MINERAL OIL (INDUSTRIAL HAZARDS) (Hansard, 18 June 1976)

§ Miss Joan Lestor (Eton and Slough)

The House will be aware of the fight that the miners had over a period of years to establish the industrial hazards and dangers to health caused by the mining industry. Indeed, that fight still goes on today. The fight took place at a time when many of the dangers in the mining industry were well known and well established.

A similar thing seems to be taking place in relation to the use of mineral oil in industry. Anyone with a constituency such as mine, with over 700 factories, many of them concerned with light engineering, must be alarmed at some of the information now coming forward about the industrial hazards and health hazards connected with the use of mineral oil. The World Health Organisation quite recently said that 1063 between 80 and 90 per cent. of human cancers are in some way or other related to the environment.

It is quite clear that cancer of the scrotum is directly related to the use of mineral oils in industry. In 1967 the report of the factory inspectors said that where this occurred in their opinion there was no doubt about it, and that the incidence of cancer of the scrotum also related to contact with soot, tar, pitch and other things as well as oil.

In fact, the dangers have been known since 1775. As long ago as 1910 it was known that certain activities of cotton mule spinners were causing cancer, and some degree of control began to be applied there.

No one, therefore, is in any danger of not knowing the facts, yet it seems to me and to those concerned with this hazard that the Government themselves, as well as many of those most directly connected with oil, are ignoring or somewhat watering down some of the dangers that exist.

For example, last year the Department of Employment, in its monthly news bulletin, for April 1975, dealing with how to save energy, suggested that by using an old wire basket to catch the swarf from the vast amounts of cutting oil used when boring cylinder blocks, it was possible to enable the oil to be recycled. In other words, if the oil were saved it could be recycled.

No doubt this appeared to be and was a most patriotic suggestion in the light of the general oil crisis and the general energy crisis, yet it is well known by another Government Department—and certainly well known by the factory inspectors—that heating oils to the temperatures required in boring a cylinder block causes an increase in the cancer-producing properties of the oil. The factory inspectors' report for 1967 highlighted the dangers of this.

The Government have prescribed a safe level of oil mist. Oil mist is highlighted by medical and other opinion as being one of the biggest industrial hazards in relation not only to cancer of the scrotum but also lung cancer, skin cancer, blood poisoning, and so on. The Government's "threshold limit values", as they are called, represent conditions under which workers may be repeatedly exposed 1064 —it may be five days a week, for six, seven or eight hours a day—without adverse effects.

This is being contested very strongly by certain medical opinion in this country. Those standards were set over 15 years ago. The Government should perhaps look a little more closely at how those standards were arrived at. Most of the work that contributed towards these standards was done by the American Petroleum Institute, which is financed by the oil companies. Much of what it said has been contested by the British Society for Social Responsibility in Science, which is very sceptical of the way in which these standards were arrived at and the arguments used to support them.

I want to make one short quotation from a pamphlet published by the British Society. It makes the following criticism: The Institute refers to a study on the health of workers subject to oil mist in a steel mill. There was evidence on X-ray on lung changes among some of the men. But what is 'some'—10 per cent., 20 per cent.? In fact, it turned out to be 12 of the 19 men examined. The honest word, of course, would have been 'most' or 'the majority'". Again in the review, which was the background to setting the standards, it was said: They talk of some reported cases of skin cancer from contact with certain mineral oils. In England alone between 1920 and 1947 no fewer than 1,1441 cases of skin cancer attributable to mineral oil were reported to the Government, and the real total may well have been higher". So when does "some" become "many", and what work has been done since these limits were set to ensure that we are not in danger of exposing workers who are using oil in this way to some of the risks? In 1950, for example, Drs. Cruickshank and Squire had published and were well aware of the dangers in used heated oils. Yet, as far as the British Society is aware, all the tests have been done on unused oils. Much of the danger comes from the heating of oils and the process through which used heated oil has been put. All the tests done on ainmals to set the danger level were done with unused oil.

In 1974, the Health and Safety at Work Act explanation pamphlet put out by the TUC talked about some of the safeguards now in existence to avoid 1065 some of the dangers which had been highlighted and which were causing so much concern in industry. The TUC said: Air filtration units specially designed for the elimination of micro-fog oil pollution in machine shops are now widely used in modern plants. In fact, all the evidence suggests that they are not widely used at all, and one of the biggest companies has commented that many of them have been sold abroad rather than being put to use in this country where the danger is very high.

