HC Deb 27 May 1963 vol 678 cc893-4
5. Mr. Swingler

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance in how many cases in each of the last three years claims for disablement benefit have been rejected on appeal on the ground that the worker suffered disablement as a result of injury by process and not by accident or disease; and what is his estimate of the annual cost of extending the industrial injuries scheme to cover injury by process.

Mr. N. Macpherson

The independent statutory authorities are required to decide whether claimants have suffered personal injury by industrial accident or, alternatively, whether they are suffering from a prescribed disease. Any statement which may happen to be made during proceedings on an individual case to the effect that claimants have suffered injury by process is therefore not germane, and the information asked for in the first part of the Question is not available. For this and other reasons it is not practicable to make the estimate asked for in the second part, but, as the hon. Member knows, cost is not the fundamental reason for excluding injuries by process.

Mr. Swingler

Surely this is a very important question, and an issue about which many trade unions are greatly dissatisfied. Will the Minister, therefore, cause inquiries to be made in order that we may know how many workers today are not receiving benefit for disablement because the statutory authorities have decided that the disablement has resulted from an industrial process and not from an accident? Would he establish how many workers are involved so that we may know the extent to which this deficiency in the industrial injuries scheme is causing hardship?

Mr. Macpherson

I am sorry if I appear to be precise in this matter, but one must be precise in the use of words. The statutory authorities do not decide that a worker has suffered injury as a result of process. They are not asked to decide that. They are asked to decide whether injury by accident has been suffered or a prescribed disease has been incurred, and not whether injury by process has resulted.

Mr. Swingler

The right hon. Gentleman will remember the recent case of Mr. James Wilson, which I submitted to him, in which the Commissioner said that although the disablement was the result of his work he was disqualified from benefit because it was caused by industrial process and not industrial accident. How many such cases have there been in recent years, and what is the extent of the hardship which has been suffered by workers because of this judgment?

Mr. Macpherson

If the hon. Gentleman will study my reply, I think be will see the reason why it is not possible to give him the information he is asking for. I must emphasise that this was not a decision of the statutory authority; it was a remark made on the basis of what had been said in the course of the tribunal proceedings. In many cases where what is said is not germane on the matter it is not challenged because this is not the point which has to be decided. It is a different point, namely, whether the disability is caused by accident or by prescribed disease.

Mr. Swingler

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