HC Deb 09 June 1980 vol 986 cc263-74

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Le Marchant.]

3.47 am
Mr. Martin Flannery (Sheffield, Hillsborough)

It is perhaps fitting that I should raise the question of industrial deafness following a serious debate on the NHS. Indeed, so little is known about industrial deafness, and so little legislation has been passed on the subject, that most people are totally unaware of its existence. Tonight—I should now say last night—by sheer coincidence, and quite independent of the fact that this Adjournment debate is being initiated by me, a Sheffield Member of Parliament, a public meeting has been held in Sheffield on the question of industrial deafness. I shall be interested to read in tomorrow's press precisely what was said, and I am sure that those who attended will want to know what I am saying.

I come from a steel area. I well remember that although I knew nothing about industrial deafness, I knew a great deal, even as a child, about noise in factories. On Saturday mornings I used to call for one of my older brothers who worked in a cutlery factory. In general, people worked on Saturday mornings in those days. After I met my brother, we used to go on to a football match. I used to wait outside the factory because I was horrified at the noise of the machinery inside. There are very few cutlery factories left in Sheffield now, but there is a great steel industry.

I became very much aware of industrial deafness when I became a Member of Parliament and held my first surgeries. Some of the industrially deaf came to see me. It was a sad sight. I remember the first man who came in. He sat in front of me, and I did not know that he was deaf until something in his appearance made me realise that something was wrong. He had with him the inevitable friend who spoke for him, because he could not lip read, could not tell what I was saying and was not confident enough to speak to me. He had been deaf for some years. They had come to me to try to find out about compensation, about which I knew very little.

In the line of duty I had to go around the great engineering and steel factories. I heard the big guns on occasion during the war and was horrified by them, but at least they were intermittent. The noise of the great factories is something that anyone who has never worked in a big factory would need to hear to apreciate. It is so dreadful and appalling, consistent and insistent, that one wants to get out. I remember trying not to look scared. The men were getting on with their work, but we were only visiting for a short time. There was noise everywhere, and it impinged on one to a terrible extent.

Having experienced noise, and having met some of those poor people, I began to make inquiries. I was appalled to learn of the position of the industrially deaf. I learnt that it is the largest sector of industrial disability in the community. Most people do not know that, and I did not know it. The first representations about industrial deafness were made in 1888. My hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) mentioned that point in an Adjournment debate before the recess. But despite all that has been said, it still remains the largest industrial hazard in our country. Despite the growth of cancer and carcinogens and so on, this is still the greatest hazard area. About 2 million workers are at risk from industrial deafness, and upwards of 1 million are in the 90 decibel and above area of noise.

The TUC is aiming, and has been for a long time, to reduce the level to 84 decibels. Most people think that if one decibel is added the noise is just a little worse. That is untrue. A noise level of 96 decibels is six times as great as a noise level of 90 decibels, and 90 decibels is the level at which most industries aim. Therefore, those poor people are exposed to that level of noise.

Industrial deafness causes acute embarrassment, because it is a gradual process. It is not like blindness. It is not sudden or dramatic. It creeps on gradually, and it exposes people who are or who have become deaf to increased danger. It lowers their ability to work. It limits their speech and imposes on them a great and sustained silence. It makes them lonely because they are so divorced from what is going on around them. They tend to stay at home because of embarrassment. They do not hear their fellow workers warning them, and they are therefore exposed to further dangers.

Industrial deafness cannot be helped by hearing aids because the sound is scattered in such a way that the roughness of the sound is merely amplified. That point was discussed yesterday at the ASTMS conference. I am a member of the TUC and of ASTMS, and I am sponsored by ASTMS as a Member of Parliament. Delegates were staggered when they were told that a hearing aid is of no benefit to the industrially deaf. They live in silence, and we cannot do anything for them.

Because of the lack of proper legislation the industrially deaf have to sue their employers, and to do so puts the pressure on the plaintiff. One Sheffield newspaper reported the case of a man who received £5,750, which was a Godsend to him and his wife. He said : I have worked for 40 years in the fettling shop and my deafness has grown over that time. It has made life embarrassing sometimes. Because I cannot hear people properly, I give wrong answers to questions and it makes me look a bit stupid. It gives me other problems, too. I may find it a bit difficult to get another job after I finish at the foundry because deaf people can be a danger to others. This compensation will help enormously. The newspaper then reported the comments of his wife after he received the compensation.

