| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. Even the Leader of the House always seek the House's permission.
Mr. Newton: I am grateful for your advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I shall seek to adhere to it.
The debate has been rather longer on the analysis of problems than on suggested solutions. In one or two respects, the House may underestimate the extent to which matters are in its own hands. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) rightly said that the House must own its own procedures. It follows from that, to some degree, that whatever procedures we have will be used to do what the House wants. I have a couple of points to make.
First, there was endless debate about Prime Minister's Question Time. There is nothing to stop any hon. Member putting down closed questions to the Prime Minister and, of course, a few do that, but not many. I suspect that some of those who have demanded reform of Prime Minister's Question Time may be among those who are pleased to get an opportunity to ask an open-ended question to try to catch the Prime Minister out, which is what it comes to, rather that debating a serious matter. If the majority of hon. Members wanted to put closed questions they could do so, but how many put such questions into the ballot? I do not know the exact number but I am willing to bet that it is not many.
Secondly, hon. Members mentioned a post-legislative review. There is a case for that and there is nothing to stop Select Committees doing it now if they choose to make it a priority for their work. The procedure is there but the issue is whether people want to use it. I have a couple of additional observations but I apologise for not having time to mention all the speeches. I disagree with the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) about the
way that we vote. As in many legislatures, what happens around the Chamber is often at least as important as what happens in it and the dynamics of this place depend to a great extent of the mingling of hon. Members in the Lobby, which could probably not occur in any other way at other times of the day.
I must straightforwardly say--as someone who has been a Minister for 17 years--to the hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Dr. Wright), who made an engaging and thoughtful speech, that I do not recognise his picture of a Parliament that has become more and more a creature of the Government and in which Ministers do not need to worry about their own Back Benchers and about reactions in the House. That is not how it feels if one is a member of the Government.
I am genuinely not sure that, in the heated atmosphere in the run-up to a general election, experiments would either tell us much or be easy to agree because in practice every suggestion would be considered not in terms of, "Is this good for the House?", but, "How does it help or hinder our electoral chances?" That is not the time to experiment.
Mr. Dalyell:
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Could it be registered with Madam Speaker that my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) and I wanted to make short contributions, that my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) was unselfish, but that long speeches by people who are unable to stay--I say it of my own Front-Bench spokesman--are unacceptable on an issue such as this?
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
The Chair notes the hon. Gentleman's comments and that some speeches were of long duration.
It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.--[Mr. Ottaway.]
Mr. Harry Cohen (Leyton):
I am pleased to secure this debate on the Government's policy on asbestos. My initial concern arose when asbestos was discovered in two tower blocks in my constituency and in one in neighbouring Walthamstow, and last week I raised the matter in parliamentary questions to the Minister with responsibility for housing.
The Government do not properly recognise the burden on councils and housing associations when asbestos is found in their properties. Tenant safety must, of course, come first, but there is a serious knock-on effect for other tenants and for people waiting for improvement grants.
The Waltham Forest Independent showed the cost when it said that the most popular option among tenants was for
I then attended a conference in Sheffield on 1 June organised by the Construction Safety Campaign. I was shaken by what I heard, and resolved to raise the matter in Parliament. It pointed out:
When the fatal disease takes hold--it does so among men mainly--their families suffer enormous hardship. Asbestos is responsible for more occupation-related deaths than any other cause. One in 10 building workers will die between the ages of 40 and 50. Asbestos exposure will kill more people in Britain than were killed in the armed forces during the second world war. It is beginning to reach bubonic plague proportions.
We are still importing asbestos. About 11,500 tonnes was imported last year. More than 126,000 tonnes has been imported in the past eight years.
Alan Dalton, author of "Asbestos Killer Dust", and the national health and safety co-ordinator for the Transport and General Workers Union, wrote to the Health and Safety Executive today spelling out the problems and solutions that are necessary. He says that there should be a ban on all forms of asbestos--at present, brown and blue asbestos are banned, but white asbestos should also be banned. He gives reasons for that. He quotes the American Journal of Public Health, which said:
I tabled a parliamentary question pressing for a national audit, and was told that the Government rely on public awareness. My hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike), in a parliamentary question, asked how much had been spent on the campaign to raise public awareness. The answer was, very little. In the four years 1990 to 1994, nothing was spent. In 1994-95, £469,700 was spent; last year, £2,000; and 1996 to date, just £5,500. That is inadequate, and the case for a national survey stands.
