§ Mr. Ian Mikardo (Bethnal Green and Bow)I begin by offering an apology to the Under—Secretary of State for Employment because I have been abroad with a Select Committee for the past couple of days and have not been able, as I should have liked, to give him some indication of the topic I intended to raise, to enable him to give some thought to it before he replies.
However, the capacity of the hon. and learned Gentleman for thinking on his 917 feet is well known in the House and I have no doubt that he will rise triumphantly to any challenge that my humble observations may pose. If I catch him out on a point which he cannot answer off the top of his head I know that he will be good enough to drop me a line and let me know what he thinks.
Occupational hazards, industrial injuries and industrial accidents impose a double burden on the community. First, they cause much human suffering and, secondly, they impose a great economic burden. The loss of man days of work per annum as a result of industrial disease—much of it avoidable—and through industrial accidents—many of them avoidable—is great.
I am always struck by the fact—although I am not surprised—that our newspapers, especially the gutter section of the press, devote so much of their acreage of newsprint to discussing days lost through strikes. They never mention that about 10 times as many days are lost as a result of preventable accidents and preventable illness as the total number of days lost through strikes.
I refer first to occupation—related cancer. I shall not say much about this since I am not terribly well informed on the subject. I see that my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride (Dr. Miller) is in his place and if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he will be able to speak on this matter from his wide—ranging and deep professional experience.
I wish to put three points to the Minister. First, as he will know, there have been sharply conflicting estimates of cancer arising from occupational causes. I think that there is an obligation on the Government to set up an inquiry so that we can have an authoritative answer to those questions which worry so many people and about which, as I have said, there is no clarity.
Secondly, I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman what steps he has in mind—and I trust that he has some steps in mind—to introduce comprehensive regulations for the control of carcinogens in the environment. There has been a sharp increase in the incidence of industrial—based carcinogens in the environment. Something should be done about that and I hope that the Minister will be able to 918 tell us that he proposes to do something.
My third point is that the victims of industrial cancer experience great difficulty in claiming compensation by way of common law damages. I should like the Minister to invite the Law Officers to look at this to see whether there is a way of dealing with the problem that does not unfairly disadvantage the victim, as do the present arrangements.
I turn from cancer to a subject about which I do know something because I have been taking an interest in it for many years, namely, the incidence of disease among workers in laboratories, especially those employed in National Health Service laboratories. This is a matter about which there is a good deal of controversy and, again, the issues are not absolutely clear. But there is strong, widespread suspicion that laboratory workers may now be called an "at risk" group. For that reason they need special care and attention.
In recent years during my involvement with the subject there have been some improvements as a result of the implementation of some parts—and some parts only—of the Howie report. However, much more still needs to be done and there are three priorities which the Department should examine. One of them concerns cancer. There is a suspected excess of cancer known as lymphoma, I do not put it more strongly, in laboratory workers. The Institute of Cancer Research is ready and willing to do research in this area provided that funds are available. I urge the hon. and learned Gentleman to try to persuade a Government Department—perhaps the Department of Health and Social Security would be appropriate—to find the money to enable the Institute of Cancer Research to examine this problem. It would not need a lot of money.
The second of the three priorities concerns the lack of records in National Health Service laboratories of absences caused by sickness, the rate of absence and what causes the sickness among laboratory workers. Research is needed into this problem, which is not confined to laboratory staff. There are many sectors of employment in the National Health Service where there is, prima facie, an enhanced risk and figures should be produced and the situation monitored. The third priority is the removal of 919 hazards. That is absolutely essential to any long—term strategy. If the Howie report were implemented in full that would deal with the problem but the National Health Service is not funding the introduction of the Howie reforms on the basis required. By what date does the Minister expect the recommendations of the Howie report to be fully implemented in all National Health Service laboratories? What, if any, extra funding is the Department making available to meet the costs of doing that and what steps are being taken to ensure that there are proper plans for the implementation of the Howie recommendations?
I have seen the annual report of a large and important area health authority which shows that not one penny is provided in its budget for implementation of the Howie recommendations. I do not know whether that AHA is the only one which takes such a derisive view of this important subject. There may be others as well, but that does not look promising.
