HC Deb 18 March 1963 vol 674 cc5-7
6. Mr. Hector Hughes

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance what alterations and extensions have been made during each of the last ten years in the Schedule of the Industrial Diseases (Benefit) Act; whether he is satisfied that the present Schedule is sufficient to meet all the needs of modern industry, and in particular those industries relating to shipbuilding, shipping and fisheries; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. N. Macpherson

As there have been some 23 complex additions over the past ten years to the Schedule of prescribed diseases under the Industrial Injuries Act, I am sending the information to the hon. and learned Member. The Schedule includes all the occupational diseases which on the information at present available satisfy the tests for prescription under Section 55 (2) of the Act. If the hon. and learned Member has in mind any particular condition not so far prescribed, I will gladly study any evidence he cares to send me.

Mr. Hughes

I shall send the Minister the particulars I have in mind? Does he realise that this is of tremendous importance to the industries mentioned at the end of my Question? In the statement he is proposing to send to me, will the right hon. Gentleman say when this Schedule was last examined; whether it was examined by experts, and what evidence was taken and with what result?

Mr. Macpherson

The Schedule is under continual examination. We have had reports from the Medical Research Council, and there is research in universities and research within industry. The Schedule is examined by the Advisory Council when submissions are made to it, and the Advisory Council can itself ask for submissions to be made to it. As the hon. and learned Gentleman will see, the last addition was made in 1961.

8. Mr. Swingler

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance, to what extent, in agreeing or refusing to schedule certain diseases as industrial hazards, he takes into account the incidence of these diseases amongst citizens outside the occupations concerned.

Mr. N. Macpherson

To the extent that I am required to do so by Section 55 (2) of the Industrial Injuries Act, 1946.

Mr. Swingler

Will the Minister look at this again? Should not he be exclusively concerned with cause and effect in industry and not with the proneness of people to contract a certain disease because they live in a smoke-polluted area? Will not he approach the question of emphysema on this basis?

Mr. Macpherson

This is precisely the way in which it is approached. But I am, of course, bound by the Industrial Injuries Act, and it is on those lines that I consider whether a disease should be prescribed or not.

Mr. Swingler

Did not the Minister refer last week to the fact that certain people outside the mining and pottery industries are prone to emphysema, and did not he seem to use this as a reason why he was reluctant to schedule emphysema as an industrial disease? Should not the right hon. Gentleman be exclusively concerned with causations in industry?

Mr. Macpherson

Before scheduling a particular disease in relation to insured persons, I am bound by the Act to consider whether it ought to be treated as arising from their occupations, having regard to its causes and incidence, rather than as a risk common to everyone. I cannot do so unless I consider the incidence among the population as a whole. But that is only one consideration, which is why I said, "To the extent I am required by the Act".