HC Deb 28 February 1955 vol 537 cc1718-20
52. Mr. J. Griffiths

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance if he is aware of the concern that is felt in South Wales at the increasing number of cases in which coroner's courts have found that the death of coalminers was due to, or accelerated by, silicosis or pneumoconiosis and in which the medical boards make contrary decisions; and whether he will consider the setting up of a competent body to investigate and report on the criteria used by the boards in arriving at their decisions.

Mr. Peake

I am aware that for some time concern has been felt in South Wales on this matter. I have had discussions with my right hon. and gallant Friend the Home Secretary and his predecessor about it. A circular was issued to coroners in October, 1954, drawing attention to the importance of employing experienced pathologists in cases of this kind. I think we must wait and see the effect of this circular before considering any further steps.

Mr. Griffiths

The information available to me is that even since those steps have been taken this disparity is continuing and is causing widespread concern, indeed despair. May I ask the Minister whether he would not reconsider his answer, and whether he does not think the time has come for an examination of the criteria by a competent body? Local feeling is very strong about this, so would he consult his medical advisers regarding a closer examination of this problem?

Mr. Peake

I am just as much concerned as the right hon. Gentleman about this matter, which causes a great deal of distress. If it will interest the right hon. Gentleman, I will send him a copy of the circular which the Home Secretary has issued to the coroners. He, as well as I, is aware that coroners are independent judicial officers, and there is great difficulty in arriving at a solution of this problem.

Mr. Griffiths

Is the Minister aware that where a coroner's court reaches a verdict that death was caused by pneumoconiosis or silicosis after a report by a pathologist, much doubt is created about the decision of the Board? Since it is a judicial authority, whose decision is final and binding, is it not essential that an inquiry should take place in order to maintain confidence in the Board?

Mr. Peake

My information is that in the majority of the cases where difficulty has arisen the post-mortem examination has been conducted by a general practitioner, and therefore I think it would be wise to see whether the circular issued has any effect before considering further action.