The largest sector of industrial disability concerns excessive noise in industry which results in industrial deafness. I am surprised to discover that it is almost a century since people began to worry about this problem. The first representations about industrial deafness were made in about 1888 yet noise is still the most widespread industrial hazard. The last major survey of the problem, undertaken in 1971, showed that between 500,000 and I million workers are exposed to levels of noise in excess of the 90 decibel level over eight hours which is now supposed to be the absolute maximum. A noise level of 90 decibels can be compared to working 20 yards from a pneumatic drill. Hon. Members would not be happy working eight hours under such circumstances.
About 2 million workers are exposed to noise levels, if not in excess of 90 decibels, in excess of the 84 decibels which the Trades Union Congress demands should be fixed as the maximum. Nearly all the pressures about noise levels have come from the TUC which has done a lot of research into the problem. There is no legislative restriction on the amount of noise that an employer can inflict on workers outside two small classes of worker—people who use woodworking machinery or drive tractors. An employer can make 920 his place as noisy as he likes. The current United Kingdom standards are not legislative. They were embodied in a code of practice in 1972 issued after a chap named Frank Berry succeeded in being awarded compensation in the courts for industrial deafness. The code is voluntary and it is largely ignored. It contains gaping loopholes which require workers to provide their own protection by wearing ear—protectors. That is never totally satisfactory.
In 1974 the responsibility for noise control was taken over by the Health and Safety Commission. It established a noise advisory committee and issued a discussion document looking forward to legislation on the control of noise. The Health and Safety Executive has taken action to achieve compliance with the 1972 code. It issues about 30 improvement notices each year. Progress within the advisory committee is being stalled by a deadlock between trade union representatives and employer representatives who are not able to agree on the maximum penalty.
The effects of noise on health are serious. Noise results in a reduction in hearing ability, which is temporary if one goes away from the noise, but if a person is exposed to noise for any length of time the impairment becomes permanent. The continued exposure to noise creates a permanent threshold shift in hearing. Irreversible damage is done to cells in the inner ear. It wipes out sounds at certain frequencies. That condition cannot be improved by a hearing aid because all that hearing aids do is to amplify the distorted sound.
Hearing loss is not the only hazard. An impairment in hearing leads to many accidents because the warning sounds are not heard. The demand for the control of noise must be backed by more attention being paid to noise prevention in the design and installation of machinery. Every designer should reduce to the absolute minimum noise made by the implement that he is designing.
Machinery and industrial products should not be allowed into the workplace unless they meet stringent noise standards. The United States Government have no problems with their legislation. The 1972 Noise Control Act allows the Environmental Protection Agency to issue a series 921 of regulations setting noise limits for a list of specified products. Similar limits should be incorporated in existing British standards. We should give the standards legal backing in a noise control measure.
I do not wish to detain the House for long because others wish to speak and we want to hear the Under—Secretary of State. However, I wish to mention one controversial matter. The Government's contribution to occupational hazards has been entirely negative. The Social Services (No. 2) Bill provides a cut in the uprating for industrial injuries benefit. People who are disabled by an occupational disease or accident—the people whom my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) described as "the work wounded"—will have their real income decreased by 5 per cent. per annum. That is as mean an action as one can conceive. Of course, it fits the standard Conservative pattern of benefiting the strong and hammering the weak and of directing the most severe attacks at the weakest and most vulnerable sectors of the community.
A man who is put out of work by an accident in the factory or by a disease contracted as a result of his work deserves better treatment. While the Government are giving tax relief to wealthy people they say to others "From now on your reward for having suffered an industrial injury or disease is that your living standards will be cut by 5 per cent. a year".
It is too late to do anything about that unless something is done in another place—and I have no optimistic hopes about that. It would be wrong not to put the Government's attitude on the record. I hope that I have persuaded the Under—Secretary of State that he can take constructive action to compensate at least a little for the Government's meanness.
§ Dr. M. S. Miller (East Kilbride)I do not intend to mention any subjects other than those raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo).
Two groups of diseases account for about 70 per cent. of all deaths in our society. The biggest killer is the group of diseases known as the cardiovascular group. The second biggest killer is cancer. To prevent or cure these diseases would be the biggest contribution to 922 health and longevity since the discovery of methods of controlling epidemiological diseases—for example, by ridding water of dangerous pollutants, better sanitation, and the use of antibiotic drugs. The battle in that respect continues.
