HC Deb 06 May 1963 vol 677 cc29-31
45 and 46. Mr. Swingler

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance (1) in view of the anomaly of denying industrial injury benefit to those who suffer the same injuries by process as those by accident, if he will bring forward amending legislation to include industrial injury by process in the Industrial Injuries Act;

(2) what consideration he has given to the case of Mr. James Wilson, of 17 Marsh Parade, Newcastle-under-Lyme, who has been denied industrial injury benefit on the ground that he has suffered disablement from the process of using pneumatic drills and not from an accident; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. N. Macpherson

The problem with winch the hon. Gentleman is concerned was very fully considered by a Departmental Committee under the chairmanship of Mr. F. W. Beney, Q.C., and I refer the hon. Member to paragraphs 51 to 56 of its Report, Command Paper No. 9548.

Mr. Swingler

I have considered that Report, and I thank the Minister for the fairly long reply which he sent to me about this case, but may I ask whether he is aware of the gross injustice being suffered by many industrial workers today? Is he aware that, in the case of Mr. James Wilson, particulars of which I have submitted to him, the Insurance Commissioner himself said that The medical evidence makes it perfectly clear that the claimant's condition has been brought on gradually over 30 or possibly even 40 years by his work in the pits … Is it not c ear that this man is disabled by his work in the pits and that, as a result of the anomalous state of the law in excluding injury by process—in fact, one could say that it is a long series of accidents—he is not entitled to any kind of compensation at all? Is not this completely wrong'? Will the Minister consider the matter again?

Mr. Macpherson

I do not think that I could agree with the hon. Member that a very large number of people are involved. As I explained in my letter to him, the general problem here is that of distinguishing the genuinely occupational case, the case which arises out of the occupation, from many other cases which might be thought to have arisen out of the occupation, but which in fact could not be associated with it. Until we got some means of distinguishing between the one and the other, it is not possible to specify a process and prescribe it as being due to the occupation.

Mr. Swingler

Has not the Insurance Commissioner himself admitted that this is a genuinely occupational case? Does not the quotation from the Insurance Commissioner's statement, which I believe I have fairly given, make it clear that this case is genuinely occupational? Cannot the Minister's advisers make an amendment to the law to ensure that these cases, accepted by the tribunal as genuinely occupational, are brought within the scope of the scheme?

Mr. Macpherson

As I have explained, the difficulty would be to be able to grant some kind of relief in those cases without opening the flood gates to a great many other cases which it would not be possible to distinguish. This is the matter which the Beney Committee went into at great length. It started with the object, if possible, of making recommendations which would bring relief to these cases, but it was unable to recommend a way of doing so.

Miss Herbison

Surely the Minister will not leave it there. Is he not aware that in the case about which my hon. Friend is concerned it was accepted that the man's disability was due to the nature of his work for many years? Where there are cases where it can be proved that the disability is due to the man's work, ought he not to have industrial injuries benefit and not be fobbed off by being told that if his case is accepted, there will be a flood of others? Surely the Minister cannot leave it where it now is.

Mr. Macpherson

The whole difficulty is to say in what cases a particular injury is due to the occupation. This was not the matter on which the Commissioner had to pronounce. He said that in this case it was due to work, but that was not the matter which he had to examine. He was considering whether this particular injury was within the ambit of the Industrial Injuries Act, and he decided that it was not.