Asbestos should be removed by a specialist contractor licensed for all types, not just the most dangerous--all asbestos is dangerous. Mr. Dalton stated:
There is a huge shortage of health and safety inspectors. The Government refer to contacts and site visits rather than inspections. The HSE's target of 6 per cent. of asbestos removal sites is far too low. It often relies on written documentation that is poorly examined. In 1985, there were 2,700 health and safety visits, but the figure had fallen to 800 by 1994. In the four previous years, the number of visits had fallen to 400 a year.
The notification period for asbestos removal work is being reduced from 28 to 14 days, which is a retrograde step. Such work should be well planned, for safety's sake.
My hon. Friend the Member for Burnley also asked how many prosecutions had been brought for breaching asbestos regulations. The reply referred instead to informations, of which there have been only 437 since 1986. Fines are ridiculously low, ranging from £100 to £9,000--but the higher figure is an exception, and clearly such fines are not a deterrent to contractors who are paid a lot of money for asbestos removal.
The HSE says that what really matters is the stigma of prosecution, not fines--but last year, the executive wanted more than £250,000 to name rogue companies. So much for stigma. If asbestos laws are broken, and workers and the public are exposed to asbestos dust, the individuals responsible should be imprisoned.
Alan Dalton says that asbestos face masks must be improved, because even top-of-the-range examples leak. Clydeside Action on Asbestos found the substance inside
a respirator, and the Transport and General Workers Union in Scotland has called for the Sabre Phantom respirator to be withdrawn from use. Even an HSE press release this month states that protection offered by respiratory protective equipment
In a parliamentary answer, I was told that the masks are the responsibility of the manufacturers, and that they should carry out the research to improve the standard of their products. There is no pressure from the Government to obtain that improvement, and that is a disgrace.
There should be protection for asbestos sampling companies. They should be independent from the removal company, and should have a hot line to the HSE to report any abuses. There should be safer methods of disposal, better compensation for asbestos victims and action at European Union level. I was told in another parliamentary answer that the United Kingdom has not made any proposals for "concerted European Union action" on asbestos. We should be pressing for a total ban.
The Society for the Prevention of Asbestosis and Industrial Diseases tells me that the Department of Social Security often unfairly refuses benefit to asbestosis sufferers. I do not have time to go into detail, but I am told that claims are often refused when there is no presence of asbestos bodies, even though those asbestos bodies do not carry well to the laboratory for tests.
Even when asbestos bodies are present, it might not be enough for the DSS to grant benefit. The DSS special medical boards delay awarding industrial disablement benefit, and, if an asbestosis sufferer dies, the payment is halved. That is a disgrace. The society said that the special medical boards should be investigated.
The compensation recovery unit claws back victims' benefit. Clydeside Action on Asbestos told me:
Under the Employers Liability (Compulsory Insurance) Act 1969, employers are required to have employers' liability insurance. Many of the companies go bankrupt or do not register the identity of their insurers. There should be a change in the law so that they have to do that. It would benefit the state, because it would not have to pay out the benefit. The insurers should be paying the compensation.
Greenpeace has contacted me about Bermuda, which is a United Kingdom dependent territory. There is a proposal to dump asbestos waste from the United States naval base at St. George's. The United Kingdom Government have been asked for assistance. If the waste is dumped at sea, as is suggested, it would be a precedent in breach of the London convention against the dumping of industrial waste at sea. Denmark's Environment Minister, Mr. Svend Aukin, said that would be
In 1989, Westminster council moved homeless families into the Walterton and Elgin estates, knowing that the asbestos was in a dangerous state. A former chief executive of Cambridgeshire county council, John Barret, said that the families were put at risk despite
Council workmen were also unprotected. The role of the HSE in this scandal was very poor, and should be examined.
