§ 25 and 26. Dr. Strossasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance (1) whether he is aware that severe loss of faculty due to emphysema is at times noted in workers exposed to the inhalation of irritating dust and that in these cases the radiological signs may be negligible; and what methods are used to assess the loss of faculty in these cases;
(2) how long it has been the custom to add to the estimated loss of faculty in pneumoconiosis cases an additional percentage for emphysema where this disease is also diagnosed; and what percentage of cases show this added complication.
§ Mr. Boyd-CarpenterEmphysema is common among older people and its effects are sometimes severe. In cases where they result from a disease prescribed under the Industrial Injuries Act, the medical board or medical appeal tribunal has always made allowance for them in its assessments, but there are no statistics of such cases. If there is no prescribed occupational disease, no question arises of an assessment in respect of emphysema.
§ Dr. StrossIs the Minister aware that in South Africa, for example, emphysema alone, with no radiological evidence of pneumoconiosis, amongst workers who are subjected to irritating dust, such as quartz dust, is accepted as disabling and due to the occupation? Has he noticed 840 that in some cases where the medical boards assess emphysema as existing with pneumoconiosis, sometimes a monetary allowance is added and sometimes not? Could he explain this difference in attitudes towards different cases?
§ Mr. Boyd-CarpenterI certainly cannot comment, particularly without notice, on South African legislation, but I think it is clear that, in the present light of medical knowledge, emphysema does not come within the definition contained in Section 55 of the Industrial Injuries Act.
§ Mr. J. GriffithsThe Minister said, "In the present light of medical knowledge." As it is nearly 20 years since the present criteria of pneumoconiosis were arrived at, after full investigation by the Medical Research Council, in view of all the investigations which have taken place since, including that of the pneumoconiosis unit of the hospital in Cardiff, does not the Minister think that the time has come for another review, since conflicting decisions are given, particularly by coroners' courts and medical boards, and the whole situation is confusing? Will he consider setting up, through the Medical Research Council or in some other way, a competent body to review this matter?
§ Mr. Boyd-CarpenterThe right hon. Gentleman may not be aware that the Medical Research Council is at present conducting research on respiratory disability, including emphysema, among older men.
§ Mr. GriffithsWill the Medical Research Council be empowered to consider whether the present definition is adequate to meet existing circumstances, and, if it is not, will it be empowered to make recommendations for a change?
§ Mr. Boyd-CarpenterI very much doubt, without notice, whether such recommendations would be within the remit of the Medical Research Council, which is engaged in an examination of the disability itself. When we get its Report, then will be the stage for considering whether the sort of action the right hon. Gentleman has in mind is appropriate.
§ Dr. StrossIn view of the importance of this matter, I beg to give notice that I will raise it at the earliest opportunity on the Adjournment.