§ Mr. Martin Salter (Reading, West)I welcome the opportunity to bring the case of my constituent, Mr. James Fryer, of Purley in Reading, to the attention of the Chamber. Sadly, due to ill health, Mr. Fryer cannot be here to witness the results of his four-year struggle to obtain industrial injuries disablement benefit. However, it is obvious to me that there is a clear case for the legislation surrounding the IIDB qualifying criteria to be reviewed by the Government.
I want briefly to outline the history of my constituent's case. As my hon. Friend the Minister and hon. Members will know, to qualify for IIDB the claimant must have worked in a prescribed occupation and the claim must be made within five years of having worked in that employment. For 34 years, Mr. Fryer worked with power presses at Waymaster Ltd. in Reading. However, unfortunately for him, and for some bizarre reason, power presses are not listed in the Department of Social Security guidelines and the occupation is not prescribed.
Mr. Fryer has suffered hearing loss as a result of his employment. That has been supported by subsequent medical reports. He made his claim for IIDB in 1996 and was refused in the same year in which the social security tribunal upheld the idea that the use of a power press did not constitute the use of a prescribed tool in a prescribed occupation. The nub of that argument is that power presses somehow make only background industrial noise. Anybody who has spent time on the shop floor and has seen such a press in operation will know that the very last thing that a power press makes is background industrial noise. It makes a considerable noise, and 34 years' work in the industry is likely to have some effect on a person's hearing. I should know; I was born right next to Heathrow airport, which is one reason why I have to shout a lot.
It is worth quoting the DSS tribunal hearing of 3 November 1996. Giving the grounds for his appeal, Mr. Fryer states:
If you read the first paragraph of NI 207 you will find that Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit was introduced to help the very people like myself. That is the first and foremost reason of its existence.Secondly I do not believe there are two kinds of industrial deafness and I don't think the members of a tribunal will either, but if you can prove me wrong would you please put it in writing so that I might forward your statement to Mr. Hayworth, the hearing consultant at the Royal Berkshire Hospital, so he does not unknowingly mislead other people into thinking that they are industrially deaf when in fact, according to your rules, they are not.A senior consultant at a well-respected hospital is advising constituents of mine that they qualify for that benefit when, because of a vagary in the rules, they do not.Although I could continue at length, I am aware of the time constraints. However, I must quote the adjudicating officer's statement:
Mr Fryer is claiming that his deafness has been caused by working with power presses. In his letter of 23/4/1996 Mr Fryer states his deafness has been caused by working for 34 years with power presses and "for the rules to exclude power presses is very wrong".250WHAs Mr Fryer has not worked with any of the prescribed tools or in any of the prescribed occupations in the five years prior to his date of claim the decision at box I was given.Unfortunately, that decision was to deny Mr. Fryer IIDB. It is ridiculous that we have such time-limited criteria. Even though someone worked in an industry for 25 or 30 years—34 years in the case of my constituent—and because of the five-year gap before the hearing impediment became such that he felt able to lodge a claim, Mr. Fryer is somehow ineligible. Somehow, 34 years' work in heavy engineering counts for nothing under the rules.In my three years as a Member, I have made a number of representations about Mr. Fryer to Ministers in both Houses. Although the responses have helpfully set out the legislation surrounding the qualifying criteria for IIDB, unfortunately the law offers my constituent little hope of obtaining a benefit that was established in 1974—in his eyes and mine and, I would suggest, in the eyes of Parliament at that time—to cater for people such as Mr. Fryer.
I have had copious correspondence with Ministers, which has been useful but not productive. A letter from Baroness Hollis of Heigham states:
You also expressed concern about the fact that Mr. Fryer's occupation is not on the list of prescribed occupations for which industrial injuries disablement benefit in respect of deafness can be paid. A disease may only be prescribed as an industrial disease if it can be treated as a risk of occupation and not as a risk common to all people and where, in particular cases, the occupational link can be established or presumed with reasonable certainty.Apart from the fact that that statement makes absolutely no sense whatever, it defies logic to suggest that members of the general public wander in and out of engineering shops, exposing themselves to noise caused by power presses. That is the implication of what the Minister wrote.My gripe is not with the treatment that my constituent has received from the Government, but with the inflexibility of the IIDB qualifying criteria. I call on the Government to relax the criteria for those who have suffered hearing loss or impairment as a result of their employment. I understand that the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council keeps under review literature that relates to hearing loss at work. That fine, independent body then reports to the Secretary of State for Social Security and advises him or her accordingly. I put it to my hon. Friend the Minister that there is a case for reviewing the way in which the scientific evidence is used in this area.
