HL Deb 01 December 1981 vol 425 cc1008-31

8.30 p.m.

The Earl of Gosford rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are satisfied with the methods of monitoring asbestos that are currently in general use and with the progress made in developing alternatives for asbestos.

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I am sorry that this Question has come on so late, but I am consoled by the fact that it is not as late as we had anticipated earlier, as there are a few who have left. I should like to thank those who have stayed to speak on this Question. The reason for the first part of my Question is to draw your Lordships' attention to some evidence concerning asbestos that unaccountably failed to reach the Select Committee on the European Communities Sub-Committee G, and so does not appear in the Committee's 17th Report published on 17th March 1981, and therefore was not debated when the 17th Report was presented to your Lordships' House on 14th May.

The evidence I refer to is that of the Society for the Prevention of Asbestosis and Industrial Diseases, SPAID for short. I understand that Her Majesty's Government have been informed about SPAID's evidence, and I am sure when your Lordships have heard of its content you will join with me in asking the Minister not only to place a copy in the Library but also to bring it to the attention of the European Commission to be taken notice of in any further discussions which I believe will begin in early 1982. I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, whether he can confirm dates in relation to the Commission.

I should also like to ask him whether there is any way of adding SPAID's material as an appendix to the 17th Report. If I may remind your Lordships, the 17th Report is the response to the two EEC draft directives, the first restricting the marketing and use of asbestos, and the second concerning the protection of workers from risks due to exposure to asbestos. The nub of the argument brought out by the draft directive, and also the United Kingdom Government's policy, is that the amphibole group of asbestos containing, among others, crocidolite, known as blue asbestos, and amosite, known as brown asbestos, are more dangerous than chrysotile, known as white asbestos, which is of the serpentine group of minerals. That the import of blue should be banned altogether in the raw state, but may be used in certain products especially on the Continent. That if the United Kingdom goes ahead with more stringent regulations as advanced by the final report of the Advisory Committee on Asbestos, chaired by Mr. Simpson, which reported to the Health and Safety Executive and the Minister in 1979, and if it goes further than some other EEC countries are prepared to go, then there will be an industrial competition problem which may result in jobs lost in this country. That therefore white asbestos and brown can be used under controlled conditions until substitutes can be found.

This sounds like a simple solution. But simple for whom? I will leave aside the blue asbestos for a moment which I shall bring up under mining, and concentrate on all the others, especially the white. Nancy Tait, the Secretary of SPAID, has been single-mindedly pursuing and collecting evidence for a number of years, and all those involved must be indebted to her. The DHSS social workers, and chest consultants, refer people to SPAID to get advice on benefits, et cetera, as it is too complicated for the hospitals to deal with. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, will be enlarging on this aspect. The nub of SPAID's evidence—and I shall not go into detail, which can be found in their report along with extensive back-up material—is that the dangers of mesothelioma, cancer of the lung, and other cancers due to inhalation of asbestos fibres, have been underestimated, and unrecognised as being caused by the white asbestos, chrysotile, the most widely used asbestos.

SPAID maintains that the pneumoconiosis medical panels are failing to recognise that their methods of diagnosing asbestos diseases are out of date. The panels rely on the optical microscope to determine the levels of fibres in lung tissue, which readily show the larger blue crocidolite fibres but fail to see the fine white fibres. For instance, one of SPAID's cases shows one asbestos fibre was seen by this method, and using the electron microscope 8,600,000 fibres of asbestos of all kinds were found in one gram of dried lung tissue. In cases when blue and white fibres are present in roughly the same numbers and sizes, how can it be argued that the blue fibre was the culprit and the white was not?

SPAID believes that without the commitment to ban, both by the Government and by the EEC, things will continue to slide. After all, it was in 1898 that asbestosis was first noted by the Factory Inspectorate, and it was known in 1935 that lung cancer was caused by the exposure to asbestos dust, and as the Work Hazards Group of the British Society for Social Responsibility in Science states: Each year more is mined and used than in all the years before 1930". SPAID believes that the weakness lies in the fact that industry plays a dominant role not only in the development of automatic systems which it is hoped will ensure uniformity in optical microscope observations in the counting of fibres on membrane filters when dust levels are sampled in the workplace, but also in the setting up, and running of, the Central Reference Laboratory in the United Kingdom. The proposed one fibre control limit by the old optical techniques will leave workers still exposed to these fine fibres that are found in the lung tissues of those dying now, and as these diseases take years to develop they will he causing cancer well on into the future.

The unions, and workers, in the industry have a right to know when they will get added protection from the introduction by the Government of regulations arising out of the recommendations of the Simpson Report of 1979. Simpson asked for tighter controls to be introduced by December 1980. As the unions rightly point out, it is hard enough to prosecute employers, and impossible if men and women on the shop floor, docks, demolition sites, decorators, carpenters, electricians and especially laggers, to name but a few, do not have hard legislation to protect them.

I have read with interest the opening speech, and reply, made by the Minister, the right honourable David Waddington, in another place, in the debate on these two directives on asbestos on 22nd October, and too his mention of the two explanatory memoranda of 15th October, which I believe the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, will refer to, and it seemed to me that he was not acquainted with the latest information, and may I ask him whether he has seen SPAID's evidence? He said he would review matters if further evidence showed dangers, and I believe SPAID's evidence does just this.

SPAID's researches when producing evidence for the Department of the Enviroment inquiry into industry's appeal against the decision of the Langbraugh Council, Cleveland, 28th April 1981, that planning permission should be refused for applications specifying the use of asbestos, has brought to light a lot of new information not available at the time of the Simpson Report in 1979, and I believe my noble friend Lord Plant will be mentioning something of this later.

All the new SPAID evidence directly contradicts what the Minister said in another place on 22nd October. Take, for example, the Minister's assertion concerning the handling of ready-cut sheets on a building site by building workers for a small time in part of a week, and that they would no longer be in danger, which highlights the assumption that small doses of exposure cannot kill. There is much evidence from home and abroad that this is not the case. Cases of disease following slight exposures highlight the serious dangers to the public from asbestos dust. Industry claims that fibres are locked into asbestos cement, but even this is disputed. Sheeting, even if it is produced using the wet process, will flake during the years, releasing fibres. The cases of men, women and children who have died due to slight contact with asbestos is growing, like the case of a man building an asbestos sheet garage in a couple of days, a bank manager warming his clothes overnight on his asbestos-cladded water heater or wives and children of workers in the asbestos industry who come in contact with fibres on clothing.

The problem is that because of former assumptions, post-mortems looking for asbestos have been carried out only on those who have had long histories of heavy exposure to asbestos, so these cases in the general public are only now being collected by SPAID. A particular revealing survey done by Nancy Tait on the voluntary labelling of the dangers of asbestos on cooking pads showed that many had no labels, and where one was stamped on, the asbestos did not hold the print. An article in the Hardware Review for August 1981 stated: It was a bit of a surprise to hear the sales manager of a company making ironing boards, say that since the asbestos scare had now been forgotten, his company has reintroduced ironing boards with asbestos iron rests". It is not insignificant that the Department of Trade wrote to shipbuilders in September 1980 saying that asbestos as a fire preventive material would no longer be acceptable in United Kingdom-registered ships.

