HC Deb 04 March 1963 vol 673 cc16-9
35. Dr. Stross

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance whether he is aware of the large number of workers exposed to the inhalation at work of irritating dusts and fumes who suffer from pulmonary disability, and whether, as in the disease of byssinosis, he will arrange that such workers, particularly those engaged in coal mining, pottery and iron foundries, should be entitled to receive benefit under the Industrial Injuries Acts if they have worked for at least 10 years and can prove loss of faculty due to impairment of pulmonary function, although there is no X-ray evidence of pneumoconiosis.

Lieut.-Commander Maydon

No, Sir. Since pneumoconiosis is already prescribed in relation to dusty occupations, I assume the hon. Member has in mind conditions such as bronchitis and emphysema. These conditions are common among all sections of the community and on present evidence do not satisfy the tests for prescription contained in Section 55 (2) of the Act, even in relation to the restricted group of workers mentioned in the hon. Member's Question.

Dr. Stross

Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that that is a very disappointing Answer and is similar to Answers that we have had on this matter for about twenty years? If this is good enough for South Africa in gold mining and in Australia among miners, why should not we accept it here? Surely the ten-year period to which I refer in the Question would give all the safeguards needed, especially for miners, who are examined only at entry and who have to be certified fit before they are employed?

Lieut.-Commander Maydon

I would remind the hon. Gentleman that the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council dealt with the definition of pneumoconiosis in its Report on that disease which was published in July, 1953, and advised against extending the definition so as to cover other respiratory conditions such as bronchitis and emphysema. No evidence has since become available which casts doubt on the Council's conclusions.

Mr. Snow

Is it not the fact that over the years the treatment of this sort of case has been changed time after time? Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that there is a real sense of grievance among coal workers that the rigid application of these rules in these cases is at variance with the human requirements?

Lieut.-Commander Maydon

If the hon. Gentleman will examine the facts he will see that we have been thoroughly consistent in the treatment of these cases. The only revision which has been made is the filling of the gap between the cases which were missed by the old Workmen's Compensation Acts and those which are covered by the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act. I think we all agree that the filling of that gap was a right and proper measure.

Mr. Dugdale

Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that, although these dis- eases certainly can be contracted by other people, they are contracted particularly by people in the occupations referred to in the Question and that there is serious feeling not only among coal workers but among foundry workers about the results of this disease?

Lieut.-Commander Maydon

I can only remind the right hon. Gentleman of the two conditions of Section 55 (2) of the Act, which are that the disease should be treated as an occupational risk and not common risks, and that it should be attributable to the nature of employment and that that attribution should be reasonably certain.

Mrs. Slater

If this matter was last looked at in 1953, is it not time that the whole question was again considered because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) said, diagnosis is by no means perfect? There are many people, particularly in north Staffordshire, who are obviously suffering, because they worked either at the coal face or in potting, from a lung condition caused without any shadow of doubt by the industry in which they worked. Would the hon. and gallant Gentleman call the Advisory Council together and ask it to get direct information from such people as the coroner in north Staffordshire, who is constantly dealing with this problem?

Lieut.-Commander Maydon

There are two separate issues here. One is the matter to which I have just referred, namely, the definition of pneumoconiosis and whether that definition should be extended. This was reported on by the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council in July, 1953. The other is the question of the two rules in Section 55 (2). That was referred to the Beney Committee, which reported in 1955 that the existing conditions were right and should not be changed.

Mr. Mitchison

Is not the uncertainty of diagnosis and the very considerable margin of error mentioned by the Minister in answer to a previous Question enough ground for referring the definition to the Council which last reported ten years ago for further consideration?

Lieut.-Commander Maydon

I will certainly look into that aspect of the matter.

Dr. Stross

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.