§ 13. Mr. J. GRIFFITHSasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that out of 691 applications made by miners from South Wales to the Silicosis Medical Board for certificates of disablement or suspension during 1934 and 1935, no fewer than 311 of these applications were refused such certificates, notwithstanding that each of these workmen had been certified by their panel doctors and by the regional medical officer of the Ministry of Health to be suffering from silicosis or anthracosis; and what steps he proposes to take to so amend the provisions of the various Industries (Silicosis) Orders, 1931 to 1934, as to make it possible for these workmen to claim compensation for the disablement which arises from and is caused by the inhalation of coal and stone dust in the course of their employment?
§ Mr. LLOYDI am aware that there have lately been a considerable number 1854 of cases of miners suffering from lung troubles which the expert medical board could not find to be silicosis. It is impossible, in the present state of knowledge, to tell whether or how far they may have been due to employment, but the matter is being investigated by the Industrial Pulmonary Diseases Committee of the Medical Research Council. Consideration of further action must await results of such research. I should add that under the arrangements made with the Ministry of Health, the regional medical officer does not diagnose and certify silicosis but merely conducts a preliminary examination to ascertain whether there is reasonble cause to suspect the presence of the disease.
§ Mr. GRIFFITHSSeeing that the Ministry of Health doctor is satisfied that these men's illnesses are affected by their employment, will the Minister see that the scheme is so widened as to bring these men within the compensation law, in view of the fact that they have been certified by the Ministry of Health doctor?
§ Mr. LLOYDI do not know whether the hon. Member appreciates the fact that the regional medical officers' function is to certify only that there is cause to suspect silicosis. The Home Secretary's powers are limited under the Act to making schemes for silicosis.
§ Mr. GRIFFITHSI appreciate that, but does the hon. Member appreciate the fact that 311 suspected cases turned down in three years is alarming and calls for a widening of the scheme?
§ Mr. LLOYDThat is why the medical aspect of this matter, which must be settled before we proceed further, must be investigated.
§ Mr. PALINGThe Medical Board have been inquiring into this matter for a long time. Can the Minister say how soon they are likely to report?
§ Mr. LLOYD; I cannot say how long they have been inquiring, but it is a very difficult research, and will take some time.
§ Mr. ROWSONCan the Minister say how many of the cases turned down have been diagnosed as tuberculosis cases and afterwards proved to be silicosis cases?
§ Mr. LEACHIn view of the Minister's own statement as to the restricted powers of the Home Office, will he not ask his Departmental chief to promote legislation to remedy it?
§ Mr. LLOYDBefore that question can really arise, the medical aspect of this matter must be settled beyond reasonable doubts.
§ Mr. LYONSWhat my hon. Friend wishes to know is whether the Home Secretary will consider the introduction of fresh legislation to amend the scope of the Workmen's Compensation Act.
§ 14. Mr. J. GRIFFITHSasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that Mr. George H. Dando, of 24, Coombend, Radstock, Bath, has been refused by the Silicosis Medical Board a certificate of disablement, although he has been employed for 40 years by the Somerset Collieries, Limited, Radstock, and for 20 years was engaged in drilling in hard rock; that the board's refusal is based on the fact that the applicant ceased to be employed in the process specified in the order on 16th October, 1931, and that the board has refused to consider the antedating of a certificate so as to bring the workman within the order in spite of medical evidence that he has suffered from silicosis since February, 1932; and will he have this case re-examined?
§ Mr. LLOYDMy information is that the Medical Board have not refused a certificate of disablement, nor have they refused to consider the antedating of the certificate. The position is that the Somerset Miners' Association applied to the board last January on the workman's behalf for a certificate of disablement and asked that the certificate should be dated back to October, 1934, so as to bring the case within the Compensation Scheme. The board, however, after considering the medical evidence submitted by the association, and taking into account the fact that the workman had been employed since March, 1933, in work above ground, and still was so employed, informed the association that they would not feel justified in antedating the certificate as requested. In view of this, the association withdrew their application.
§ Mr. GRIFFITHSMay I ask what reasons justify the Board in refusing to antedate this certificate when there was ample evidence to prove that the man had been disabled by silicosis since 1932?
§ Mr. LLOYDIf he had been disabled by silicosis since 1932 it would have been wiser for the trade union to have brought his case forward earlier.
§ Mr. GRIFFITHSIs the Minister aware of the fact that the man was brought from underground to work on the surface because the employer offered him work which he thought would improve his condition, and that now the man has been penalised for stopping at work?