I intend not to refer to cardiovascular disease but to concentrate on the No. 2 killer—cancer. That disease kills one person in five and disables one in four. Cancer has been thought of as covering a group of diseases that affect mainly the elderly, but in recent years there has grown the startling realisation that that is not the case. In the age group 35–54 cancer is the major killer. In the age group 5–34, cancer is the second biggest killer—second only to accidents. In the age group 55–74 cancer is the second biggest killer—second only to heart disease. Therefore, from 5 to 54 cancer is a major problem, as it is in the elderly group also.
Cancer as a disease of the ageing body functions is something that we shall have to accept for a long time—until immortality is within our grasp, but cancer in the younger age groups is another matter. Apart from teratomas, to a large extent cancer is a disease caused by chemical and physical agents in our environment. The link between smoking and cancer, especially lung cancer, is well established. Many of the environmental factors are not self—inflicted; they are imposed upon us at work. Their removal is very much a social matter rather than an individual problem.
Occupationally linked cancer accounts for between 20 per cent. and 40 per cent. of all cancer deaths. Many carcinogenic substances have been discovered in the workplace, and their removal or control is vital in any cancer prevention policy. I have statistics for occupational cancer in men from 1966 to 1969. They indicate the excess risk of cancer of various parts of the body in a number of occupations. For example, cancer of the lip is five times more prevalent in agricultural workers than in the general population, two and a half times more prevalent in farmers, twice as prevalent in construction workers and almost twice as prevalent in labourers. I could detail a whole list of cancers—for example, cancer of the oesophagus, liver, pancreas, larynx, rectum, stomach, nose, lung, bronchus, skin, prostate, bladder and brain, and 923 Hodgkin's disease—with a clear indication that all those cancers are more common in certain occupations than among the general population.
The list of carcinogenic agents in the workplace is long. Obviously there is a link between the workplace and the carcinogenic agents. I wish to mention a few of the agents. There is 3:4 benzpyrine, a constituent of all tars, which causes skin cancer whenever there is prolonged exposure to tar, soot or mineral oil, especially shale oil obtained from the bituminous shales of Scotland. We can imagine the extent to which the irritant carcinogenic effects of mineral oil is prevalent in the engineering industry.
We used to have cancer of the scrotum in chimney sweeps and cotton mule spinners. By 1955 there were 2,000 cases of cancer of the scrotum in mule spinners. More recently, there has been an indication of cancer developing in the engineering industry, especially in metal cutting operations using automatic machine tools, caused by exposure to mineral oils. There are also beta-napthylamine and other aromatic amines in the rubber and dyestuffs industries. They cause bladder cancer. As long ago as 1895 it was observed in the German dyestuffs industry that cancer of the bladder was more prevalent than in the general population. By 1912 a survey in Germany and Switzerland showed that it was 33 times more common in aniline dye workers than among the general population. In Britain and the United States, notably in ICI and Du Pont, which use the aromatic amines in dyestuff production, bladder cancer became a problem.
I shall briefly mention asbestos. It is another substance which, because of the smallness of its fibres, penetrates deeply into the lung even after one exposure. The tiny fibres can remain in the. lungs for the rest of a person's life. Prolonged exposure to the inhalation of asbestos leads to fibrosis—asbestosis is a form of fibrosis of the lung—and also to lung cancer.
I turn to another substance that is widely used in industry—vinyl chloride monomer. That is used in the rubber and plastics industries. It is a carcinogen that causes liver cancer. I could continue with the list at great length, mentioning 924 other carcinogenic substances—such as benzene, which is manufactured on a large scale and is a potent carcinogen. Of course, exposure to radiation causes some types of cancer. It is something to which we are all subject to some extent, but in many industries workers are exposed to it to a much greater extent.
It is obvious that carcinogens pose a hazard that is qualitatively different from that of other toxic substances, for a number of reasons. First, there is no known safe level of exposure. Secondly, there is a long latent period between exposure and the manifestation of the disease. Thirdly, the disease is irreversible and carries a high mortality rate, except in skin cancer, which has a high rate of cure. Fourthly, to detect susceptibility of people to cancer is not a feasible proposition. Fifthly, there is no widely available screening procedure.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow, in his excellent speech about cancer, indicated—as I shall do—what we should be doing about the disease. First, there should be a quick and effective regulation of carcinogens that have found their way into the workplace. A large number have been identified, and they should be regulated. Secondly, comprehensive guidelines are needed to ensure that any substance that is shown to be carcinogenic is either removed from commerce entirely or used in such a way as to render the level of exposure to zero.