If it were possible to safeguard against the dangers of asbestos we would have no problem. For instance, even if foolproof controlled conditions could be guaranteed in manufacturing to safeguard the work- force, the deterioration and disintegration of asbestos materials and the release of fibres in the atmosphere from those products cannot be prevented. This is acknowledged by the Health and Safety Executive, and we must accept that we are dealing with a lethal component, a component which is most probably found within and around most households in the country. May I ask what steps the Government would be prepared to take for an advertising campaign pointing out the dangers not only of asbestos such as sheds, ironing pads and so on, but also of working with asbestos sheeting and the removal of old asbestos? I urge the Government, along with SPAID and others, that the warning label should specifically state the dangers of cancer.

The United Kingdom and the other European countries have a wider responsibility than to themselves. The bulk of asbestos used by the EEC is imported—in the region of 800,000 tonnes. Countries such as South Africa and Canada knowlingly expose their workforces to high risk during mining. Your Lordships may recently have seen the ITV World in Action programme "Dust to Dust" on South African mines, some of them United Kingdom owned. Concerning one, 900 deaths have occurred, from mesothelioma. The latest cancer death was that of a white woman of 45 who lived near the mine but had never worked with asbestos, and she contracted the disease from environmental exposure. In both Canada and South Africa the slag heaps rise from the ground like our coal tips, with asbestos floating about everywhere.

One South African company makes bricks for the black workers houses out of blue asbestos waste. In Quebec Province, Canada, when researchers began to take interest in the incidence of cancer in the area, the Quebec Government introduced a form of death certificate which ensured that only Government officers knew the cause of death. McGill University confirmed that in 1979 their researchers could not get information on cause of death. SPAID conclude that information on even major risks is not reaching those to whom this information is vital and that the strict control of all use of asbestos during a planned, phased changeover to alternative materials is the only sensible approach to the problem".

I have left little time for the second part of my Question, alternatives. This is because the facts are straightforward. With a substantial case for the dangers of asbestos, the alternatives must be a foregone conclusion. In the circumstances, it is a pity that it has been left to Holland to develop the material pioneered by the University of Surrey. The Dutch expect that the products can be marketed at prices that do not differ substantially from the current prices of asbestos cement products. Polypropylene is the substance used by Surrey University. The glass fibre product Cemfil is on the market and is being further developed in this country, and cellulose is being looked into. Can the Minister say how far it is known whether any of these alternatives could also be a health hazard? The World Health Organisation will hold a conference in Copenhagen from 20th to 22nd April 1982 to try to find out the answer to this question. It will be most interesting to hear the findings of that conference.

8.47 p.m.

Lord Avebury

My Lords, the noble Earl has done the House a service in raising this Question and enabling us, I hope, to extract some information from the Minister when he replies about the improvements in the methods of monitoring asbestos and the alternative materials that have been developed. In 1976 I first realised the full extent of the morbidity and mortality arising from the industrial uses of asbestos when I was concerned with the publication of a document entitled Asbestos Kills, the author of which was Mrs. Nancy Tait, whose name has already been mentioned, the distinguished secretary of the Society for the Prevention of Asbestosis and Industrial Diseases, and I declare my interest as a trustee of that organisation. I wish to take this opportunity of paying my tribute to Mrs. Nancy Tait for the immense amount of work she has done in the past five years to draw the public's attention to the risks of asbestos and to fight for the rights of workers and their families who have fallen victim to the diseases which the noble Earl mentioned.

The original paper published by Mrs. Tait dealt in two places with the use of the electron microscope to identify asbestos in lung tissue, and in the second edition, which appeared in 1977, Mrs. Tait referred to American and French research which used the electron microscope to see fibrils of chrysotile, one of the substances mentioned by the noble Earl, which had migrated to all organs of the body. So as long ago as 1977 the electron microscope was already seen as a very important aid to the diagnosis of asbestos-related diseases.

Undoubtedly as methods of monitoring asbestos in biopsies and autopsies have improved, so the extent of asbestos-related diseases has been found to be much greater than formerly had been imagined. But as these new techniques have been developed, so have the complexities of establishing claims for compensation in respect of disablement and death arising from exposure to asbestos, and it is to these problems that I now turn, as foreshadowed by the noble Earl, and I shall illustrate the difficulties by referring to some of the cases I have taken up at the request of Mrs. Tait and SPAID.

The first case is that of Mr. B, who died of mesothelioma on 24th July 1977. Both the death certificate and the coroner's report gave that disease as the cause of death, but the insurance officer refused the widow of Mr. B industrial death benefit on the grounds that there had been no occupational exposure to asbestos. When it was proved that the deceased had been so exposed, it appeared to Mrs. Tait, and certainly to me when I first took up the case, that the insurance officer changed his ground and queried the diagnosis of mesothelioma.

What actually happened, as it emerged later, was that the insurance tribunal had first to be satisfied that there had been a history of exposure before it could even look at the question of diagnosis, and because Mr. B had a very complicated work history, including spells in the Royal Navy, sometimes overseas (I think in New Zealand), and in self-employment, it was not until June 1980 that the evidence could be produced and the tribunal satisfied that Mr. B had worked in an occupation in respect of which mesothe- iloma was prescribed, and it accordingly allowed the appeal.

The first suggestion that I want to make to the Minister is that where mesothelioma or asbestosis are diagnosed the claimant should not have to prove a history of exposure. In many cases this would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, and yet these particular diseases can be caused only by exposure to asbestos. It is conceivable that some people would benefit when their exposure resulted from work in self-employment, or even in do-it-yourself activities, but I think that that would be preferable to denying benefit to persons with a legitimate claim that they cannot establish.

Returning to the case of Mr. B, after the first appeal was allowed the matter was referred to the Pneumoconiosis Medical Panel, which disagreed with the coroner's finding, though it did not suggest any alternative diagnosis. The tribunal had adjourned in the meanwhile, and the widow had the right of appeal to a medical appeal tribunal against its finding. It is very hard to say how a widow with young children to support can be expected to cope with these complex technical issues on which the experts themselves disagree. Dr. Elmes of the MRC Pnuemoconiosis Research Unit at Penarth has said that no infallible method of diagnosing mesothelioma exists, and therefore one would have thought that a diagnosis by the coroner's pathologist in favour of the claimant should be treated as conclusive. The second point that I should like to put to the noble Lord the Minister is that in a case where the coroner's pathologist has diagnosed this particular disease, it should not then be open to review and negatived by the Pneumoconiosis Medical Panel.

The second example that I want to give is that of Mr. C, who was given an x-ray examination by his employer's medical adviser in July 1978 and was informed, by means of a notice which appeared on the company's notice board, that in common with all the other employees screened he was clear. Two year's later, however, Mr. C received a letter from his own GP stating that the x-ray—which was referred to in the letter as "recent"—gave a suggestion of pneumoconiosis. Mr. C asked the company for an explanation, and the works manager apologised, saying that in future they would take more care to check the records.