Asbestos is in brakes. I asked a parliamentary question about that, to which the answer was that a survey in 1994 showed that 4,500 tonnes of white asbestos were used in brakes, and that mechanics who work on brake linings were at low risk if they follow HSE advice. That is a very big if. It went on to say that the UN Economic Committee for Europe suggested a prohibition on the use of asbestos in brake linings on or after 1 October 1998. It should be sooner. Where is the firm commitment to that from the UK and the European Union? They should come into line with that at the very least.
Asbestos is also in gutters. Again, I have asked parliamentary questions, but no assessment has been made of the risk. White asbestos is still used, even though other materials are more commonly used. If that is so, there should be no objection to a ban on the use of white asbestos in guttering. Many substitutes for asbestos are available and should be used. They are shown in pages 110 to 112 and appendix 3 of the book "Asbestos Killer Dust".
There is a major difference between the parties on this issue. The Conservative Government have not taken the dangers from asbestos seriously. The Labour party has. My hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney), the Labour party spokesman on this subject, has put into writing our commitments: Labour will give employees greater protection against dangerous working conditions; safety representatives and trade union representatives will have improved rights in this field; the Health and Safety Executive will be strengthened, with new powers.
10 pm
"blocks to be knocked down"
but added:
"Rehousing the 270 tenants may take time. Housing officer Simon Hendey said there were funds to move 80 households this year"--
and that is on top of the £800,000 given to housing associations for 20 other homes, so there is a huge burden. The council is doing its best. It is preparing asbestos location drawings and keeping tenants informed.
"3000 to 3500 people in Britain are killed by asbestos every year. This will increase to 10,000 deaths a year in ten years."
Those most at risk are in the building industry--plumbers, electricians, carpenters and heating and ventilation engineers.
"it is prudent policy to treat chrysotile"--
white--
"asbestos with virtually the same concern as the amphibole forms of asbestos."
Mr. Dalton stated:
"In practice, in many cases . . . white, blue and brown asbestos are often mixed together. It is therefore impossible to distinguish between the different types . . . There are now safer substitutes for all forms of asbestos that are often technically more effective. Banning white asbestos would simplify the asbestos regulations, since there would no longer be the need for detailed guidance".
He believes that a complete ban on white asbestos would be
"a progressive example of deregulation . . . It should be a legal requirement to identify, label and institute a management control programme of asbestos in all buildings."
Mr. Dalton says that there should be asbestos audits, with removal required if the asbestos is in a dangerous state or likely to be damaged. That audit should be a public document, available to employees, trade union representatives, firefighters and contractors.
"The asbestos licensing system must be tightened up and enforced"
because it is
"as easy to get an asbestos licence as a dog licence."
There are a lot of cowboy operators, yet only 13 licences have been revoked since 1983. It is not unknown for firms to contract out the work to self-employed operatives, then tell them to bring their own respiratory masks and equipment.
"can be very much less than would be predicted"
from laboratory tests.
"By 1994 the CRU was having a totally negative effect on any potential case and there were many instances where cases were abandoned rather than the injured parties, their widows and families having to face a long, tortuous process only to have the awards dashed from their hands."
In 1995, the Select Committee on Social Security made a clear recommendation. It said:
"The Committee understands the particular and special case of people with asbestos related conditions. We believe that the special circumstances of asbestosis sufferers should be recognised. Because of the unique difficulties of pursuing claims and because of the high mortality rate of asbestos related sufferers, we believe that all recovery in these cases should cease at the earliest opportunity."
When Clydeside Action on Asbestos went to see the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Evans), he said that the DSS wanted
"one hundred per cent. of their pound of flesh."
That was a despicable response.
"putting the health of the seas at risk."
He said that if the United States, the United Kingdom and Bermuda did this, it would be a
"Bermuda triangle of irresponsibility."
There are even more asbestos issues. There is likely to be a great deal of asbestos in the Ministry of Defence housing that is to be sold off. Has its presence been recorded? That should be stated before any property is sold. Armed forces personnel who are exposed to asbestos are restricted in their ability to claim compensation. That is unfair.
"the clearest advice and instructions to the contrary,"
and that the decision was
"informally but powerfully taken by senior Conservative councillors".
Those councillors should face imprisonment.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |