§ Mr. Maddenasked the Secretary of State for Employment, in the light of the letter dated 15th September, from Mr. John Locke, director-general of the Health and Safety Executive, sent to all hon. Members, indicating that Mr. R. J. Seymour, area director for London North-West Area, at Chancel House, Neasden Lane, N.W.10, was prepared to discuss matters relating to asbestos in the House, if he will list those individuals and organisations to whom Mr. Seymour has provided further information and those individuals and organisations to whom Mr. Seymour has refused to provide further information.
44W
§ Mr. John GrantI am informed by the chairman of the Health and Safety Commission that Mr. J. Locke's letters of the 15th September 1978, and the invitations therein to discuss the matter further with Mr. R. J. Seymour, were sent to persons entitled to receive this information under section 28(8) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. All right hon. and hon. Members and all other employees employers in the House come within this category.
Inquiries have been received from, and information supplied to—or is about to be supplied to—the following:
My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis) and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. Silkin).
I am advised that Mr. Seymour has declined to supply information directly to Mrs. Nancy Tait, secretary of the Asbestos Induced Diseases Society. She was advised that information had been given to all hon. Members.
§ Mr. Maddenasked the Secretary of State for Employment what caused the Health and Safety Executive to seek the discussions with the House authorities, mentioned in the letter dated 15th September from Mr. John Locke, director-general of the Health and Safety Executive, sent to all hon. Members.
§ Mr. John GrantI am informed by the chairman of the Health and Safety Commission that the Health and Safety Executive has had meetings with the House authorities—initially with the Assistant Serjeant-at-Arms—to discuss the nature and extent of the asbestos problems in the House of Commons building and to discuss and agree the methods by which the HSE could discharge its duties under section 28(8) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act to give information to employees and their employers.
The HSE will be having further discussions with the House authorities and with the Property Services Agency and its contractors, on the timing of, and the precautions necessary for, the removal of the blue asbestos from the Commons Chamber roof space.
§ Mr. Maddenasked the Secretary of State for Employment, in the light of 45W action taken by the House authorities and the Health and Safety Executive to remove blue and white asbestos from the House, although air samples indicate asbestos levels below the current hygiene standard, if he will ensure early action is taken to reduce the hygiene standard and issue general guidance that asbestos should be removed from all public buildings where air samples show the presence of asbestos comparable to that in the House.
§ Mr. John GrantThe Advisory Committee on Asbestos is currently reviewing risks to health arising from exposure to asbestos or products containing it inside and outside the workplace and will recommend to the Health and Safety Commission and Ministers whether any further protection is needed.
The Advisory Committee's review includes among other things, the current control limits for exposure to asbestos and the treatment of products containing asbestos in public and other buildings, and it would be premature to act as my hon. Friend suggests before receiving its report. Meanwhile, the committee's interim statement issued in 1977 recommends that exposure to all forms of asbestos dust should be reduced to the minimum reasonably practicable even where levels are below the limit.
I am informed by the chairman of the Health and Safety Commission that it is the current practice of the Health and Safety Executive—HSE—to advise owners and users of buildings and other premises of the health risks associated with asbestos and the safeguards which should be employed. In the light of all the available information, the person responsible for the building in question must decide in consultation with HSE whether and, if so, what action to take.
In the House of Commons there were particular reasons why removal of some of the asbestos was considered necessary. The removal of the blue asbestos in the Commons chamber roofspace is considered necessary in view of expected maintenance and other building activities which would damage the sealing treatment applied as an interim precaution. The white asbestos linings inside the ventilation ducts had started to deterioriate, 46W releasing asbestos fibres into the air supplied to many parts of the building; sealing of these linings was considered impracticable and replacement of them by asbestos-free accoustic linings was undertaken.
§ Mr. Maddenasked the Secretary of State for Employment in the light of the letter dated 15th September, from Mr. John Locke, director-general of the Health and Safety Executive, sent to all hon. Members, which said that sprayed insulation in the Commons Chamber roof space was damaged by maintenance and alterations, and that the floor and other surfaces of the roof space were contaminated with blue asbestos, what action is being taken to trace workers involved in past maintenance and alteration work to check whether they have contracted asbestosis.
§ Mr. John GrantI am advised by the chairman of the Health and Safety Corn-mission that it would be impracticable to trace all the persons who may have entered the Commons Chamber roof space since the building was erected after World War II. Entry into the roof space is not logged, and contract descriptions would not be precise enough to identify those firms entering the roof space. In the event, such workers would derive little positive benefit from retrospective medical examinations, and there is no epidemiological value in studying this exposed population as the levels of dust encountered and periods of exposure are unknown. I am advised that PSA has explained the medical position to all employees who are currently involved.
The Employment Medical Advisory Service in conjunction with Her Majesty's Factory Inspectorate set up an ongoing survey in 1971 to identify those people currently engaged directly in work with asbestos. Since then they have been carrying out a programme of medical examinations on these people to learn as much as possible about the natural history of exposure to asbestos of different types, and varying but measured doses of dust. Many of the men employed on insulation work would be included in the survey, but it would be impracticable to locate all sub-trades workers who might on limited occasions have been exposed to asbestos dust.