Mr. C then claimed industrial injuries benefit for damage to his lungs caused as a result of his employment with the company, but the Pneumoconiosis Medical Board decided that he was not suffering from asbestos-related disease. In notifying him of the decision, the DHSS local office in Lichfield, Staffordshire, told him that he could appeal against it only if he had been examined by the board on at least four occasions. That was wrong. Since April 1979 the claimant has a right of appeal if there have been two refusals with a year in between them. The Secretary of State, Mr. Patrick Jenkin, apologised for the local office and said that although the DHSS does try hard to see that correct and up-to-date information is given, sometimes the effect of recent changes in the rules is overlooked. He also apologised, incidentally, for the illegible signature which appeared on the wrong letter, and said that normally the sender is identifiable by his or her printed name. I think that it ought to be an absolute rule—and I hope that the noble Lord the Minister will agree with this—that no letter is sent out by any office of any Government department without proper identification of the sender, as you would expect in any businesslike organisation. At this stage I should like to say that the Minister, Mr. Patrick Jenkin, was invariably extremely helpful when raised these questions with him. I have no complaint whatsoever about the examination which was conducted by the Secretary of State of any cases that were submitted to him.

The next case that I want to quote is that of Mr.H, who was admitted to Fazakerley Hospital in September 1979, and died there on 23rd September of that year of mesothelioma, which the coroner said was of industrial origin. Again in this case it proved extraordinarily difficult to establish the history of exposure. Protracted inquiries had failed to identify any particular employment in which exposure might have occurred, when at the very last moment two former workmates of Mr. H came forward and gave information which enabled the insurance officer to agree the preliminary matter of exposure.

Another aspect which arose in this case was that the hospital where Mr. H died omitted to tell his widow of the possibility of making a claim for industrial death benefit. When he replied to my letter on the subject, the Secretary of State told me that the responsibility for what is said to a patient or the relatives lies with the consultant. But medical social workers do quite often inform the relatives of patients of the possibility of claiming from cancer charities, presumably with the approval of the consultant, and I believe that they could be expected to do the same in regard to social security benefits.

In the case of Mr. J, he was originally refused his claim for benefit for diffuse mesothelioma, a prescribed industrial disease, on the grounds that the employment to which he had been exposed was not employed earner's employment. He had been self-employed from 1952 to 1957, but in the end was able to satisfy the officer that his occupation between 1946 and 1952 did involve exposure to asbestos. This illustrates another problem: that the diseases associated with asbestos might take as long as 20 or more years to develop, so that the burden of proof on the claimant might be very onerous. Mr. J's original claim for injury benefit was made on 2nd April 1980, and the Secretary of State finally wrote to me in November 1980, saying that it had been allowed, backdated to the original date of the claim, and that was reasonably quick as these cases go.

Turning to the case of Mr. P, he was first diagnosed as suffering from asbestos-related disease in April 1980, and a claim had been made for attendance allowance. On his death, which occurred on 23rd October last year, the DHSS Attendance Allowance Unit sent his widow a form letter, with the dead man's name filled in by handwriting, expressing sympathy and notifying her of the disallowance of the claim. By the way this letter, too, was signed illegibly, above the words "For Controller". Apparently some 9,000 letters of this kind go out every year, as I discovered from the Secretary of State.

I suggested that this would be an ideal application for the use of word processors, because that would enable the letters to be far more personal than they are at the moment. The Secretary of State mentioned cost, but the amount required would be minimal. A sum of around £2,500 would cover the annual cost of equipment, including maintenance, while the labour costs would he the same as the scruffy form letters that are now sent out. I suggested that this would be an excellent application for the DHSS to introduce as one of its modest contributions to Information Technology Year 1982. One might say that another answer to this problem would be to speed up determination of claims for attendance allowance. It rather shocked me to discover that as many as 9,000 persons who had submitted claims for this allowance in fact died before the claims could be determined.

Following Mr. P's death, his widow made a claim. This still had to go before the medical appeal tribunal, in spite of the diagnosis which had been made during the patient's lifetime and a favourable decision by the Pneumoconiosis Medical Panel in January 1981. It was not until 26th November that the noble Lord, Lord Elton, finally wrote to tell me that the claim had been settled in favour of the widow, with full payment of arrears—well over a year after the patient's death. This enables me to underline yet again the importance of trying to settle these claims far more promptly than they are settled at the moment.

There is one more claim that I would mention. It is that of Mr. S, who originally filled in claim forms in July 1979, after being found unfit for work due to asbestos-related disease in June of that year. He was not called for examination by the board until 18th December, some five months later. When I enquired about this I was told that the average length of time which elapsed between the receipt of a claim and the holding of an examination by the board is about three weeks. So clearly there are some circumstances in which it takes a great deal longer to process a claim, and this is a matter which I hope might be looked into.

On 31st March 1980 the Secretary of State wrote to me saying that the board had completed their examination and had concluded that Mr. S was indeed suffering from asbestosis. They had been unable to reach a decision immediately at their examination on 18th December, but had found it necessary to obtain several biopsy sections from the hospital and to seek reports on them from two pathologists; and it was not until 14th March that they were finally able to decide in favour of Mr. S's claim. It was subsequently maintained that the board did not ask for any additional biopsies to be carried out, in contravention of the advice which is given by the Department of Health in its own booklet of December 1979, which states (and I quote): Lung biopsy undertaken solely for the diagnosis of asbestosis for purposes of compensation is never justified", because, of course, biopsies may aggravate the condition from which the patient is suffering. However, the correspondence shows that that was how the hospital interpreted the request, and I would suggest that proper safeguards should be built into the procedures rather than that reliance should be placed on doctors remembering the contents of the advisory booklet.

Mr. S died on June 6, 1980, three months after his claim was determined. In September his widow wrote to me asking whether her solicitors could be helped in extracting a report from the PMP which they needed in connection with an action against his former employer. I wrote to the PMP myself, but received no answer. I think that something should be done to see that prompt and full replies are given in matters of such great importance, where claims remain to be determined.

My Lords, I think I have said enough to show that the matter of submitting claims and of obtaining benefits for asbestos-related disease is indeed, as the noble Earl, Lord Gosford, has said, an extremely complicated and long-winded one. Methods of monitoring asbestos have improved, and more people may be receiving awards than have in the past; but much remains to be done to ensure that disabled persons are properly diagnosed and that claims are processed quickly and efficiently. I think that in this Year of the Disabled vigorous measures should be taken to see that people who contract these fearful diseases are fully and promptly compensated.

9.3 p.m.

The Earl of Cranbrook

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Gosford, for raising this matter tonight, and I am glad to take the chance to say a few words, in particular in my position as chairman of Sub-Committee G of the Select Committee on the European Communities in this House. I should like to clear up a little bit the matter of the SPAID evidence which was submitted to Sub-Committee G through the European Legislation Committee of the House of Commons. We received this paper in June 1981. The House of Commons Select Committee in fact reviewed the evidence of SPAID, and they referred to this in the 25th Report, which was published on 10th June 1981, in which, in order to save a little time for my noble friend on the Front Bench. I might as well inform the noble Earl he will see a foonote on page 6 saying that a copy of the SPAID evidence was placed in the Library of the House of Commons and is available to Members there. Since the evidence was directed towards me rather than towards Her Majesty's Government, it is appropriate that I should say here, too, that I am placing a copy of the same evidence in the Library of this House, where it will be available to your Lordships.