I should like the Minister to comment on what has taken place since the safety threshold limits were established to ensure that we are aware of or are not ignoring some of the changes which may have come to light since then as a result of medical and scientific opinion. I should also like to know what we are doing to highlight to people in industry—those who bear the heaviest responsibility, the oil companies, and management, workers and trade unions—to make sure that people are aware of the dangers and are taking the necessary protective measures for their work people and also in relation to the machinery which is used.

The hazards have been recognised by the courts for some time, and there have been a few cases where compensation has been paid to widows and others because it has been judged that the cancer or other disability was caused by the use of mineral oils.

One matter that might usefully be considered is a system of regular medical checks on all workers directly connected with the use of mineral oils. In saying that, I have in mind not only those using it now but those who have been involved in the past. Just as the miners found that one of the great difficulties that they faced was that of getting compensation and other consideration for those who developed various forms of lung disease long after they had left the mines, this also seems to be the case arising from the use of mineral oils.

I also believe that the Government should consider concentrating much more not just on telling workers to use protective clothing and to wash it regularly—because it has been established that the simple washing of clothes which have been exposed to large amounts of oil mist 1066 will not eradicate it—but on the cleanliness of machines and on clearing oil mists from them.

In some instances where men and women have to wear protective clothing, there is often something wrong which could be corrected in the application of that from which they are being protected. It is not enough simply to allow the message to go out that if people wear the protective clothing provided they are less likely to be affected by it.

In the light of information that is accruing day by day, and that which has been known for some considerable time, the Government should establish an inquiry into the hazards connected with the oil industry in relation to those men and women who work every day in an atmosphere where the air is polluted, and which is known to cause disease and illness.

The Government should also look at the way in which tests have been carried out in the past. They should ensure that in the future tests are made with used oil which has already been heated and is known to contain these dangerous properties, rather than with unused oil—a test which has proved inadequate.

§ The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. John Grant)

First, I would like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Miss Lestor) for choosing this subject for debate, and I recognise her constituency interest in doing so. We welcome the opportunity to take part in the kind of open debate which my hon. Friend's initiative urges and to set out the action which is already being taken to deal with potential hazards to a large number of workers who come in contact with mineral oil during the course of their work.

I also welcome the publication of the pamphlet produced by the British Society for Social Responsibility in Science, although I have considerable reservations about some of the points made in it. This is another example of the growing interest in the problems of health and safety at work which can only be helpful to the unremitting struggle against the hazards which are increasingly generated by our industrialised society.

1067 The Government are keenly aware of the potential hazards arising from the widespread use of mineral oil, which dates from the turn of the century. The earliest effect, and that which gets greatest prominence in the pamphlet, is that of skin cancer, and in particular, cancer of the scrotum. The disease first appeared among shale oil workers towards the end of the last century and in the early years of this century its was prevalent among mule spinners in the cotton industry. These industries no longer exist, but skin and scrotal cancer are now found in the engineering, brick-making and china-making industries. It has to be admitted that we cannot place great reliance on the official statistics of the number of cases reported, largely because, owing to the long induction period of the disease, which is typically 15–20 years, many men have retired or left the industry before symptoms occur.

It will perhaps put this matter in perspective if I say that in 1930 alone, 97 cases of skin and scrotal cancer were notified to the Factory Inspectorate, and these included 26 fatal cases, whereas in the last four years a total of 32 cases, including three deaths, were reported. In 1975, the last year for which figures are available, there were five cases, of which none was fatal.

I am sure that my hon. Friend would wish me to outline briefly the policy being applied to try to prevent occupational cancer caused by mineral oil. It has three main elements—reducing the cancer-inducing substances in the oils; trying to reduce skin contact by means of protective clothing and better enclosure of machinery; and self-inspection to detect skin lesions at the earliest possible moment. Perhaps hon. Members will bear with me while I expand on this a little.

First, as regards reducing the cancer inducing substances, or carcinogens as they are known, the sensible approach is, wherever possible, to reduce these agents at source. This is not always possible, but I am advised that a great many cutting oils can be solvent-refined so as to remove much of what is thought to be the cancer-causing material. This has been increasingly adopted in the last 20 years.

