HC Deb 10 February 1938 vol 331 cc1249-50
34. Mr. Alexander

asked the Home Secretary whether he will give further consideration to the case of Mrs. Allison, of 9, Albion Road, Rivelin, Sheffield, whose claim for compensation in respect of the loss of her husband has been rejected under the silicosis scheme, in spite of the fact that this man had previously been awarded compensation for silicosis at the full rate for a period of five years upon a certificate of total disablement due to this disease and that, after a post-mortem examination, the coroner certified that Mr. Allison's death was primarily due to silicosis; and whether he proposes to take such action as will prevent such injustices arising in the case of victims of silicosis?

Sir S. Hoare

I appreciate the feelings of the widow in this case, but I cannot accept the suggestion that any injustice has been done. The Silicosis Medical Board were fully satisfied, after a postmortem examination, that the death was caused by independent conditions and not by silicosis. The board have unique experience in the diagnosis of silicosis, and their decisions on such a point must be regarded as authoritative; and I am satisfied that they investigated this case with great care.

Mr. Alexander

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the post-mortem examination on this occasion was at the request of the coroner, and that on the post-mortem report the coroner certified death as being primarily due to silicosis? Is he further aware that this case is typical of large numbers throughout the country, which give rise to grave dissatisfaction; and will he consider new legislation?

Sir S. Hoare

There were two examinations of this case, and the final authority, the Medical Board, came to the decision I have just announced. The Medical Board has always been regarded as the final authority, and I cannot see what better final authority one can have?

Mr. Alexander

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this Medical Board is not appointed by the Home Office, but is appointed under a completely local scheme, and does he not think that there ought to be an appeal from it?

Sir S. Hoare

The right hon. Gentleman will see that the difficulty is to know what better board one could have. I fail to see what better appeal one could have.

Mr. J. Griffiths

Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Board is severely restricted in matters of this kind, because it is compelled to find that silicosis is the primary and sole cause of death, whereas in most cases silicosis is not the primary, but a subsidiary cause, and that the Board is prohibited by the Statute from certifying that death is accelerated by silicosis? Will he consider amending the scheme in order to bring this within it?

Sir S. Hoare

I will certainly take into account the points that have been raised. On my present advice, I have no reason to suppose that the Board is not an effective tribunal for the purpose for which it is appointed.