I also intend to place in the Library, alongside, SPAID's comments on the two council documents; that is to say, the document relating to the protection of workers, which is identified by the number 9953/80, and the other document, which relates to the restriction on the marketing of asbestos and is identified by the number 6582/80. If they had been received sooner, these papers would undoubtedly have been published with the report of your Lordships' Select Committee on the European Communities under the title Asbestos, which, as the noble Earl has noted, is the 17th for the Session 1980–81. I remind your Lordships that this was in fact published on 17th March 1981 and was debated on the 14th May 1981. On neither occasion did we have the benefit of this extra evidence. I therefore value the chance to draw your Lordships' attention to the SPAID contribution.

This brings further emphasis to bear on issues which had in fact, I think, already been identified and caused concern among Members of Sub-Committee G in their scrutiny of the two documents to which I have referred. I do not wish now to repeat at length the debate which we held last May, but I would draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that the Sub-Committee's report stressed the view that there can be no so-called "safe" level established for the exposure to asbestos dust. We also noted that there are differences of opinion on the relative dangers of blue and white asbestos; that further dissemination of knowledge of the hazards of asbestos are an essential part of control, and that the counting methods which are at present in use leave much to be desired.

Since these papers were received, since the debate of 17th May, time has passed. I am very glad to note that during this time there have been some useful and progressive changes in the proposals emanating from the Commission. These changes have been notified in two memoranda which have been circulated by the Department of Employment, as the noble Earl has already noted, on 15th October 1981. I shall place these, also, in the Library so that they will be available for consultation.

In relation to the revisions of the Commission documents which have occurred, I should like to ask my noble friend a number of questions of which I have in fact given him notice. I should like to ask him, first of all, whether he is satisfied on the following points. First, does the current draft of 9953/80 ensure that the United Kingdom will be able to implement in full any recommendations of the Health and Safety Commission based on the study by the Advisory Committee on Asbestos? I should also like to ask him: are the revised requirements for medical examinations and the retention of medical records satisfactory in terms of the benefits and protection they are expected to provide to workers either exposed or likely to be exposed to asbestos?

So far as the document 5682/80 is concerned, may I ask my noble friend whether he supports the addition of the clause stipulating a review of exemptions at the end of five years after the implementation of the directive, and does he agree that the progress in this direction ought to be subject to continuing reviews at similar intervals rather than, as appears at present, to a single review? Arising out of what was said by noble Lords who preceded me this evening, I should like to join the noble Earl, Lord Gosford, in asking the Minister if he is satisfied that the existing scheme for marking products containing asbestos (other than crocidolite; for there is no crocidolite marketing in this country) is working; or whether it is failing as badly as was implied by the noble Earl.

Finally, I should like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that the World Health Organisation proposes to hold a conference on the biological effects of artificial mineral fibres; that is to say, the potential substitutes for asbestos; that this conference will be held in Copenhagen in April 1982 and I should like to ask if it is intended that the Health and Safety Commission should send delegates to the conference and whether the Health and Safety Commission are satisfied that there is adequate progress at present into the research for suitable and safe artificial mineral fibre substitutes for asbestos.

9.9 p.m.

Lord Plant

My Lords, I want to thank the noble Earl, Lord Gosford, for introducing this debate and to thank the previous speakers for having taken part in the debate on what I regard as an important subject. We know now why this debate is taking place. The evidence that was missing was based on the work of SPAID, (the Society for the Prevention of Asbestosis and Industrial Diseases) of which the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and myself are trustees. I have had a lifelong interest in this subject as a trade unionist and some 25 years as chairman of the Post Office and Civil Service Sanatorium Society whose hospital is at Benenden in Kent.

Looking at the visitors' book the other day, I found that Lord Cranbrook's forbear was present at the opening of the hospital by Princess Helena of Schleswig-Holstein in 1905. I am very glad that his descendants maintain a deep interest in this question of chest diseases. SPAID aims at benefiting the community in two ways. We advise people who become sick and disabled because of their work and often represent them at DHSS medical appeal tribunals or advise their families when there is a coroner's inquest after a death.

In the course of this work, the society gains much information which we make available to doctors, scientists, researchers, administrators, legislators, trade union officials and anyone who is able to put it to good use. Mrs. Nancy Tait has been mentioned. She is a widow, a Churchill scholar. Her husband, a Post Office engineer, died of asbestosis. Since then, Mrs. Tait has devoted her whole life to examining this problem and helping others. She works for nothing. SPAID has no money. We have to go round with the hat; and it is significant that very few coppers get in the hat. Fortunately, recently the national press has been giving some publicity to SPAID. I see that the monthly paper for old people called Yours produced by Help the Aged is now giving a good deal of information about the work of SPAID and I dare say that Mrs. Tait will be inundated by requests for help from some of our senior citizens.

The importance of this work was recognised by Mr. Danby, inspector for the Department of the Environment and Transport, whose report to the Secretary of State for the Environment following the Langburgh inquiry at which SPAID reported its recent findings on asbestos included the words: … it is clear to me that developments in the use of the electronic microscope, which post-date the eminent Advisory Committee's Final Report, may call for changes in the recommended methods of handling and working asbestos cement sheets outside the place of manufacture; the pursuit of alternative reinforcements (to asbestos) is also an obvious priority". So I feel it is important that this House should have the opportunity of considering these new developments reported by SPAID. The chairman of the Health and Safety Commission has written that the considered response to the recommendations of the final report of the Advisory Committee on Asbestos was made in April 1981. This advice has not been made public, but the asbestos industry's public relations body published, also in April 1981, that the Health and Safety Commission's advice to Ministers would include a recommendation that the control limit for amosite—brown asbestos—should be only half as strict as that recommended by the final report; that is, one fibre per millilitre instead of 0.5 fibres per millilitre; and that the introduction of safer controls for chrysotile and amosite should be delayed until January 1985, when the European Community limits take effect, although the advisory committee recommended that they should be introduced with legal backing by December 1980.

Those engaged in dangerous industries are rapidly becoming better informed by their trade unions and they will not easily forgive legislators if there is continued procrastination on this subject. Even more disturbing is that industry claims that Ministers have been advised that the obligation to consider substitution of asbestos by other materials should now apply only to manufacturers instead of to any person producing specifications or carrying on a process involving the use of asbestos, as recommended in the final report. SPAID's records show that there is more asbestos disease among workers in the asbestos industry than is reported, and even more disease among those using asbestos materials, as distinct from workers manufacturing asbsetos products.

To give some examples: an asbestos cement worker was told for 10 years that he suffered from bronchitis. A medical appeal tribunal accepted evidence that he is suffering from asbestosis, presented on his behalf by SPAID, and, assessing his disability at 50 per cent.. backdated benefits for five years. Yet we are asked to accept that asbestos cement is a safe material to manufacture and to use. This stems from the procedures for diagnosing asbestos disease used by the pneumoconiosis medical panel who rely on counts of asbestos bodies seen with an optical microscope. Yet these bodies rarely form on the white fibres used for asbestos cement and brake-linings, so that in the past, much disease arising from work in these industries has been missed.

When we look at brake linings, we find that Turner and Newall, when reporting in their 1980 Review on a study of workers at Ferodo who had at least 10 years' employment at Chapel en le Frith, claim that A preliminary report showed that the proportion of deaths in the factory workforce was no greater than of the general population". Yet, the TUC Institute of Occupational Health has reported 13 mesothelioma deaths at the factory by the end of 1979. There is a discrepancy here.

Is industry claiming that mesothelioma, the untreatable asbestos cancer, is to be considered a normal cause of death? That their employment played no part in these workers' deaths? SPAID knew another worker at that factory, at Ferodo, who died early in 1980. The coroner's pathologist suggested malignant mesothelioma as a secondary cause of death. Although the pneumoconiosis medical panel's pathologist was able to photograph what was described as an early mesothelioma, the pneumoconiosis medical panel reported that they failed to find asbestos bodies in the 30 micron sections of lung tissue, and they decided that death was unrelated to exposure to asbestos.

SPAID arranged for examination of six lung blocks using the light microscope and the analytical transmission electron microscope. While the pneumoconiosis medical panel report no asbestos bodies, our investiga- tions found between 4,200 and 12,400 asbestos bodies per gram of dried lung—this was when the light microscope was used—and between 11 million and 52 million asbestos fibres per gram of dried lung when they used the electron microscope. In how many other cases would panel decisions be found to be wrong if more of their decisions were to be investigated by the methods recommended by SPAID? Mesothelioma deaths have increased almost three-fold over a decade but only one in five has received industrial death benefit from DHSS. Does this mean that the DHSS and their pneumoconiosis medical panels have decided that four out of five mesothelioma deaths are due to environmental exposure to asbestos? Or are they denying claimants money to which they are entitled?

Certainly, cases investigated by SPAID suggest that the general public is at risk as the amount of asbestos accumulates in the air we breathe. The following people have died of mesothelioma; a man who worked with asbestos sheets for two weeks to line a factory's walls and ceiling died 24 years later at the age of 46; a man who demonstrated an asbestos plugging compound for one year. A similar product is still sold for use by the home handyman—and you do not know you are using it—without any adequate warning on the packet. A man died who built one garage of asbestos cement sheeting. The number of carpenters developing this cancer is causing the building industry and the trade union movement a great deal of concern.

In 1973 the Department of Employment recommended the use of less toxic alternative materials in place of asbestos in new construction work. Yet we find that it is only overseas that an excellent alternative to asbestos cement, developed by the University of Guildford by 1978, is going into production. Why has the United Kingdom company which acquired the licence failed to keep pace with Holland. Italy and Australia when there is such a need for this product? Both the TUC and Labour Party conferences in 1980 and 1981 supported recommendations that the use of asbestos should be phased out and the evidence collected by SPAID that disease caused by asbestos has been seriously under-reported in the past makes it clear that asbestos is too dangerous to be used. So much is used and it is used so carelessly. Recent reports by our Medical Research Council concerning incidents in Turkey suggest that mesothelioma can occur where the exposure is only to very low Environmental fibre concentrations; even as low as one-hundredth of those encountered by workers in the asbestos industry today.

There has been much media interest in the 63 mesotheliomas in this Turkish village because the fibres are zeolite, not asbestos and the media like novelty. But about 200 kilometres further north. 122 mesotheliomas are reported, and in this area we find that the fibre is chrysotile and tremolite, otherwise known as white asbestos. Perhaps the Langburgh inspector would have been even more concerned had a recent Lancet article on these Turkish mesotheliomas been published before, rather than after, the Langbaurgh hearing. In this article, researchers report that they cannot explain how such low levels of fibres can be reconciled with mesothelioma rates at least as high as those observed among heavily exposed asbestos workers, and conclude by saying that this problem … may be relevant to the wider issue of mesothelioma in relation to long-term inhalation of low levels of mineral fibres (typically asbestos) by the urban populations of industrialised countries". SPAID has been involved with eight DHSS appeals recently. In all but one case the appeal tribunal has agreed with SPAID and awarded benefit previously withheld by DHSS—that is, medical men recognised by the DHSS as eminent in their field are agreeing that SPAID has succeeded in identifying asbestos disease previously undiagnosed by the pneumoconiosis medical panels.

In two cases, both diagnosed as asbestosis by the appeals tribunal, work with asbestos had been intermittent and for short periods only; for example, weighing asbestos for only one day a week for about five years. Asbestosis is not dose-related. It is not only those who have worked with asbestos for years who develop asbestosis and cancer, but until recently there was no right of appeal against decisions of pneumoconiosis medical panels, as mentioned by my noble friend Lord Avebury. So they have been able to impose their own criteria as to what should be recognised as asbestos disease, and were able to stipulate that there must have been heavy exposure to asbestos before a diagnosis of asbestosis could be made.

If exposure had been slight, other names were given to conditions which cannot be distinguished from asbestosis. In one case, a family pet budgerigar was blamed. The panel forms have a list of birds, from racing pigeons to turkeys. It is duly recorded if a claimant has kept them at any time, and then they argue that keeping birds is more likely to cause disease than is work with asbestos. How mean and stupid can we get? I suggest that it is time for investigation and reform of these Pneumoconiosis Medical Panels.

It is argued that workers benefit from the jobs which the asbestos industry provides, but the workers who are required to use asbestos products, often unlabelled—and this has been mentioned as another problem—pay for those jobs with their health, and the manufacture of safer materials would equally provide employment. Alternatives are now known for all uses of asbestos in this country. The change to alternative materials is making better progress overseas. Asbestos-free brake pads are marketed in Australia and asbestos-free braking systems are being developed in the United States. Perhaps their product liability legislation makes them more aware of the need.

In contrast, in the United Kingdom industry has apparently persuaded the Health and Safety Commission to allow the asbestos industry to control the pace at which any change is made in this country. It is necessary to take care that alternatives are not equally dangerous, but, too often, this is argued purely as a delaying ploy and without making any effort to compare or identify possible risks.

Meantime, workers are still working in levels of asbestos dust which the Advisory Committee on Asbestos said should not be allowed to continue after December 1980. The Advisory Committee on Asbestos considered a number of studies before recommending control limits of 0.5 fibres per millilitre for amosite (brown asbestos) and one fibre per millilitre for chrysotile (white asbestos). One, a study of American asbestos textile and asbestos cement workers using chrysotile, reported one death from mesothelioma. The authors now report 58 mesothelioma deaths associated with that factory: 41 were workers at the factory not included in the original study, and 17 were people not working there but living near the factory. This fully justifies the criticism made by many at the time when the final report was published, that there was no sound scientific basis for the proposed control limit of one fibre; that such a control limit would not protect workers from disease.

It is not surprising that the inspector of the Department of the Environment drew attention to new evidence post-dating the advisory committee's final report, which suggests that asbestos is more dangerous than was thought when the committee reported in 1979. It is surprising that the Health and Safety Commission is content to allow its recommendations to be watered down and shelved, and is content to allow workers to continue to put their health at risk. I hope that my friend, Bill Simpson, will take note of my criticism.

I said earlier that the claimant has been successful in seven of eight cases in which SPAID has given advice, which shows the quality of the work which this society is doing. In the one case refused benefit by the Medical Appeal Tribunal, the reason given was that asbestosis affects the lining of the lung (called the pleura), but not the lung itself, and the DHSS regulations do not recognise this as asbestosis. The Industrial Injuries Advisory Council recommended in 1973 that the regulations should be changed to allow benefit to be paid if a claimant was disabled by asbestosis of the lung or its lining. Researchers have demonstrated that disablement caused by pleural asbestosis can be identified but the regulations still remain unchanged. Again we see the continued procrastination. One pneumoconiosis medical panel doctor told an international conference in 1979 that he agreed with Mrs. Nancy Tait, however, that the rules to which the panels had to work were not all in complete agreement with current scientific opinion. The value of the society's work is recognised by eminent medical men in this country and abroad. It shows clearly that asbestos is even more dangerous than had previously been reported.

