MINEWORKERS' PROTECTION BILL (Hansard, 19 March 1971)

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Having sat patiently throughout the day, I began to think that we should not reach this Bill. I am afraid that I cannot promise to be brief, as the hon. Member for Leicester, South-West (Mr. Tom Boardman) did, because I have to deal with a Bill which is of great importance to the mining constituencies and to the families of miners who die as a result of pneumoconiosis and other chest ailments.

No one is more conscious that I of the Bill's drafting deficiencies. All that I ask is that if the principle which I hope to enunciate is acceptable, the Bill will be 1947 given a Second Reading. We can then use the Committee stage to correct any legal or drafting anomalies.

Those hon. Members who have bothered to read the Long Title must concede that it is very widely drawn, perhaps too widely. That has been done because it was originally my intention to draft a Measure which would deal with a number of improvements in the safety, health and welfare of miners as well as making more generous provisions for the dependants of pneumoconiotic victims. If and when the Bill reaches its Committee stage, I shall seek to amend the Long Title since I have been advised that it will be more desirable to concentrate on dealing more generously with the dependants of miners who die having suffered from pneumoconiosis.

The Bill seeks to establish the right for dependents of miners as defined in Clause 2 to receive industrial death benefit, provided that the miner was certified as suffering from pneumoconiosis in his lifetime and that his death was the result of some subsequent chest or heart condition.

Some hon. Members may feel that this is a lot of fuss about nothing and that present arrangements for dealing with industrial death benefit are adequate. I hope to show that, while they may be in the case of normal industrial deaths, they are unsatisfactory in their application to the dependents of pneumoconiotic miners.

Hon. Members will have to forgive me for making what may appear to be a long-winded explanation. I suspect that many people are not aware of the problems faced by the dependents of pneumoconiotic miners.

When a young lad first starts work at a colliery in these more enlightened days, he is probably 15 or 16 years of age. In the past, he would probably have been 14, 13 or even 12. It is the dependants of these older workers who present the main problem. Their menfolk probably started work in the days when boys went into the pits at 12, 13 or 14.

When these men started work, the industry, the medical profession, society and the union were not aware of the existence of pneumoconiosis and certainly not of its consequences. For much 1948 of the working life of older miners, little was done about dust suppression in the collieries. Generally speaking, the disease is the result of the inhalation of dust over a period of years and most cases diagnosed today are the result of dust conditions of years ago.

Of the men employed in coal mining in whom pneumoconiosis was first diagnosed in 1969, eight were under 35, 43 under 45, 184 under 55, and 286 under 65. The figures clearly show that it is mainly among the older group, among men who began work in the collieries when dust suppression was almost nonexistent, that the disease is to be found.

To give more generous treatment to the older men is only to make some recompense for the neglect of past years, not neglect by one Government or another, but by society. Fortunately, today the industry, the National Coal Board, the National Union of Mineworkers and individual miners are far more knowledgeable about and far more determined to carry out extensive measures of dust suppression.

This is not all. The Coal Board now operates a scheme for miners to have their chests X-rayed every five years. Any miner who has reason to suspect that he may be suffering from pneumoconiosis has his case referred to a pneumoconiosis medical panel. The panel is composed of specially qualified doctors who examine the X-ray film of his chest. If the panel considers that the X-ray shows evidence that the claimant may be suffering from the disease, he is sent for a clinical examination by a pneumoconiosis medical board. The board consists of at least two of the specialists from the panel. There are two stages—the X-ray examination by the panel and the clinical examination by the board. It is the board which has the final say in most cases. The board decides two things, whether the man is suffering from pneumoconiosis, and the degree of his disablement arising from it.

Up to this point, there is no disagreement. We accept the opinions of the Board. What I assert in the Bill is that if miners have to accept the opinion of the board as to the extent of their disability and whether they are suffering from the disease while they are alive, this same opinion about the existence 1949 and extent of the disease should be accepted on death. If the experts certify that during his lifetime a man has suffered from pneumoconiosis, that decision should be equally binding when he dies and his dependants become entitled to industrial death benefit.

The Department of Health and Social Security has published a pamphlet, N.I.3, to assist claimants for industrial death benefit, paragraph 3 of which says that the decision of the board on whether or not a person is suffering from the disease will be conclusive. We are asking that the decision, which we say shall be conclusive, shall be equally as conclusive at the death of a claimant as it was during his lifetime.