1068 Secondly, accepting that not all these substances are reliably removed, and also that some oils cannot be solvent-refined, there must be a back-up effort to protect the skin by means of protective clothing and to enclose machinery to reduce spashes or other contact with oils.

Finally, since neither of those methods provides 100 per cent. protection, there is a continuing campaign to alert the worker to the early symptoms of skin cancer because at this stage it can usually he successfully treated. A warning placard and over 500,000 leaflets have been distributed by the Health and Safety Executive to alert workers to the symptoms and the importance of early detection.

The inspectorate has long had a keen interest in preventing this health problem, and in 1974, despite the many other demands made upon its resources, 361 special survey visits were made to factories using mineral oils to determine the position and to assess what further action needed to be taken. I should like to set out briefly some of the inspectorate's findings following this survey. Perhaps I may relate these findings to the main points of the control policy that I have previously described.

Although removing the carcinogen from the oil is a main feature of the policy, it was disappointing to find that only 66 per cent. of the firms were generally aware of the nature of solvent-refined oils and only 53 per cent. had deliberately adopted either solvent-refined oil or a substitute for neat oil. There was also room for improvement in containment of oil, for example by splash guards. And in 16 per cent. of the factories that were visited obvious improvements were thought to be necessary.

At only just over half of the factories were the workers thought to know sufficient about the hazards and detection of the symptoms of skin cancer. In fact, only 7 per cent. of the factories visited had ever had a case of scrotal cancer. The results of the survey have, of course, been circulated to the Factory Inspectorate, which has now suggested improvements in control measures. I want to take this opportunity to remind employers of their statutory obligation to ensure the 1069 health and safety of their employees and to ensure that those who might be at risk are adequately warned of any special hazards.

Some of the weaknesses discovered have been the subject of discussion at the Health and Safety Executive headquarters, and these discussions have also included consideration of the criticisms made in the booklet published by the British Society for Social Responsibility in Science. I think my hon. Friend would probably agree that this is a discursive booklet which aims criticisms at many different targets. I want, however, to deal with a couple of the more signicant criticisms.

It is right to say that the Health and Safety Executive attaches importance to solvent refining, and at page 48 of the booklet it is suggested that too much reliance is placed on this technique. I hope my hon. Friend would agree that it is right to try to remove the carcinogen at source. In fact, the Health and Safety Executive proposes to discuss with the industry whether improvements can be made to the technique and also whether, for example by better labelling, the user can be given more information to judge whether oil is solvent-refined.

Another fundamental criticism is on page 81, where it is recommended that there should be six-monthly medical check-ups of workers exposed to oil. The Employment Medical Advisory Service, however, is of the opinion that this is not an effective use of medical manpower and would create an impossible demand on resources, and that it is more effective to rely primarily on frequent self-inspection by the workers. A review of the advisory leaflet on this is in hand, and I have already mentioned the continuing campaign to get the general case across in the factories at all levels.

My hon. Friend has drawn attention to another category of risk, that of possible 1070 damage to the lungs and digestive tract from inhalation or ingestion of mineral oil—the problem of oil mist. This subject is very much bound up with the threshold limit value for mineral oil. That value is 5 milligrams per cubic metre, and that represents the oil mist, based on American researches, which the Factory Inspectorate recognises as the amount which can be in the air of a workroom without causing any long-term risk to health. Inspectorate surveys have shown that this figure is rarely approached in British factories as the contamination of the air becomes offensive well below that figure. I should perhaps again stress that the threshold limit value has relevance not to skin or scrotal cancer but to possible and to so far unproven damage to the lungs and digestive tract.

I recognise my hon. Friend's anxiety and that of others, and the Health and Safety Executive is giving consideration to the reduction of the threshold limit value on the ground that offensive conditions should not be tolerated in workplaces.

I hope that what I have said will convince my hon. Friend that the Government are concerned to protect work people against the possible risk to health and also against the unpleasant working conditions which can be caused by uncontrolled use of mineral oil. I can assure my hon. Friend that, despite the encouraging decline over the last 30 years in the number of cases of skin and scrotal cancer caused by mineral oil, the Health and Safety Executive, which I am sure will have taken careful note of what my hon. Friend said, intends to continue and intensify its efforts until we finally rid our workplaces of this disease.