I apologise for the time I have taken in making this statement to your Lordships. I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Gosford, for asking this question and for drawing attention to this important new evidence on the dangers of the use of asbestos.

9.31 p.m.

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede

My Lords, first I should like, as other noble Lords have done, to thank the noble Earl, Lord Gosford, for raising this evening the subject of asbestos. Those who have spoken before me in the debate have gone into a great deal of detail. I do not intend to weary your Lordships by repeating it. However, it has presented your Lordships with a very effective case for the Government taking action.

The noble Earl, Lord Gosford, complained that SPAID's evidence did not get to the EEC Select Committee and should be added to their report. The noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, told your Lordships what happened and he has taken immediate action to see that the relevant documents which have been presented to him are placed in the Library. I am sure that your Lordships would like to thank him for taking such speedy action.

The noble Earl, Lord Gosford, pointed out that the new scientific developments to which he referred and which had been referred to the Select Committee have shown that multitudes of small white asbestos fibres which were not previously visible are present in diseased tissues and that the danger of asbestosis is much wider than had been previously suspected. Obviously we must be very concerned at this turn of events—and necessarily. This makes us more concerned as to whether the present methods of monitoring the presence of asbestos are adequate.

Monitoring is a highly technical question. I am sure that your Lordships' desire must be that it should be as effective as possible, consistent with the monitoring system being able to give speedy results. As always on monitoring, one must strike a balance between speed and effectiveness. However, our major concern this evening must be the eradication of these health hazards and whether adequate safety standards are being used—and where this is not possible, that in fact substitutes are brought in.

Asbestos has been widely used as an insulating agent for many years and has been put to many other uses. There is undoubtedly difficulty over a period of time in developing substitutes. Both the noble Earl, Lord Gosford, and the noble Lord, Lord Plant, have spoken about these substitutes, and in particular about the delay in developing them. We must be concerned that the substitues themselves do not involve health hazards. But even so, we must be concerned at the report in The Times yesterday about this delay, which was spoken to my my noble friend Lord Plant. In fact it seems that the delay has gone on rather longer than necessary. I hope on this general point, as opposed to some of the very detailed points which noble Lords have raised, that the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, will be able to give an answer as to why we have not been able to proceed faster with the manufacture of substitutes, as has been indicated.

I think in general your Lordships have shown in this debate this evening that this is an area of great concern. As I have said, the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, detailed individual cases which he had investigated. The noble Lord, Lord Plant, detailed some of this history of the society. I do not intend to add to those details, but my fear is that the Government will be tempted to sit back and do nothing while further tests are made. I feel that the evidence which has been presented to your Lordships this evening from all quarters of the House is important evidence which should lead the Government to take action.

9.37 p.m.

Lord Lyell

My Lords, I believe the whole House will be immensely grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Gosford, for raising this fascinating and very detailed and interesting, and in many cases very tragic, subject in your Lordships' House this evening. Your Lordships will be aware that many different and detailed points have been raised and many of those points have contained frank and detailed warning from Members of your Lordships' House who have taken part in the debate. I hope that I shall be able to give satisfactory answers. With regard to some of the other instant questions I shall do my best, and if there are any points that miss I trust that I shall obtain the usual indulgence from your Lordships and be able to write in detail, together with some of the scientific points, to noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. We shall all be conscious that Members of your Lordships' House and of another place have done much valuable work in examining all the developments in legislation on, and the control of, exposure to asbestos in this country, in other member states of the European Community, and indeed further afield.

The noble Earl, Lord Gosford, who asked this Question tonight took part in our previous and more general debate on the two draft European Community proposals which are now under negotiation in Brussels, and I would attempt to build on what my honourable friend said recently in another place, actually on the 22nd October, in replying to the more detailed questions which have now been asked by the noble Earl.

The Health and Safety Commission's Advisory Committee on Asbestos, as the experts in your Lordships' House will be aware, sat between 1976 and 1979 and took a very comprehensive review of the current methods of sampling and indeed of evaluating asbestos dust. In the report on the measurement and monitoring of asbestos in the air, published in 1978, the Advisory Committee concluded that for workplace monitoring there was then no practical alternative to the collection of airborne fibres on what we call a "membrane filter" and then counting these by means of optical phase contrast microscopy—or should it be micro-scoppy?

Baroness Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe

My Lords, the noble Lord was right the first time.

Lord Lyell

Clearly the noble Baroness is a Great expert, and we look forward to hearing her perhaps on another occasion. Although this committee acknowledged the limitations of this particular method, subsequent research and development has not yet produced a satisfactory replacement, and indeed the membrane filter method continues to be the one on which controls for occupational exposure are based, and which is at present routinely used for the protection in the workplace, for process control, and indeed for assessing legislative compliance by industry both in the factory inspectorate and in epidemiological surveys.

The advisory committee further recognised that there was an important need to devote further effort to reducing the variation which occurred in the evaluation of samples by this method and indeed to develop more sophisticated methods to replace or supplement manual counting. The Health and Safety Executive, in co-operation with industry, and indeed with other countries, have already done a great deal of work to implement these recommendations. The debate which we had in your Lordships' House—I think it was in March this year—looked at some length at research and development of automatic methods of counting and analysing the concentration of airborne fibres in the workplace, and I am happy to say that this work is continuing in co-operation with the manufacturers of the instruments, and that comparative trials are undertaken regularly to increase the reliability of these instruments which are in day-to-day use.

In addition the Government, as your Lordships will recall, are engaged in discussion of the draft European Community directive on the protection of workers from the risks which are related to exposure to asbestos, and this draft directive contains, among other things, provisions for monitoring asbestos in the air at the workplace; and, certainly from the background of our experience, we are discussing with other member states development of an agreed reference method to encourage more consistent comparisons of the techniques of monitoring this problem throughout the Community.

Various noble Lords who have spoken in the debate have raised the problem of alternatives for asbestos. In this regard the Government encourage the replacement of asbestos in particular uses by other suitable substances so far as is reasonably practicable. But, of course, we have to take account of current knowledge of the respective health risks of these substitutes, and also of the use of the substitutes in production, the effectiveness of the substitutes in the performance in place of asbestos and asbestos fibres, and the costs which are associated with the changeover from asbestos to various forms of substitutes. The Government very greatly welcome the efforts that have been, and indeed still are continuing to be, made by industry, and especially by research institutes, to develop substitutes for asbestos in an ever-widening range of applications.

I would remind your Lordships that, as was said by my honourable friend in another place, the unique combination of properties which has led to the widespread use of asbestos in general has made asbestos difficult to replace. By the same token, if other substances are to be effective substitutes, the very properties that make them suitable can also present potential, possibly as yet undiagnosed, risks to health. Therefore, in this respect the Government would advise prudence in substitutions.

The Earl of Gosford

My Lords, may I just add very quickly that men and women and children are also difficult to replace, and really there is quite an urgency to see that these old materials are now replaced by more modern methods.