A great deal of what I am trying to say is linked to the inability of these people to get compensation. The foreword to the 1975 Health and Safety Executive report called "Framing Noise Legislation" said : There is in Britain almost no legislation dealing specifically with occupation noise ; only the Factories Act regulations on woodworking machines set precise limits on the noise to which workers may be exposed and these cover only a fraction of the workers in potential danger ". The then Under-Secretary of State for Employment in 1973, the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Smith) said : I regard the reduction of industrial noise as a matter of great importance. I am asking the Noise Sub-Committee of the Industrial Health Advisory Committee to study and report on the problems involved in framing practical and effective noise legislation.—Official Report, 10 July 1973 ; Vol. 859, c. 1246.] The Government did that, but where are we in 1980? We are very little further on. That has happened under successive Governments, not just the Tories, although a certain amount of effort has been made based on what the Labour Government enacted.

The Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 opened the way for legislation, but we have only voluntary codes and schemes and no real legislation. What are the problems involved in legislating? First, because nothing, or very little, was done in the past there is sheer ignorance throughout the community, except among the poor people who are suffering and their immediate relatives, of the real size and scope of the problem—the biggest problem presented by industrial health hazards at places of work. There should be no restriction on qualification for disablement benefit for occupational deafness other than that the person should be regarded as being deaf by an accepted definition of deafness and that that deafness shall have resulted from his or her occupational exposure to noise. Those should be the criteria. There must be a definition. If people are deaf they should be allowed compensation and that should be enshrined in legislation. At the moment it is not. Surely that is plain common sense.

There are reasons why successive Governments have done nothing about the problem. It is violently expensive to do so. Since 1975, when the initial scheme based on a voluntary code of practice— a scheme which is totally ignored for the most part—was introduced, fewer than 20,000 of all those who are partially and industrially deaf have been eligible for industrial injury disability benefit for noise—induced deafness. The DHSS ignored the fact that 2 million workers were at risk and drew up a scheme that was so tightly worded, and deliberately so, I believe, that benefits were restricted to those who had worked for at least 20 years as a fettler or grinder on castings, in drop forgings, or in rivetting in shipbuilding and repairing. That provision is separate from that applying in respect of woodworking machinery, which is more or less covered by legislation.

Even worse was to come, however. Not only was the scheme restricted so that no one applied for it—people did not know that they could apply for it, since it had never been publicised in a proper manner—but in July 1978 the DHSS published proposals to tighten the scheme even more. It admitted that so successful had the restrictions been that the demand for the benefit was only a third of the amount anticipated. In the first three years there were only 3,280 beneficiaries. Clearly, most workers did not even know of the scheme.

What a disgraceful situation exists in this important area of industrial relations in regard to compensation for people whom we have driven deaf and for whom there is no hope because nothing can be done for them with hearing aids! The failure of successive Governments to introduce adequate legislation means that most industrially deaf workers get no compensation. We have imposed that deafness, but we do nothing to help them. The problem is vast. Successive Governments have looked at its size, have realised how expensive it would be to grapple with it and have fled from the harsh reality that confronted them. In the meantime, the armaments bill goes up and up, and the money for the Health Service gets cut down and down.

I ask that, in common humanity, more money should be spent not only on occupational deafness, but on preventing occupational deafness so that people are not bound to go deaf in certain trades. This means major legislation or an addition to the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act. We must look at the relevant sections and introduce something that will be major in its impact.

One reason why Governments will do so little about this matter is that it means bringing noise levels down from 90 decibels and above, where the danger limits are, towards the safe 80 decibels or, as the TUC has been fighting for for many years, 84 decibels, which it thinks would be acceptable. But, as I have said, people must realise that 96 decibels is six times as loud as 90 decibels. It is not just the addition of an extra six decibels as most people think.

The central point is the number of consultants required to test regularly, through audiometry, workers who are exposed to noise. Yesterday the safety officer of ASTMS pointed out that the central theme of the whole business—apart from legislation—is to have massive audiometry tests and services to increase the numbers of examinations of those who are at risk. That means a steady lowering of the infamous 20-year rule. We want that rule abolished. It provides that unless a person has worked consistently for 20 years at a prescribed job with no interval—there is a 12-month rule as well—he cannot have, and is not eligible for, compensation. Imagine upwards of 2 million people having to work at particular jobs for 20 years, no matter how deaf they become, before they can apply for and obtain compensation. That vicious rule has been introduced to prevent that vast number of workers from getting the necessary compensation. We want that rule abolished and the provision for which I am asking enshrined in legislation.