Hon. Members may have thought that this was the natural order of things, but paragraph 13 of the same pamphlet says that the dependants of a person who dies of pneumoconiosis may be entitled to benefit in such cases and that a postmortem is usually necessary to establish the cause of death. The first question which the widow of a miner who has suffered from pneumoconiosis for years has to face, almost immediately after the death, sometimes within hours and certainly within days, is whether she will agree to a post-mortem. The trade union officials, usually officials of the N.U.M., tell her that if she refuses a post-mortem her chances of claiming and receiving industrial death benefit are negligible.

Hon. Members may think that a widow who refuses a post-mortem is acting unwisely and possibly illogically. While I concede that it would certainly be unwise for her to refuse a post-mortem, because by doing so she will lose the advantages of claiming industrial death benefit, I do not believe that it is illogical.

Widows with genuine religious objections to a post-mortem will refuse on religious grounds. Others will reason differently. A widow may have watched over her husband as he has struggled to continue at work while suffering from chest ailments, and then been forced to give up work because of a chest condition. She may have watched over him and nursed him for some years as he fights for breath, coughs and spits as a pneumoconiosis victim. If at her husband's death the widow is asked whether she will agree to a port-mortem she will say—and I 1950 have heard these words on many occasions—" My husband suffered during his lifetime, and I will not have him cut about again." This may be illogical, but it is natural and understandable. A widow will also say that the pneumoconiosis medical board made the decision that her husband was suffering from pneumoconiosis in his lifetime and therefore that decision should stick now that he is dead.

I am not suggesting, either personally or on behalf of any union or association, that post-mortems should be done away with altogether. Certainly the N.U.M. feels that there is a need for a post mortem in some cases, and that it serves a purpose in the diagnosis and treatment of pneumoconiotics. But it is inhuman to insist that a post-mortem shall be a condition of sustaining a claim for industrial death benefit. Many widows know that even when post-mortems are held the results are often very different from the original certification of the pneumoconiosis medical board.

A fortnight ago I examined the records of the South Wales National Union of Mineworkers, and I propose to refer to some of the cases I found. I will ignore the names of the people for obvious reasons. One man who died at the age of 62 was certified with a 40 per cent. disability. Another of 68 years of age died with a 50 per cent. disability. A man of 81 years of age had a 100 per cent. disability. Another of 49 years of age had a 100 per cent. disability. Whatever disability those men were certified to have during their lives, when they died their dependants were denied industrial death benefit because the medical certificate said that pneumoconiosis was not present.

Despite the disparity in the ages of the victims I have mentioned and in the degree of disability—40 per cent. compared with 100 per cent.—in no case was pneumoconiosis held to be the cause of death or to have contributed materially to death. Therefore, their dependants received no industrial death benefit. Take the case of the young man who died at the age of 49. He was told during his life by the pneumoconiosis medical board that he had a 100 per cent. disability because of pneumoconiosis. Yet after his death his widow received not a penny in industrial death benefit.

1951 I have heard it said many times in the House that hard cases make bad laws. I believe that it is merely a choice of words of solicitors and lawyers, because if there were no hard cases of the type which I have described we would not be seeking to amend the law to deal with the problem.

If the drafting of the Bill is not particularly good, if its wording is vague, or even if it is inaccurate in some parts, I ask the House not to reject it out of hand but to amend it and make it a good Bill so that natural and moral justice may be given on the widows and other dependants concerned in the cases I have described.

I have here a certificate relating to the father of one of my constituents. It is dated 1950 and concerns a man who worked in a colliery for 34 years—from 1909 to 1943. In 1943 he left the colliery and went to work in a factory because his chest was causing him trouble. He worked in the factory from 1943 to 1948. His health worsened and in 1950 the medical board certified that he was totally disabled by pneumoconiosis. Five years later he died. When a claim was made for benefit, it was found that the death certificate mentioned diseases like chronic bronchitis and emphysema but made no mention of pneumoconiosis, so his wife and family received no benefit.

The question which people ask is: if a man suffered during his life from pneumoconiosis to the extent of a 100 per cent. disability, what happened to it when he died? This is the sort of problem which is causing great distress to a very large number of people. I refer to that case not as a criticism of the original certification nor as a criticism of the final post-mortem but merely to indicate the very grave difficulties which the medical profession has to face in trying accurately to diagnose the nature of respiratory disabilities and ailments, and certainly in assessing the extent of the disability which arises from them. I pay my tribute to the valuable research which has been carried out over the years in diagnosing and in treating pneumoconiosis and, in many instances, rehabilitating pneumoconiotic victims.