Perhaps my hon. Friend can advise me whether the Government have any plans to establish a group to look more deeply into the problem. I want to hear from him today whether there will be a full review of the criteria surrounding industrial deafness and the prescribed occupations. I am aware that being able accurately to assess the nature of a claimant's hearing loss after the statutory five-year period is a problem for Ministers, but I hope that they will look again at the nature of the employment that perhaps led to the hearing difficulties in the first place.
I draw to the Chamber's attention the results of "Indecent Exposure", a joint report on noise at work by the Royal National Institute for Deaf People and the Trades Union Congress that was published in March last year. I congratulate both bodies on their fine work 251WH in researching excessive noise in the workplace. I am sure that, like me, hon. Members will be concerned to learn that current Health and Safety Executive figures suggest that at least 1.3 million employees are exposed to noise levels above 85 decibels—the point at which noise affects hearing and can affect it in the long term.
The connection between hearing loss and excessive noise is certainly not one that any self-respecting scientist or doctor would dispute. Clearly, the Government have done much to improve working conditions for millions of employees throughout the country. However, it seems clear that improvement is still lacking in this area and, despite various regulations and Acts of Parliament, industrial deafness still is not treated as seriously in the workplace as its consequences demand.
The report "Indecent Exposure" discovered that nearly a quarter of all respondents to the RNIDP-TUC survey reported listening to uncomfortably loud sounds for more than four hours a day. Almost one in five construction workers, more than one in 10 workers in the manufacturing sector and those working on oil rigs reported being exposed to uncomfortably loud sound for more than eight hours a day. A third of respondents said that work tasks left them with dullness of hearing—in 16 per cent. of cases, the dullness was continuous—and 20 per cent. reported that work tasks left them with ringing or rushing noises in their ears or head lasting more than five minutes.
Just as worrying is the fact that nearly half the respondents said that they were concerned that noise levels at work were affecting their hearing. However, only a quarter had raised their concern with someone and only two thirds had approached their employer. I endorse the noise at work campaign, which called for a number of improvements in the regulatory regime, such as:
more research into the dangers of noise in industries where the risks are not understood, or acted on … employers to meet their legal obligations under the Noise at Work Regulations 1989, reducing the risk of noise damage in the workplace; employees to be aware of the potential risks to their hearing from working in noisy environments, to wear appropriate ear protectors when provided and to inform and work with the employers to reduce noise risk; and greater awareness of the cumulative effects of noise damage—both from the workplace and from leisure activities—which increase the risk of hearing damage and tinnitus.Those are very worrying figures, which should concern us all, particularly those of us who represent the few places in the country where there is still heavy industry, and manufacturing industry at that. To that end, I urge the Minister to re-examine the law surrounding the criteria for prescribed occupations with a view to offering my constituent some recompense.I urge the Government to commission a report into noise levels in the workplace and their health implications, and to do more to encourage enforcement of existing noise regulations. I ask them to encourage employers and employees to foster a more ear-friendly culture in the workplace, especially through enforcement of the Noise at Work Regulations 1989.
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Hugh Bayley)I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter) 252WH on raising the important issue of occupational deafness. I sympathise with the difficulties that his constituent has experienced. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the persistent way in which he has pursued Mr. Fryer's case. He has proved again that he is an exemplary Member of Parliament speaking up for his constituents.
Before I respond to my hon. Friend's points, it may be helpful if I give some background information about occupational deafness and the industrial injuries benefit scheme. Occupational deafness became one of the prescribed diseases for industrial injuries disablement benefit in 1974. To qualify for industrial injuries disablement benefit on the ground of occupational deafness, a person must have worked in one or more of the prescribed occupations for an aggregate period of at least 10 years. The person must then claim benefit within five years of leaving the occupation that caused the hearing loss.
The person will be tested to see if he has an average hearing loss of at least 50 decibels in both ears due to damage in the inner ear. In at least one ear, that must be owing to noise at work. To get benefit for occupational deafness, the person's disablement must be 20 per cent. or more.
