§ 7. Mr. Goldingasked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will establish an inquiry into the incidence of emphysema among miners and potters 216 compared with those in other occupations.
§ Mr. DeanNo, Sir. I do not consider that such an inquiry would be of material assistance in relation to the question of prescribing emphysema as an industrial disease under the Industrial Injuries Act which the hon. Member no doubt has in mind.
§ Mr. GoldingIs the Minister aware that many miners and potters who have become totally disabled as a result of their occupations are denied industrial injury benefit? Does he know that there is growing awareness that the medical diagnosis of pneumoconiosis, which attracts benefit, and emphysema, which does not, is very much a matter of hit and miss, and that the relative incidence of emphysema among both potters and miners leads us to demand its classification as an industrial disease for those occupations?
§ Mr. DeanI appreciate that there is a difficulty here, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will realise that emphysema is a very common disease in this country among all sections of the community. However, the industrial injuries scheme has gone some way to meet the hon. Gentleman's point, in that where there is pneumoconiosis to the extent of 50 per cent. or more, any associated emphysema and bronchitis can be treated as the effect of pneumoconiosis and taken into account for benefit purposes.
§ Mr. Edwin WainwrightDoes the Minister really believe what he has just been saying? Why is he afraid of having an inquiry? Is it because he is afraid that the facts may prove that there is quite a big connection between emphysema and working underground? In my experience, many miners suffering from emphysema, so-called, die as a result of their working conditions in the mines years ago.
§ Mr. DeanA major review of pneumoconiosis is going on under the Industrial Injuries Acts. That is one of the features that will be taken into account.
§ Mr. Alfred MorrisWill the hon. Gentleman at least agree that policy-making is blind unless we know the facts? Notwithstanding his original 217 reply, will he reconsider this very important matter?