§ 12 midnight
§ Mr. Alec JonesI beg to move Amendment No. 3, in page 9, line 36, at end insert:
(aa) he is entitled to an increase under section 14 of this Act (special hardship allowance) of a disablement pension of an amount not less than that which at that time is specified in paragraph 5 of Schedule 3 to this Act, or.I apologise to the House on two counts, first because of having to move this Amendment at this late hour and, second, because I am raising a somewhat technical matter. However, it is concerned with a subject of considerable importance. I have indicated to the Minister on several occasions that I would seek any and every opportunity of moving similar Amendments.For the benefit of the House, I will try to be brief, yet sufficient in my explanation to justify the Amendment. For some time—'here I warn the Minister that it will also be for some time in the future—I have sought to alleviate the injustice which is felt very strongly by the widows of miners who during their lifetime are certified as suffering from pneumoconiosis but whose subsequent death is held to be caused by emphysema, chronic bronchitis or some combination of these diseases, for the decision that death was not caused by a prescribed industrial disease means that the widow is denied industrial death benefit. If this were all, this would not be a very serious matter, since the amount of money difference is not great. But, because these widows are denied industrial death benefit, they also fail to qualify for certain ancillary benefits to which their hus- 812 bands have contributed out of joint funds raised by them as miners, by their union and by the Coal Board. Above all, as this affects widows of such miners in South Wales, they are denied the benefit of the concessionary coal allowance, an allowance which these men and their wives have enjoyed for a good many years.
Those of us who live in and represent mining constituencies know the suffering which these pneumoconiotics undergo during their lifetime and the deep sense of injustice felt by these widows when they are denied industrial death benefit.
Briefly summarising the case, I mention four main points. First, these men were said to be suffering from pneumoconiosis and were registered as such not by themselves, nor by their general medical practitioner, but by a medical board or panel appointed by the Minister. The registration and certification was not of their making nor of their choosing.
Second, it is agreed by most general practitioners who work in mining constituencies that it is extremely difficult to accurately diagnose pneumoconiosis. Most miners are extremely critical of the methods used; not critical of the people concerned but critical because they appreciate the almost impossible task of effectively deciding whether a person is suffering from the disease.
Thirdly, on a rather personal and humane point, if the widow is to have a hope of qualifying for industrial death benefit, she has to decide, usually within hours and at most within days of her husband's death, whether she will accept a post-mortem. Many widows feel strongly that they should not suffer further when their husbands have suffered for years from pneumoconiosis, which is a serious ailment. It may be illogical, but that is how they feel.
Finally, there are countries—one irony is that South Africa is one of them—in which emphysema and chronic bronchitis are prescribed industrial diseases. These widows and many of my colleagues feel that if that provision is good enough for South Africa it ought to be good enough for Britain.
§ Clause 8 gave me the opportunity to put forward the Amendment. The Clause helps some of these cases. I have thanked the Minister in Committee, and on 813 another Bill, for this small assistance. It helps those who receive a constant attendance allowance. These are the worst of the pneumoconiotics, but the number is small. The Clause as it stands only scratches the surface of the problem. The new Section (1A)(a) refers to cases other than miners, and we are glad that cover is extended to anyone who suffers similarly.
§ If a miner is in receipt of constant attendance allowances, on his death his widow or other dependant automatically becomes entitled to industrial death benefit. This cannot be described as opening the door. It can at best be described as putting a crack in the door frame.
§ The new Section (1A)(a) makes industrial death benefit payable to those in receipt of constant attendance allowance—that is, where the disability is at least 100 per cent. and where constant attendance is needed. I ask the Government to widen the scope of this improvement to cover those in receipt of special hardship allowance. Those people are by definition unable, as a result of the disease which they are certified to be suffering from, either to work in their regular job or to undertake work of a similar standard.
§ Neither the Under-Secretary nor I knows how long we will be in the House of Commons. Other people decide that. As long as the Minister occupies the post he now occupies, and as long as I am a Member, I shall seek any and every opportunity to move similar Amendments and thus raise this matter with him.
§ Mr. Alfred Morris (Manchester, Wythenshawe)It is difficult to resist speaking in support of an Amendment which has appended to it the names of such distinguished hon. Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda, West (Mr. Alec Jones) has presented a powerful and persuasive case. He has explained that the Amendment is a technical one. However, my hon. Friend speaks with considerable personal experience of individual cases in South Wales.
It may be argued that the Amendment could be drafted differently. If that is the Minister's view, I know that my hon. Friend will be prepared to await an 814 improvement, in another place, in the Bill along the lines he is suggesting.
The Amendment, if accepted, would not require much additional expenditure. For the reasons given by my hon. Friend, it would be expenditure well worth while incurring. My hon. Friend explained that there is a feeling of serious injustice. My hon. Friend seeks to help people who are at disadvantage at times of bereavement. The Under-Secretary will respect the strength of the case. I hope that he can respond favourably.
§ Dame Irene Ward (Tynemouth)I do not know what answer my hon. Friend will give to this amendment, but I want in general to support the case which has been put forward. Ever since I have been in the House of Commons these diseases have been the subject of medical argument. It would satisfy a great number of people, not only the widows but also the miners, if we could devise a scheme. It took a great deal of hard work in the past to get some of these diseases accepted into our social services system. I am certain my own Ministers would not turn down an Amendment which had a strong case unless there were considerable reasons for so doing.
I remember when I first came to the House of Commons the then Conservative Government was having difficulties over miner's nystagmus. It set up a special committee through the Home Office to examine the case medically and to produce a report from people who were qualified to comment on the disease. If I remember correctly, the then hon. Member for Somerset, North, Sir Edwin Leather, always took a great interest and spoke a great deal on pneumoconiosis and one or two other miners' industrial diseases and he made some progress. I am not in a position to comment medically on these diseases, but I have been impressed with the speeches I have heard and the cases that have been put forward.
The House of Commons has to be very careful before it turns down a suggestion which comes from people like hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House who can speak with experience. It worries me that having heard all these arguments over the years we have not arrived at a proper solution. Whatever the Government's reply to this Amendment, it would be satisfying to have an assurance that this matter will be looked 815 at by people who are qualified to do so. I am not referring to the issue of the widows who have to take a decision so quickly. I accept what was said by the hon. Member for Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris) that this is a human problem.
If the Minister cannot accept the Amendment—and I imagine he cannot since it was not accepted in Standing Committee, will he give some help and consolation and say that the matter can be looked at by qualified persons so that we do our utmost to deal with a problem which it has taken the House of Commons so long to solve?
§ 12.15 a.m.
§ Mr. KinnockI congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda, West (Mr. Alec Jones) on his explicit exposition of the case for the Amendment, which is supported with great depth of feeling by many people in the mining communities, especially by miners' widows in South Wales. Also, I wish to put myself in accord with the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) in the comments which she has just made. We know of her long interest in this problem.
I have not held a Saturday morning interview session or visited a street in my constituency when the subject of concessionary coal has not been raised, by miners' families, by miners themselves, or by widows of miners. The amount involved by acceptance of the Amendment would be negligible, but it would open a welcome door in terms of benefits. For the women who have kept men in our pits over two generations, the grant of concessionary coal would be a gift of immeasurable value, for they are in desperate need of assistance towards fuel, as is every pensioner, and, in addition, they have felt a sense of deep injustice in that, after giving a family lifetime, and their husband's lives, to coal mining, there is not some sort of reward for the effort which they have put in as human beings.
If the Minister will say either that he accepts the Amendment or that he is thinking along these lines, he will earn not only the gratitude of all hon. Members from mining areas but the gratitude of the widows, if no one else, in South Wales.
§ Mr. PavittI join my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) and the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda, West (Mr. Alec Jones) for putting his case so well on this, I think, third time of asking in the last few months. He has deployed his argument with equal skill on each occasion. I well remember the time when we discussed the matter in Committee, and I can assure the hon. Lady that, even if the Minister's heart is not wide open, it is, I am sure, at least half open, as his previous replies showed.
Were there miners in Hayes and Har-lington, and my hon. Friend had used his eloquence in that area, there would, I am sure have been an even larger swing than 16.8 per cent. for Labour, giving even more decisive victory, if that were needed
On the medical aspect of the matter, we had similar considerations before us in Committee. So often, there are marginal differences on which a medical opinion has to be passed and a decision made as to what was the precise complaint. On another Clause, we had a discussion about amputees, and there was a good deal of support for what we urged then. There is always the difficulty that some unfortunate medical officer has to make a decision in the last analysis, and this leads to the sort of problems in times of distress to which my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda, West referred.
The Government may say that there may well be a marginal area in which one is not sure whether a case qualifies. Not so many millions of pounds are involved as to put the proposal out of court. Let them say that the benefit of the doubt should go to the widow. We should, as far as possible, do away with the probings and examinations which now go on to decide whether the chest complaint was pneumoconiosis, emphysema or chronic bronchitis, or whether, in fact, the chap had cancer of the lung through smoking too much. One of the most bitter things about community relations in the mining areas is the feeling that the Establishment is not aware of the problems of miners' illnesses. If the Under-Secretary cannot accept the Amendment at this time, I hope that he will give an assurance that before the 817 Bill becomes an Act the point will be met.
§ Mr. DeanAlthough I cannot advise the House to accept the Amendment, I hope that what I am about to say will reassure those who have spoken.
As the hon. Member for Rhondda, West (Mr. Alec Jones) acknowledged in moving the Amendment, the Clause makes progress in the area with which it is concerned. The whole House sympathises with, and wishes to do more for, the widows of men who have died as a result of industrial accidents and diseases, and those who have died as a result of war injuries. The progress made in this respect by the Clause is very real. It will help the widows. It will provide an automatic pension for widows of certain badly disabled men who have not had a great deal of attention during their lifetimes and hitherto in some cases did not get a pension. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman conceded that this is progress. But what he proposes here, which is slightly different from what he proposed in Committee, is a substantial and radical change in the industrial injury scheme.
The matter is being considered now. We have a specialist body which advises the Government on these matters—the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council—which is engaged on a fundamental review of industrial injuries and provisions on pneumoconiosis, which is the matter particularly concerning the hon. Gentleman and all hon. Members. This is a very difficult area. When that review is taking place it would be unwise to proceed further than we propose in the Clause and to open a very wide gate as the hon. Gentleman proposes. I hope that in the circumstances he will feel it right to withdraw the Amendment and to enable the Council to proceed with its review.
§ Mr, PavittWhen does the hon. Gentleman expect to receive the result of that review?
§ Amendment negatived.