Thirdly, I recommend a national campaign to screen all commercially used chemicals for any carcinogenic potential. I am not suggesting that we should become obsessional or paranoid about the dangers. We should, however, be able to pinpoint them, to tabulate them and, where possible, to render them innocuous. If that is not possible, we should be able to make sure that people are protected to the best of our ability. All suspected and regulated carcinogens should be clearly labelled. Everyone should know when something is a cancer agent or a suspected cancer agent.
Fourthly, companies using such substances should be compelled by law to keep comprehensive records, showing the quantities used, the persons who come into contact with them, the results of 925 regular environmental monitoring exercises, and the results of regular medical checks.
Lastly, there should be measures to prevent further catastrophes. There is no doubt that the increases in bladder cancer and in some other cancers—skin cancers in sweeps and in mule spinners—were catastrophes. There should be measures to prevent further catastrophes by pre-testing and licensing of chemicals before they are allowed to be used. There should be compensation for the victims of past exposure to carcinogens as these victims are identified.
A great deal remains to be done, but if we can battle with cancer as a disease or group of diseases and defeat it, we shall be contributing a tremendous amount to the human race.
I should like to add one or two points to the very comprehensive statement of facts made by my hon. Friend on occupational deafness. I think that we would all agree that noise has become a major problem and hazard in our society. One has only to stand on a busy street and hear the din from lorries going past and from aeroplanes flying above to realise the irritant nature of the noise problem. It is very much worse in industry. It is not only an irritant-and irritation leads to loss of health and to a proneness to accidents; it is extremely dangerous.
My hon. Friend indicated the number of workers exposed to excessive noise. They are probably in excess of 2 million. The level of noise to which they are exposed is in excess of what the Trades Union Congress would like to achieve-a maximum of 84 dB. Decibels are measured on a logarithmic scale, and the intensity of any noise is doubled by an increase of only 3 dB. My hon. Friend talked about a 90 dB level, which is equivalent to working about 20 yards from a pneumatic drill, so that 93 dB is twice the noise intensity of 90 dB, and 96 dB is four times as great as 90 dB.
It can be seen clearly, therefore, that there are enormous dangers in factories where the noise level goes up not to 96 dB or even 100 dB, but is sometimes 125 dB or even higher—30 times the level 926 at which serious injury to health can be avoided.
An enormous amount of information is available on the problem of excessive noise-I have leaflets from the Department of Health and Social Security and from the Health and Safety Executive on noise and deafness-yet nothing much is done to help the people who are involved. There should be much more testing of ears and of hearing. We need quieter machinery. We need more warnings. We need compensation for the victims of deafness.
I conclude by reading a letter from a constituent. It states:
Loss of hearing is as big a loss as that of sight or speech. Unfortunately, the loss occurs gradually and one cannot specify when it actually occurred. Deafness is a major disability and any person so affected by occupational deafness should be compensated just the same as any other person who is disabled through his employment.I commend that letter to the Under-Secretary of State together with my own feelings as a doctor. Deafness is as bad an affliction as blindness and ought to be regarded in that way.
§ The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Patrick Mayhew)I congratulate the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) on securing his place in the debate and selecting this most important subject. He began his speech with a gracious apology-none was needed, for I entirely understand why he was not able to notify me of the points upon which he intended to concentrate-and with a reference to the wide area covered by the subject. I hope that the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for East Kilbride (Dr. Miller) will excuse any inaccuracy that creeps into my response as I attempt, in the 15 minutes available to me, to deal with their points. If I later detect any inaccuracies, I shall do my best to correct them.
I very much agree with what the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow said about the need to remember always the very high cost, in terms of human suffering and in terms of economic loss, occasioned by injury and disability sustained at work. We tend, perhaps, to overlook the economic loss.
The Government are well aware of the need never to become complacent, even 927 though we can rejoice in a modest way in the fact that deaths at work are down by about 25 per cent, over the last six years. We do not yet know whether that has become a trend, but it is a movement in the right direction. But we must never allow ourselves to think that we have done enough.
I have some personal experience in this area. For about 20 years I did a great deal of work at the Bar on industrial injuries. I was brought face to face with the consequences of industrial disease and industrial accidents. I have a great interest in the subject, and also in improving occupational health in this country. My experience enables me to pay a special tribute to the work of occupational health doctors and nurses up and down the country, in factories and in other workplaces.