Perhaps I might illustrate how it works. A person exposed to a large number of decibels—more than 90—will go deaf within three or four years, or less, but because he has not worked in a prescribed job for 20 years he will get nothing and will be deaf for the rest of his life.

If two men work side by side, one having worked for 20 years and not being totally deaf, the other having worked for 10 years and being totally deaf, the man who has worked for 10 years and is totally deaf will get nothing, whereas the man who has worked for 20 years and is not totally deaf will be able to get compensation. It is a stupid rule. It is wrong and it should be remedied. Such cases can be multiplied many times.

I know that the Minister is a humane person. I want to press him for an assurance that proper legislation will at least be considered. Large numbers of people are interested in this small debate. Sheffield as a city is aware that I am raising this issue because there is a great deal of industrial deafness there. All the necessary evidence is available—we could go on collating more—to show the terrible plight of the industrial deaf. Compassion is not enough. Concrete, major help is needed. That means legislation, and the implementation and carrying into effect of such legislation requires money. Therefore, I ask the Minister to say that he wants to bring about something of the nature for which I am asking.

4.10 am
The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Patrick Mayhew)

I congratulate the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) on securing the selection of this important topic for an Adjournment debate. I commiserate with him—I am sure convincingly—on the hour at which he has had to bring it forward. The hon. Gentleman has trespassed into my speech and I shall not be able to make my reply as full as I had wished bearing in mind the seriousness that the topic deserves.

As a nation we live in, and have to live by, an industrial society. It is important that our industry should be efficient, but a factor in industrial efficiency is the safeguarding of the health and welfare of those who work in industry. That consideration must not be allowed to become obsessive. If it did, we should get our judgment out of balance, and a great deal of employment derived from conscientious, sensible and practical industrial enterprise would be lost. Like most other matters, it is a question of balance.

I agree with what the hon. Gentleman has said about the severe effects of deafness, whether it is caused by industry or by other means. We should not underestimate it merely because it is not immediately apparent. Deafness represents a great handicap for those who suffer from it. We must consider carefully the ways in which the handicap can be lessened.

We must hold, in the main, to the well-tried standards of common sense and the reasonably practicable. We should always be alert for new evidence that existing practices may be causing injury or disease in industry in ways hitherto unsuspected. I share to the full the hon. Gentleman's concern for those who are at risk of contracting deafness by reason of exposure to noise at work. That vulnerability is an example of a risk that we in Britain were late in coming to appreciate.

I am a great admirer of the flexibility of the common law. The great Lord Atkin said that the categories of negligence are never closed". I find it rather surprising that the first common law case in which the duty of care for the safety of workpeople was found to have been broken in the context of noise was as late as 1972. However, I think that the hon. Gentleman was mistaken when he said that because of the 20-year rule it was necessary for an individual to work for 20 years, no matter how deaf he became, if he was to obtain any compensation. That is not so. It is well established in common law that if an employer exposes his workpeople to levels of noise that he knows, or ought reasonably to know, are dangerous, and exposes them to a foreseeable risk of becoming deaf, he is liable to compensate them in sums often much more substantial than industrial injury benefit could yield. There is not only one avenue towards compensation. Trades unions are helpful to their members in bringing cases. Legal aid is available for those who are not members of trades unions. Common law is available to provide a means to obtain compensation.

The duty to take reasonable care with exposure to noise levels is firmly established at common law. We can take some comfort from the fact that the development has been assisted by the code of practice that the Department of Employment published in 1972. It is a voluntary code for reducing the exposure of employed persons to noise. It was prepared by a committee on which the CBI and the TUC were represented, together with specialists in noise control.

The code recommends that noise should be reduced to the lowest level reasonably practicable, and that where this does not reduce exposure to below a level of 90 decibels for eight hours, or an equivalent exposure, workers should use ear protectors. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we must give a great deal of attention to prevention. That is the way to limit the numbers who in future suffer industrial deafness. I agree that we, must do all that we reasonably can to alert industry to these dangers and to provide reasonable and practical legislation to back up the voluntary code of practice. I shall say a little in a moment about the legislation that is being proposed.