Lord Lyell

My Lords, of course the Government agree totally with the noble Earl. But I possibly did not spell it out in my reference to alternative substances that we are operating at the limits of scientific knowledge, as we find it, and as the noble Earl will find later in my reply to a very valid point made by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, many of these diseases regrettably only become evident 20 to 30 years after the worker or, as the noble Earl points out, the men, women and children, have been exposed to this particular risk. But certainly, the Government take an urgent view of this matter and are doing everything that can be done within the limits of science.

I should like to attempt to reply in detail to the points which have been raised by those noble Lords who have taken part in the debate this evening. The noble Earl, Lord Gosford, began his interesting speech by mentioning evidence which had been offered by SPAID to, I think, the Select Committee in another place. Certainly I hope that the noble Earl and the House will be satisfied with the very full and valuable answer which was given by my noble friend Lord Cranbrook.

The first major question which was put to me by the noble Earl, Lord Gosford, was about the dates of the consideration by the European Commission. I am advised that further discussions on the draft directives are expected to take place in early 1982. The precise timing of these discussions will, indeed depend upon decisions which will be taken by the new presidency for the first half of 1982, which will be the Belgium presidency, of the European Community. However, we would hope that they would accord these discussions the utmost urgency and I have no doubt that, in view of the very valuable work which is done by your Lordships' European Community committees and, indeed, by my noble friend Lord Cranbrook, the remarks which all Members of your Lordships' House have made in the debate tonight will be very closely studied in the European Commission. That is the way that these things work and your Lordships' House is pre-eminent in its knowledge and I would pay tribute to the valuable work which is done by the European Community committees upstairs. We know that their reports and the debate tonight are taken seriously by the European Commission.

The noble Earl also made a brief reference to electronic microscopy and I thought that I might just turn briefly to this particular problem. As your Lordships will be aware, the Health and Safety Executive is evaluating several what we call automatic counting devices which are available commercially to monitor and check on the problems which we are discussing this evening. There are, I understand, three devices. One is called Magiscan. This is something which is beyond my scientific knowledge so far and it is called an automatic image analyser and this, we are very proud to see, has been developed at the University of Manchester and is manufactured in this country. There is another microscope which goes under the trade name of M88. The third is a fibrous aerosol monitor. I understand that the fibrous aerosol monitor has not proved as satisfactory, at least at present, as we would wish. The M88 microscope has been very fully assessed by the Institute of Occupational Medicine in Edinburgh in co-operation with the manufacturers Vickers Instruments Limited and, above all, with the asbestos industry. From the results which have been obtained, the Health and Safety Executive believes that the device would have very great advantages where samples were of a limited range of types or, indeed, for large numbers of low density samples of one particular type of fibre. But we wonder whether this particular machine would be suitable for routine enforcement.

I come lastly to the machine which is known as Magiscan. We understand that the results which have so far been obtained at levels which correspond to the present hygiene standard are usually well within the spread of the manual results, which use the systematic manual method, but further developments of monitoring methods and instruments are being pursued with great vigour in co-operation with other countries outside the European Community, and, indeed, with the European Commission.

The noble Earl raised one other point which, indeed, I think was also raised by a number of other Members of your Lordships' House; certainly by the noble Lord, Lord Plant, and my noble friend Lord Cranbrook. This was concerned with the problems of labelling. Following various discussions between the Government and representatives of the asbestos industry, there was a scheme, which we are happy to call the Voluntary Labelling Scheme, which was introduced in 1976 for all manufactured consumer products in the United Kingdom which contain asbestos of a form and of a type which could constitute a possible danger to health through the release of asbestos dust.

More recently the industry has had some success in persuading importers of similar products to participate in this scheme. But since the publication of the final report of the Advisory Committee on Asbestos, a research study has been carried out on behalf of the Department of Trade which shows that although there has been some improvement in the effectiveness of this voluntary scheme since 1976, regrettably it was still not fully observed. But the proposals on labelling, which are now under consideraton in relation to the draft Directive on Marketing and Use, would be based on the design of the United Kingdom label. The scope and wording of any safety instructions unfortunately remain to be agreed. But, if adopted, this directive would make labelling mandatory for all member states. The Government support this proposal in principal as a further means of achieving harmonisation on the use of asbestos throughout the Community, provided that the provisions of this directive are practicable and, indeed, are capable of effective enforcement.

The noble Earl, Lord Gosford, raised a particularly interesting point, as certainly did the noble Lord, Lord Plant, and another noble Lord. It concerned this substitute for asbestos developed with cement, which I understand is the result of work which has been carried out and is still under research at the University of Surrey. We are very much aware of the work which is done at this university towards developing a potential alternative to asbestos cement. This consists of a cement mixture with what I am told are reinforcing layers of stretched polypropylene netting. I am given to understand that an important aspect of cement made by this process is that, unlike asbestos cement, which is manufactured in several layers, the potential substitute at this university under this process is made in one layer during what is called "continuous manufacture". I have not had the opportunity of seeing this being manufactured, but I understand it means that new production machinery has had to be developed, making the product itself more complicated and, Indeed, more costly to produce.

This problem has created a potential difficulty in changing over from the manufacture of asbestos cement to that of this new material. But, of course, in this area of trying to find some particular or suitable substitute for asbestos cement we must take into account that the decision of any company whether or not to manufacture a particular product is for that company to take, bearing in mind the technical, social, medical and, of course, the economic factors in the case of each substitute and how that substitute will be relevant to the particular company's product.

The noble Earl, Lord Gosford, gave me notice of one other particular point, which he did not necessarily raise this evening, but I would hope that your Lordships would enable me to deal with it briefly. It concerned paints. The noble Earl asked me about asbestos fibres in paint, and especially in paint used for decorative purposes. I am advised that asbestos fibres have not been used in decorative paints for many years, although they were once used as what we call a binding agent in some specialised domestic paints for protection against condensation and indeed corrosion.

I am given to understand that there is still a very small and diminishing use of chrysotile fibres—they are complicated words; I believe this is the white asbestos in what I was told was the spectrum; I see the noble Lord, Lord Stone, nodding, so clearly at least I have the support of one in your Lordships' House—as a minor component of some industrial paints, but I would say that active steps are being taken to replace any form of asbestos fibres in these remaining uses.

The Earl of Gosford

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for being so conscientious in answering that "silent" question.

Lord Lyell

My Lords, I had hoped your Lordships would bear with me. I have taken one minute, but it certainly was of interest to me and I am sure is of interest to your Lordships' House. The speech of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, was very interesting indeed, but I would have to say to him, with all the courtesy that I can muster, that many of the cases—and the detailed cases—he raised are to a large extent outwith my brief this evening, and indeed many of the references that the noble Lord made were to my right honourable friend in another place, Mr. Patrick Jenkin, when he was at the Department of Health and Social Security.

I have to advise the noble Lord and the House that I do not have a second selection of notes on these particular detailed problems of claims and compensation. Any of your Lordships who have had to deal with questions and debates on Department of Health and Social Security problems and claims will appreciate that we could be here until very late at night if I, of all people, had to attempt to deal with the claims. May I attempt to answer as many as I can of the questions and the points that were raised by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. I hope that I shall be able to do so, and I hope that he will hear with me.