We can draw great encouragement from the fact that the Royal College of Physicians a year ago established a Faculty of Occupational Medicine. I was fortunate enough to be able to visit it a week or two ago. It is a good thing that Dr. Duncan, who is director of medical services for the Employment Medical Advisory Service, which advises the Health and Safety Executive, has been closely associated with that faculty from its inception.
I know that the House is familiar with the broad structure by which we seek to give guidance in this country relating to matters of industrial safety and occupational health and safety. The House will be familiar with the structure of the Health and Safety Commission, and of the executive which carries out the functions imposed upon the commission by the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974.
I have already referred to the Employment Medical Advisory Service, which is the medical arm of the Health and Safety Executive. That service has a general responsibility to take action to help prevent ill health caused by work and to advise those with health problems on the type of work that suits them or which they should avoid on health grounds. The service provides an important source of information and advice to employers, trade unions and employees on the potential health problems of different types of employment and on the provision of occupational, 928 medical, nursing and first aid services.
The debate has concentrated upon occupational cancer and upon noise and the deafness that it can occasion at work and in the environment. The hon. Members for Bethnal Green and Bow and for East Kilbride have referred to sharply conflicting estimates of the incidence of occupational cancer. The hon. Member for East Kilbride-I defer to his great professional knowledge-said that occupationally-linked cancers probably account for 20 to 40 per cent, of all cancer deaths. That is a figure that is put forward by the Califano study in America. It was carried out in 1978 by the National Cancer Institute.
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows that the methodology of that study has been severely criticised by scientists in the United States and in the United Kingdom. It is the view of the Health and Safety Executive that no reliable estimate of the percentage of deaths from cancer that are due to occupational factors can be determined and that there is no pathological distinction between non-occupational and occupational cancers. In many instances a combination of contributory factors exists.
The Government do not regard occupational cancer as anything but a most serious risk. However, I wish to put the matter in perspective. In 1978 an influential group of the Royal Society estimated occupational cancers as being about 1 per cent, of all cancers. Therefore, a wide disparity of views are genuinely and honestly held about the incidence of occupational cancers.
I refer briefly to the Health and Safety Executive's policy on toxic substances and especially on carcinogenic substances. Its policy is set out in the guidance note entitled "Guidance Note EH 15—Toxic Substances: A Precautionary Policy ". Briefly, it is that exposure should be kept as low as reasonably practicable, and in any event within the published threshold limit values. The same applies to control limits. The guidance note states that this should be achieved by the application of occupational hygiene principles and techniques of control appropriate to the extent of exposure and the likely route of entry to the body. Personal protective equipment is usually used only as a last 929 line of defence, the emphasis being placed on enclosure and engineering controls.
The hon. Member for East Kilbride referred to the need for testing. As proposed by Lord Robens in his report in 1972, the Health and Safety Executive has embarked on the preparation of legislation requiring the testing of new substances for their potential hazard and the submission of data to the executive not less than 45 days before placing a substance on the market.
The regulations when made will form one of the main ingredients of HSC policy aimed at determining the hazard at its earliest possible time and not waiting for events to reveal danger 25 years later. We all know how long it took for pneumoconiosis and the various forms of it to be recognised as deriving from certain substances. The hon. Gentleman mentioned asbestos. We must do better in identifying potential hazards at an early stage.
The executive has also engaged in the drafting of proposed legislation for the control of exposure to carcinogenic substances in the workplace to give effect to the ILO convention No. 139 and recommendation 147 on prevention and control of occupational hazards caused by carcinogenic substances and agents. This will be in amplification of the Carcinogenic Substances Regulations 1967, which are already in force.
I noticed that the hon. Member for East Kilbride, in his useful and interesting list of carcinogenic substances, referred to beta-naphthylamine. Since 1967 that substance has been subject to an order prohibiting its manufacture in Britain. That is an absolute prohibition. No person shall be employed in any factory in connection with the manufacture of that substance and of others.
§ Mr. W. E. Garrett (Wallsend)I declare an interest. I used to be employed in ICI, and I know something about this business. The hon. and learned Gentleman referred to "manufacture". Manufacture is banned in Britain, but is there a ban on the use of the substance as an additive?