As hon. Members may be aware, the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council is an independent statutory body which provides advice to the Secretary of State for Social Security. The advisory council consists of a chairman and 16 members. There is an equal number of representatives of employers, appointed by the Confederation of British Industry, and employed earners, appointed by the TUC. The remaining members come largely from medical backgrounds connected with occupational diseases.
The advisory council advises the Secretary of State on the prescription of industrial diseases, on legislation and on the industrial injuries benefit scheme itself. When the advisory council prescribed occupational deafness as a disease in 1974, it considered that the prescription should cover those most at risk of substantial, work-related hearing loss.
The advisory council recommended that there should be four qualifying conditions. Those related to, first, the level of hearing loss; secondly, the occupations; thirdly, the length of exposure to noise; and, fourthly, the time limit for claiming benefit. The advisory council can recommend prescription only where there is good scientific and epidemiological evidence of a link between the disease and the occupation. Since 1974, the provisions for occupational deafness have been extended in line with further recommendations from the advisory council in 1979, 1983 and 1994.
My hon. Friend asks whether there will be a full review of those issues. I confirm that a review of occupational deafness is taking place. I will return to that later. First, I should like to comment, as far as I can, on the issues raised in relation to Mr. Fryer's case.
As my hon. Friend will be aware, Ministers cannot become involved in individual claims for benefit. Claims for benefit are entirely a matter for Benefits Agency decision-makers or, before July last year, adjudication officers. When they are contested, the claimant has the right to ask a social security appeal tribunal to hear the case. The tribunal, which is independent of the DSS— 253WH tribunals are accountable to a judge, not to the Department or to Ministers—can overturn the adjudication officer's decision.
The tribunal has the status of a court of law and a Minister cannot ignore or overturn its decision. Therefore, it would not be right for me to enter into a detailed discussion of the decisions on Mr. Fryer's claim. However, in his case, I understand that there are two main issues of concern. The first issue relates to time limits and the second relates to the types of job listed as a prescribed occupation.
In 1983, the advisory council recommended that the time limit for claiming benefit should be extended from one year to five years. The Government agreed with that recommendation. The time limit was set at five years and not longer to ensure that occupational deafness is linked to a prescribed occupation and is not due to subsequent environmental or natural causes, or simply the ageing process.
§ Mr. SalterDoes the Minister accept that, although there may be a case for a time limit to avoid fraudulent claims, my constituent worked on the same piece of machinery for 34 years? Does that not indicate that his industrial deafness is unlikely to have been caused by anything in the five and a half years that passed between his leaving that employment and his registering a claim? It is the fact that he is out of time that caused the problem in the first place.
§ Mr. BayleyUnder the earlier rules, there was a one-year, rather than a five-year, time limit. A time limit is necessary because the longer a person waits before making a claim, the greater the probability that some factor other than noise at his former workplace injured his hearing.
I hope that my hon. Friend accepts that a time limit is needed, even if he feels that the five-year period is too short. However, if we have a time limit of any kind, there will always be the chance that someone will apply just beyond the time limit—just too late for his or her claim to succeed. The decision to extend the time limit from one year to five did, of course, improve the rights of a claimant.
The second issue, on which my hon. Friend dwelt most, related to the prescribed occupations for industrial deafness. More than 20 types of job are prescribed for occupational deafness. The jobs range from those using continuous glass-toughening furnaces, to work in ships' engine rooms, the use of band saws for cutting metal in the metal founding or forging industries and certain work on gas turbines.
Mr. Fryer argues that his deafness was caused by operating power presses, with which he worked five years before his claim for IIDB, and that his former occupation should be prescribed. Of course, his claim had to be determined on the basis of the law at the time. The tribunal has determined that, on the basis of the law at the time, he did not qualify for the benefit. However, I will try to respond to his argument.
The Government's decision on what to treat as a prescribed occupation is informed by the expert advice that we receive from the advisory council. As I have said, the advisory council is looking at the whole issue of occupational deafness.
254WH In August 1998, the advisory council issued a consultation paper entitled "Occupational Coverage For Occupational Deafness." The paper invited evidence and views about the occupations already listed and about those not listed but which evidence suggests should be considered for inclusion. The paper also invited evidence and views about whether the approach to occupational coverage should be reconsidered.
The advisory council set up a group called the occupational deafness working group, whose job is to take forward the examination of occupational deafness. The working group is examining all the evidence that it has received, and is preparing a draft report for consideration by the full advisory council later this year.