The limits in the code depend on both the noise level and the length of time that workers spend in noisy places—in fact on what is called the "noise dose". It is made clear that the possibility of restricting the time that people need to remain in noisy places is one of the measures for restricting noise dose that ought to be considered.

The code was followed by a report, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, entitled "Framing Noise Legislation", prepared by the industrial health advisory sub-committee. This broadly recommended that statutory backing should be given to the code of practice. Comment on this report was referred to the Health and Safety Commission, which, as the hon. Gentleman knows, is an independent body answerable to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and which advises the Government and the public on matters of industrial safety, amongst other safety matters. It is considering proposals for legislation within the framework set up under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974.

The Act imposes general duties on employers and employees, and they apply just as much to injury from noise as to any other injury. The 1970 code of practice gives good guidance on what can reasonably be done to comply with the requirements as far as they relate to noise. The 90 decibel limit is specifically included in the Woodworking Machines Regulations 1974, but apart from tractor cabs and a couple of regulations that bear upon North Sea oil operations, they are, to the best of my knowledge, the only statutory regulations or provisions that impose a decibel limit.

Inspectors of health and safety use their powers to require action when it is necessary. There are eight inspectors who are full-time specialists in noise control, and a further three are under training. They are based on the Health and Safety Executive's seven field consultancy groups, each in a different part of the country. While they prefer to make progress on a voluntary basis, they do take enforcement action. Between 1975 and 1978 a total of 112 improvement notices were issued concerning noise. Of those. 27 required improvements to comply with the general duties of the 1974 Act and 85 were under the woodworking regulations.

The most effective way of reducing risk is to lower the noise level. The 1972 code of practice gives precedence to the control of noise by engineering means and recommends that noise should be reduced to the lowest level reasonably practicable. Noisy machines and workrooms can be acoustically treated and quieter processes can be used. However it is not always practicable to reduce noise at source, and it is then necessary to use other protective means.

Ear plugs or ear muffs might be an essential safety measure where people have to work in a noisy environment. I know that the hon. Gentleman's constituency contains many—he has reminded us of some—industrial activities that are inherently and inevitably noisy. The Health and Safety Executive takes the view that ear muffs or ear plugs are usually less effective than engineering control because it is difficult to ensure that they are worn all the time that they are needed, and because it is more difficult to be certain that they are providing adequate protection under industrial conditions. Nevertheless, it is important that they are provided, and above all used, where people must work in high noise levels.

Restriction of time spent in noisy environments is another way of limiting noise dose that is covered in the code of practice. This, too, is difficult to control in industry. It is necessary to halve the time that a person spends in a noisy environment to obtain the same effect as a 3-decibel reduction in noise level, and this can be very difficult to achieve. It is a measure that should be considered. It is a matter of taking each case on its merits and deciding what is reasonable and effective.

The Government wholly understand the need for niose control. The Health and Saftey Commission is framing proposals for new legislation which I look forward to receiving. The hon. Member will, however, appreciate that I do not yet know and cannot know what decibel limit it will recommend. The commission and the executive have extensive arrangements for consulting industry and trade unions on the preparation and implementation of legislation, and I look to these to ensure that proposals are reasonable and that progress is made as rapidly as is economically possible.

The hon. Member's concern and the Government's is shared by our European partners. The Commission of the European Communities has asked its advisory committee on safety, hygiene and health protection at work to discuss the basis for a draft directive on the protection of workers from the hazards associated with harmful exposure to noise at work, and limit values will clearly be an important consideration. A preliminary discussion is to take place on 18 and 19 June at a tripartite working party of this committee comprising experts from government, employers' and workers' organisations. This is clearly an important new initiative, and there will be consultation with interested parties as the European Commission develops its proposals.

Any future action must take into account the cost for industry as well as the benefit of reduced risk of hearing damage. If we were totally to remove any possible risk of industrial deafness, we would do away with perhaps, hundreds of thousands of jobs. That must be avoided. We must make our living as an industrial society and we must ensure that a reasonable balance is maintained between costs and benefits.

I am, therefore, grateful to the hon. Member for ventilating this serious issue today. There are one or two points I should like to write to him about which time prevents me from filling in now. I am optimistic that we shall find the right balance. I am sure that we shall be assisted by this morning's short debate.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at sixteen minutes past Four o'clock am.