One of the first points the noble Lord raised was what I called automatic counting. I hope I have covered that in my earlier comments in reply to the noble Earl, Lord Gosforth. So far as Mr. B, the first case, was concerned—and indeed it was fascinating to hear his complicated life pattern—I am afraid I could not comment on that particular case so far the Question tonight is concerned. Indeed, all these claims and the problems that have been associated with the claims are, I am afraid, outwith the particular Question I am attempting to answer, and this deals particularly with the actual disease, the conditions at the work place and the steps taken to attempt to monitor or, we hope, prevent the disease.

Mr. C was found to have asbestosis. I am afraid the particular details of his claim are outwith any sphere of answer that I could give tonight. So far as the illegible signatures are concerned, first of all the department for which I am speaking this evening would have no special responsibility for signatures from another department, but in general the points that were raised by the noble Lord so far as illegible signatures, or "For Controller", are concerned, will be carefully read, and I hope diagnosed and acted upon in other departments.

So far as Mr. J was concerned in the comments by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, I noted his lifestyle and how he was self-employed and how he was employed from 1947 to 1952. I would not be able to comment necessarily on the justification or not for his claim or the problem, but the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, is of particular relevance to these appalling diseases we have been discussing this evening. Indeed, these diseases were spelt out in graphic detail in the report of the committee of my noble friend Lord Cranbrook.

The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, rightly pointed out that many of these diseases take 20 years or more to manifest themselves. The timespan between when workers—or, as my noble friend Lord Cranbrook pointed out, innocent members of the public—are exposed to risk and one of these diseases manifesting itself by whatever method (by electronic microscopy and so on) can be 20 or 30 years. Of course, technology is advancing all the time, so the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, was of exceptional relevance.

As for the other cases the noble Lord raised, of Mr. P and Mr. S, while they are most interesting, I am afraid I could not comment on the settlement or indeed justification of the claims, or the time between examination and the claim being three weeks or five months or whatever. While I could not comment on that tonight, I assure the noble Lord that his comments, and all the others that have been made in this debate by noble Lords, will be carefully read by the departments which have an interest in these diseases, and of course by the department for which I am speaking tonight. Thus, any points with which I am not able to deal will be noted by the relevant departments.

We had a notable contribution from my noble friend Lord Cranbrook. The whole House will be aware of the tremendously valuable work which he as chairman and his committee do, and have done, in examining the two directives, and I hope the House will bear with me when, on behalf of all your Lordships, I thank him and his committee for the expert and valuable work they have done and for their fascinating report, which I and noble Lords who have spoken tonight will have read. I was grateful for my noble friend's replies to the problems of the evidence presented by SPAID, and I hope that also dealt with the first problem raised by the noble Earl, Lord Gosford.

My noble friend raised a point of special reference to the Health and Safety Executive going to Copenhagen in April 1982. I am able to confirm that the executive will be well represented at the World Health Organisation's meeting on the biological effects of man-made mineral fibres to be held in Copenhagen in April 1982. The HSE representation consists, I am informed, of the factory inspectorate division, the scientific and medical divisions and representatives of policy. I hope that that massive representation demonstrates the great importance which the HSE places on the development of all safe alternatives to asbestos. My noble friend also asked about voluntary labelling, and I hope the answer I gave to the noble Earl, Lord Gosford, will satisfy him on that.

The noble Lord, Lord Plant, made a very interesting speech. However, I fear that much of it was beyond the scope of my reply this evening. The noble Lord asked about the final report from the Asbestos Advisory Committee. I am advised that the Government have generally welcomed the HSE's advice, and the Government have agreed that this advice should form the basis of the approach by the United Kingdom to Community legislation on asbestos and all the problems associated with it. But the development and the implementation of the policy of this country and of this Government on asbestos will need to be co-ordinated henceforward with that of the two draft EEC directives.

The noble Lord, Lord Plant, also raised two other points, one of which related to labelling, and I hope that on that I was able to satisfy him through my reply to the noble Earl, Lord Gosford. The noble Lord, Lord Plant, also raised the problem of the substitute material which is being developed continuously at the University of Surrey, and I hope that my previous remarks will have satisfied him on that particular score.

The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, raised one particular point which related to monitoring, and I shall try to answer this briefly. I understand that the word "monitoring" means maintaining a regular surveillance over something or someone. In regard to what we are dealing with tonight it applies to both the problem of asbestos dust as well as the human beings who are involved, either actively at their place of work, or, as the noble Earl, Lord Gosford, mentioned, as innocent bystanders or people otherwise in the vicinity. I hope that the Government have been able to show that by all kinds of methods, certainly by the electronic microscopy methods, and by attempting to fulfil our obligations under the workplace directive, we are meeting our obligations in this particularly important area.

There is of course another problem, that of the diagnosing of disease. The distinction between diagnosing and monitoring is a fundamental one, and certainly we should not want to blur the boundaries between these two concepts of diagnosis and monitoring.

Lord Davies of Leek

My Lords, I hate to interrupt the noble Lord, but I have had experience of pneumoconiosis, and I am concerned that a person who might have a disease arising from asbestos should have the legal muscle—which sometimes the trade union movement tries to give him—to get his case fought out properly before the tribunals, which overawe many a worker who goes before them.

Lord Lyell

My Lords, I suspect that the noble Lord has experience of providing what he calls the muscle to assist the very unfortunate victims of asbestosis, above all, and the associated diseases. I hope that Government monitoring and diagnosis— the two concepts—are clearly drawn. Certainly my right honourable friend who is in charge of the Department of Health takes these problems very seriously. The department for which I am speaking this evening is concerned to take very seriously problems connected with prevention rather than hoped-for cure. We take the question of prevention very seriously, and I shall see that the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Davies, are noted—

Lord Davies of Leek

I did not mean to be aggressive.

Lord Lyell

No, my Lords; I hope that the noble Lord does not think that I am attempting to be in any way aggressive in returning his volley. I shall certainly see that his remarks are noted, particularly in view of his undoubted interest in asbestosis, as well as the other diseases, including pneumoconiosis and byssinosis, which we have also heard about, though not tonight.

I promised to be brief, and I am very near the end in trying to reply to all the very detailed points, but the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, and indeed others, asked about the substitution of asbestos. I would have to say that there is no apparent threshold below which any exposure to asbestos entails absolutely no risks to anybody's health. But, of course, there are very clear and obvious advantages in replacing it with alternatives provided that those alternatives are, in their turn, less hazardous. The Advisory Committee on Asbestos recommended that there should be an explicit obligation to consider the replacement of asbestos so far as it is reasonably practicable to do so—and I hope that this will marry in with the remarks that I made earlier—the Government and industry being very much at the limits of technology and science as we have the position today. The Government certainly support this particular view, and also the onward thrust of technology, but for practical reasons we believe that this obligation should be applied particularly and only to manufacturers of products which contain asbestos—and, of course, in the United Kingdom at the moment these are white and brown asbestos. I think that is chrysotile and amosite.

In conclusion, while I hope that I have shown this evening that the Government are by no means complacent about the progress which has been made so far, they believe that in the field of monitoring at the workplace of asbestos and the development of substitutes responsible advances are being made, and we hope that the United Kingdom will continue to play a leading role in seeking their realistic harmonisation with other countries.