppression of evidence in the medical paper about occupational bladder cancer in the rubber industry, published in 1954. My hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Butler) also made reference to this. On this question, I have nothing to add to the account which my right hon. Friend gave to the House on 15th February, except to say that my right hon. Friend and I have read the papers and looked into the matter closely, and we are quite convinced that the amendments were made without any improper motive and without any thought of suppressing medical evidence.

For the benefit of my hon. Friends, I should like to say that I am not without experience of some of these serious industrial diseases. As a trade union secretary for 30 years, I had to deal, from the point of view of the union and of the members' interests, with a very serious industrial disease. One of the problems which I, as a responsible trade union officer, had was to attempt to balance the need to call attention to the hazard with the desire not to add unduly to the mental strain and suffering of persons who may have been at risk, many of whom might not have contracted the disease. Seeing that there is still considerable anxiety, as voiced by at least one of my hon. Friends, about this document, I propose to place a copy of the original draft, with the amendments and the additions marked, in the Library for hon. Members to see. As to the rôle of the then Senior Medical Inspector, it is fair to say that this has tended to be misrepresented, and that he, taking the view that these medical findings were very valuable, took a leading part in obtaining agreement to publication.

It has been suggested that my Department has been unduly late in taking the necessary action.

I was asked about legislation. I would point out that, for reasons of practicability, it is not our policy to make special regulations for each of the vast range of dangerous substances used in industry. There are provisions in the Factories Act, as my hon. Friend knows, relating to protection against dangerous substances in general, and these provisions are actively enforced. In the first instance we prefer to rely on these general provisions and on encouraging industry to take the necessary action itself.

In his statement of 15th February my right hon. Friend described the efforts made by the manufacturers' associations in this field. However, on finding indications that the recommendations of the manufacturers' associations might not be gaining total compliance and that importation from abroad might be continuing, it was decided that special legislation was required, and the first drafts of Instruments to prohibit the manufacture, use and importation of certain carcinogenic substances were circulated for comment last year.

Hon. Members have suggested at one time or another that once the existence of this hazard had been at least prima facie established, more rapid progress should have been made, particularly in providing for closer medical supervision or those who had been subjected to it. I find myself in very great sympathy with this view, but in fairness I must point out that we can see this problem much more clearly with the knowledge which we now possess than would have been possible 10 years ago. Medical knowledge and resources in this field, as in others, have been developing during this period, and indeed it is only comparatively recently that it has become possible to provide facilities on a wide scale for screening people who may have contracted this disease.

I should like to turn to the question of action to deal with this health problem. On 15th February my right hon. Friend described the steps which he proposed to take, and I am sure that the House wishes to know what progress has been made. My right hon. Friend said that the Factory Inspectorate was to carry out a full survey of the rubber and cable-making industries. This survey has been completed. The Factory Inspectorate visited 474 factories and the inspectors' reports show that they obtained the fullest co-operation from management. Full information was given about the anti-oxidants and hardeners used in the past.

The reports on the results of this survey are being examined, and it appears that the use of carcinogenic substances has now ceased entirely, except that in some cases imported materials have been used. The Factory Inspectorate is carrying out some checks to find out whether these imported materials contain carcinogenic substances. Prohibition of imports could not take place until there had been a prohibition on their manufacture by home industry. My right hon. Friend also said that the industries and firms concerned would be asked to identify and trace employees and ex-employees who might have been exposed to the substances and that he was providing a warning card for the purpose.

In the case of the rubber and cable-making industries, these arrangements have been made as part of the survey to which I referred. Employers in these industries have co-operated fully in this operation. I ought perhaps to stress that we do not expect large numbers to require treatment. In certain areas, however, where numbers are concentrated, there may be a strain on the pathological laboratories who will carry out these examinations. It has been thought right, therefore, to give priority to the rubber and cable-making industries; and I will bear in mind the points relating to other industries made by my hon. Friends.

We will cover the chemical and other industries as soon as practicable and we are already in consultation with the Association of British Chemical Manufacturers to work out detailed arrangements. Priority is being given to the preparation of the Regulations and Order prohibiting the manufacture, use and importation of certain carcinogenic substances, although I am not yet able to say precisely when they will be made.

Reference has been made to expert opinion which is critical of some aspects of these Instruments, particularly their scope. I will take this opportunity to clear up a misunderstanding which may have arisen about our attitude to the comments and criticisms which have been received. It seems to have been assumed in some quarters that we have rejected these comments because we have not yet given our views on those we have received. This is not so.

In accordance with the usual practice, when these draft Instruments were circulated a number of months were given during which interested organisations and persons could submit their comments. These comments must be considered collectively. The object of circulating preliminary drafts is to obtain the views of interested and expert parties. We have been particularly fortunate with these Instruments in getting a good deal of expert opinion in the comments which have been submitted to us, and these comments are now being carefully considered. The Factory Inspectorate is looking into technical questions which arise and consultations will shortly be started with a view to meeting those criticisms.

Both my hon. Friends raised the question of research. This is a matter on which consultations continue with the Medical Research Council. We understand from the Council that basic research, which it regards as being part of the general problem of research into cases of cancer, is constantly in progress and that this work will continue. Apart from basic research, however, there is a need in our view and in the view of the M.R.C. for investigation into specific industrial problems. As regards the rubber industry, I understand that some months ago the Rubber Manufacturing Employers' Association approached the M.R.C. with suggestions for an investigation. The M.R.C. has been looking into the evidence and will soon be replying to that inquiry.

The Senior Medical Inspector of Factories, who is constantly in touch with other medical authorities on all questions of occupational disease, is proposing to establish an advisory panel of medical experts on bladder cancer, similar to existing advisory panels dealing with other hazards. My right hon. Friend will be discussing with his Industrial Health Advisory Committee what new measures may be needed in the light of developing knowledge.

The question was posed about making bladder cancer a notifiable industrial disease under the Factories Act. This is being considered and will be submitted by my right hon. Friend to the Industrial Health Advisory Committee. There is in some quarters doubt as to whether a notification requirement would be the best way of getting the information, but I assure my hon. Friends that my right hon. Friend will be discussing what is the best method with his Advisory Committee.

My right hon. Friend said on 15th February that he was to receive a deputation on this whole matter from the T.U.C. This deputation has now been received. It included trade union representatives from each of the National Joint Industrial Councils of the two industries which we have been primarily discussing tonight. A number of interesting questions were raised and I think it can be said that both sides found the discussion very useful.

The House will see—from what I have said tonight and from what my right hon. Friend previously stated—that there is a good deal which needs to be done to overcome this problem. I hope that the House will agree that a proper start has been made. I am grateful to both my hon. Friends for their helpful suggestions, and I will certainly look into the questions raised with reference to the textile printing and other industries.

I promise my hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green that I will approach all this with a sense of deep personal interest and that, as one with long personal experience of some of these allied problems, I will give them the closest consideration.

Mrs. Butler

I wonder whether my hon. Friend could say that, when the Medical Research Council has replied to the rubber manufacturers and decided what should be done, the report will be made public knowledge for those of us who, although most deeply interested in the matter, have no direct association with the industry?

Mr. Thornton

I cannot give a specific undertaking now, but I assure my hon. Friend that I will bear that request in mind.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-one minutes past Eleven o'clock.