§ Mr. MayhewI must write to the hon. Gentleman about that. I shall have to conclude my speech in about five minutes. 930 I shall refer him to the fourth paragraph of the 1967 regulations, and we shall clear up that issue.
I want to try to deal with the various issues that have been raised. In the remaining five minutes of my speech I may appear to jump from one issue to another and to be rather superficial. Bearing in mind that I have only five minutes in which to deal with many matters, I hope that that will be understood.
The lion. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow said that the Government should establish an inquiry to ascertain where the truth lies in the incidence of occupational cancer. The Health and Safety Executive is advised by the Advisory Committee on Toxic Substances. It attaches importance to further research into this subject. I do not think that there is a case for establishing and initiating a special inquiry. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the need to establish where the truth lies is recognised as important.
I have mentioned the steps that have been taken to control carcinogens in the environment. That is something that the Health and Safety Executive has in mind. The hon. Gentleman mentioned that the victims of industrial cancer have great difficulty in claiming compensation at law. He asks the Government to approach the Law Officers on that issue. He will know that the Royal Commission under Lord Pearson did not recommend a system of non-fault liability for industrial disease of this nature. It would be a major departure if we were to go down the road that the hon. Gentleman described.
Common law is always developing. The hon. Member for East Kilbride referred to cancers of the scrotum. It is well recognised by the courts that such cancers are able to derive from negligence and that compensation should be paid in consequence. I cannot promise that we shall embark on a system of non-fault liability in respect of that type of injury.
The hon. Gentleman referred to disease among laboratory workers. It is recognised that there are special risks for those who work in laboratories. The HSE inspectorate visits laboratories, in the same way as it visits other industrial establishments. The commission has established a national industry group to evaluate and study the problems.
931 A working party chaired by Sir James Howie formulated a code of practice for the prevention of infection in clinical laboratories. Discussions are continuing between the executive and the Department of Health and Social Security on the implementation of those proposals. I cannot say when the proposals will be implemented.
I agree that industrial deafness is an important subject. Indeed, deafness can be as serious as blindness. The disability is not obvious, and that may involve great danger in certain circumstances. In the middle of the 1960s common law took note of industrial deafness, and as a result compensation is awarded if deafness is found to have arisen as a result of the employer's or occupier's negligence.
In 1978 the commission issued a consultative document on the subject of hazards from noise. It was entitled "Audiometry in Industry ". Comments have been received and the document is now under consideration by the Health and Safety Commission. The Factory Inspectorate and the Employment Medical Advisory Service advise industry on the reduction of noise. Where reduction is difficult to achieve, they advise industry on protective equipment. I hope that I have said enough to show that the executive and the Government consider this an important subject.
I shall not take up time by dealing with the hon. Gentleman's castigation of the Social Security (No. 2) Bill. It gives the Government no pleasure to reduce the uprating of benefits by 5 per cent. However, we feel that that must be done as part of the overriding need to defeat inflation.
The hon. Member for East Kilbride said that the carcinogens were of a different quality and that they were difficult to identify. He pointed out that there was no safe level of exposure. All those points must be taken into account by the Health and Safety Executive.
The only way to achieve total safety and to avoid the contraction of cancer at work is to forbid any exposure to any substance that might possibly be connected with cancer. However, we should then lose sight of the essential quality of health and safety legislation. We must maintain a reasonable balance and apply 932 standards that conform with what is reasonably practicable. Although we must not disregard such dangers, and although we must always consider whether there are practical ways of guarding people against such dangers-whose nature may expand with the increase of modern technology-total safety should not be achieved at the cost of our ability to earn our living and to maintain our industrial society.
If one looks back over our industrial history, one becomes aware of the physical suffering and distress that can result from unsuspected or unheeded dangers. We shall never succeed in matching hindsight with foresight. However, we must never relax our efforts to understand the full consequences of occupational activities and the likely consequences of the use of new materials and processes. We should take such protective action as is reasonably practicable. The key is the standard of common sense and reasonableness. The Government attach great importance to that.
With our tripartite foundation for the Health and Safety Commission and the powers invested in the Health and Safety Executive, supported, as it is, by the Advisory Committee on Toxic Substances and by the Employment Medical Advisory Service, we are well equipped to meet such extremely important needs. It is valuable that attention has been drawn to those needs in today's debate.