The advisory council would recommend prescribing an occupation that used certain tools and machinery only if there was strong and sound scientific evidence that that occupation carried a generally much higher risk of occupational deafness.
§ Mr. SalterAre power presses being considered as an additional category in this welcome consultation?
§ Mr. BayleyI am afraid that I cannot answer that question, because I have not reviewed the evidence. The working group is reviewing it, however, and when it reaches conclusions it will submit them to the advisory council. If my hon. Friend writes to me with full details of the type of power presses on which Mr. Fryer worked during the five years before he made his claim, I will pass them to the council. I should point out, however, that even if the council supported Mr. Fryer's view, that would not alter the decision in his case, which would still have to be based on the law as it stood at the time of his claim.
§ Mr. SalterI must make it clear that I have explained to my constituent—as, I am sure, all hon. Members do in similar circumstances—that, however vigorously we pursue such cases, we cannot expect retrospective legislation, much as we would like it. It is extremely rare for a Parliament in any western democracy to countenance retrospective legislation.
What we want—what I want, certainly—is an assurance that there will be no repeat of the injustice that I believe Mr. Fryer has experienced. We must close any loopholes in the legislation and the regulations to ensure that such episodes do not occur again, and that other hon. Members are not here in five or 10 years presenting exactly the same arguments to my hon. Friend's successor.
§ Mr. BayleyI thank my hon. Friend for explaining to his constituent why the rules of Parliament do not allow legislation to be made retrospectively. I accept that his constituent feels strongly that the type of tool with which he was working should be prescribed. As I said, if he gives me full details of the type of power press that was involved, I will pass them on to the advisory council.
When the council has fully examined the issues, it will produce a report setting out its conclusions and any recommendations for the Secretary of State to consider. I understand that it hopes to publish the report later this year or early next year, and I assure hon. Members that the Government will consider carefully any further advice that it may provide.
255WH Employees who suffer hearing damage as a result of exposure to excessive noise at work may be able to obtain compensation from their employers under common law, on the ground of the employers' negligence. The fact that someone does not qualify for industrial injuries disablement benefit does not prevent that person from pursuing a claim for compensation against his or her employer.
§ Mr. SalterIt would be difficult for my constituent to pursue Waymaster Ltd under common law, because it has gone out of business. What would my hon. Friend advise?
§ Mr. BayleyI am afraid that I cannot advise on an individual case without knowing all the circumstances. I can only advise on the law.
The Government believe that noise induced hearing loss caused by work is a serious and significant occupational health problem. As my hon. Friend said, exposure levels for many workers remain considerable: the Health and Safety Executive estimates that more than 1.25 million people in nearly 90,000 workplaces continue to be exposed to noise levels that could damage their hearing. There is no excuse for anyone's hearing to be impaired owing to loud noise at work. There is long-standing legislation requiring employers and manufacturers to address the problem, and to make noisy machinery quieter. The Noise at Work Regulations 1989 are the mainstay of the regime. They require employers to reduce risks from noise to the lowest reasonably practicable level, and to take specific actions in the case of certain noise levels to protect employees' hearing.
256WH The Health and Safety Executive has produced a range of guidance to help employers and others to comply with their statutory duties. It has also developed a new long-term strategy on noise at work. It will promote more effective control of exposure to noise on the part of employers by encouraging the introduction of quieter machinery and processes. It will also promote the effective use of purchasing policies, the application of noise control measures and, when noise levels cannot be reduced, the correct use of ear protection. Employees have responsibilities to protect themselves by complying with notices and wearing ear protection.
The Government consider that wide-ranging provision is currently made for sufferers from deafness in the industrial injuries scheme when the disease has an occupational cause. There must be rules governing the payment of benefit, and inevitably there will be individual cases that are not covered by those rules. I am confident that there is a reliable and independent way for changes to be recommended to the Secretary of State, through the advisory council, when new scientific evidence about occupational deafness comes to light. As I have said, the council is currently conducting a review. I cannot predict its recommendations, but when its report is published I shall ensure that my hon. Friend receives a copy. I also assure him that, when the Government receive the report, we shall consider its recommendations carefully.
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. John McWilliam)I know that a green light is flashing on the Annunciator, but as a Division could not be taking place anywhere other than here, and as a Division cannot take place here anyway, I suggest that hon. Members ignore it.