The National Union of Mineworkers probably more than any other organisation, even though its members are 1952 not medical experts, has a fair and extensive—extensive rather than fair, perhaps—knowledge of the effects of pneumoconiosis. It believes that the difficulties which I have described can be solved only by a description of chronic bronchitis and emphysema as industrial diseases of coal mining. This is the union's policy. It is what the union would like, and I certainly would not dissent from that view, though at this point of time, and by this Bill which I am trying to persuade the House to accept, I am not proposing to go that far.

There is evidence that this view, that chronic bronchitis and emphysema ought to be scheduled as industrial diseases, has become acceptable in many parts of the world. I would quote some lines from the report of a symposium on pneumoconiosis held in Poland under the World Health Organisation. It says: Most countries accept disability caused by bronchitis and emphysema as occupational when accompanied by complicated pneumoconiosis. In most countries represented at the symposium disability from bronchitis and emphysema when accompanied by simple pneumoconiosis is not accepted as compensable So there is evidence that there are countries which are changing their minds as to accepting these two diseases, chronic bronchitis and emphysema, as being industrial diseases. I understand that certain countries in Eastern Europe have accepted them as being so.

I had sent to me a document which I thought quite astonishing. It is a photostat copy of a form MPH 239 C (M)(S) from the Department of Health and Social Security. It says: We have reviewed your war pension and have decided to continue your present award unaltered. The award is based on an assessment 6f the degree of disablement of 50 per cent. arising from bronchitis and emphysema. Those are the only two diseases mentioned here. If this were what it appears to be it would solve so many of the problems. This refers to a man who had spent some time in South Africa and was certified originally in that country, though he has now returned here, and what this form indicates is that our Department of Health and Social Security is paying him 50 per cent. disablement benefit on account of chronic bronchitis and emphysema, a payment which we do not make to our own people because 1953 we do not accept those diseases for this purpose. This seems to me rather strange. I say good luck to that gentleman, but I hope that we may have some extension of this treatment in the treatment of our people here.

I know that there are legal difficulties and certainly I know that there are medical difficulties in this problem. I am not trying in any way to belittle them, but I am saying to the House that we ought not to be judging this as a legal issue, nor as a medical issue. We should be dealing with this as a social problem which can be solved only by the political decision of this House. If we try to pass the buck to the medical or the legal profession, we shall be dodging our political responsibility in the matter.

The Bill would benefit widows, for instance, of miners who die of compensatable industrial diseases like pneumoconiosis. The sums of money are not great. The difference between industrial death benefit paid to such widows and the normal widow's pension is a mere difference of 55p a week, but widows of miners who receive industrial death benefit would become entitled to other ancillary benefits.

First, they would be entitled to a colliery workers' supplement of £2.37½ a week paid from a fund to which the men contribute. Secondly, they would be entitled to a lump sum of £250 paid out of the Industrial Diseases Fatality Scheme. Finally, they would be entitled to a concessionary coal allowance in accordance with agreements made between the union and the National Coal Board.

Those ancillary benefits, however, are not paid to widows and dependants from public funds. In the main, they are payments which would be made to them from funds to which the miners had contributed during their working life. Thus, the benefits out of the Industrial Injuries Fund are relatively small. The benefits which the Bill seeks to give to these dependants are, in the main, benefits from funds established or contributed to by the miners themselves. Although not large, they would be of considerable assistance to widows and other dependants.

The Bill is short. Despite its deficiencies, I believe that it can be understood. The beneficiaries under the Bill would be the dependants whom I have detailed in Clause 2. In the main they 1954 are widows, and by the nature of things they would be elderly, although I have included the dependants as described in the existing National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act.

The purpose of Clause 1 is quite clear. Paragraph (a) uses the phrase "to a moderate degree". This may be strange to many people. It is a phrase which is understandable to pneumoconiotic experts. It is understandable to the union and to the men. It is, however, a phrase which could be altered, and I would certainly have no objection to redefinition if that were found to be necessary.

I have used the form of words used in Clause 1(b) because I realise that even if my wishes were accepted, it would be necessary to exclude pneumoconiotic victims who die from another accident. That is why I have used this form of words. Again, this is capable of being amended.

I had better resume my seat before I upset many of my hon. Friends. I conclude on this note and relate the Bill to present-day problems. We are suffering from a coal shortage, certainly of certain types of coal. At the same time as we are importing coal, the National Coal Board is conducting a recruiting campaign. I come from an ex-mining constituency; most of my mines are now closed. I believe that it is unrealistic to expect our young people from mining areas to join the Coal Board when they see around them in their daily life pneumoconiotics and their dependants, and Parliament, acting on behalf of our society, failing to meet the long-overdue obligation to these people. I believe that the Bill would go a long way to meet that obligation, and I ask the House to support it.