HC Deb 03 April 1973 vol 854 cc211-3
10. Mr. Eadie

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many decisions the commissioner reversed in favour of claimants for industrial injury benefit arising out of claims for pneumoconiosis in 1972 and to the nearest available date in 1973.

Mr. Dean

The statistics do not show pneumoconiosis cases separately, but for the year ended 31st December 1972 the commissioner dealt with 589 industrial injuries questions, of which 187 were decided in the claimant's favour. Subsequent figures are not yet available.

Mr. Eadie

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that answer. Does that answer to some extent substantiate the feeling that the commissioner's decisions are not treated with a great deal of favour by many people, particularly by those associated with industry? Does he not think it worth while to look into the whole procedure? Will he say on how many occasions a commissioner's decision has gone against a man who during his lifetime received a substantial pneumoconiosis pension and why on his death the commissioner has appealed even against a tribunal decision which went in the man's favour? Will he give the House information so that we may know whether the procedure adopted is fair and equitable for people in industry?

Mr. Dean

I should be unhappy if the situation in terms of the appeal procedure generally were as the hon. Gentleman outlined it, but there are some extremely difficult areas in this respect— and pneumoconiosis is one of them. For that reason the review of pneumoconiosis by the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council has been undertaken. We expect to have its report fairly soon and I am sure that it will give valuable guidance on the difficult areas the hon. Gentleman has mentioned.

Mr. O'Malley

In view of the widespread and understandable dissatisfaction in the coalfields at the treatment of pneumoconiosis victims, is the hon. Gentleman aware that Labour Members are in favour of a comprehensive and major policy review of the whole of the pneumoconiosis legislation? Will he confirm whether the Government take a similar view?

Mr. Dean

The first thing we must do is await the report of the council which has been looking into this subject for a considerable time in depth to see what advice it can give us.

Mr. Rowlands

If the hon. Gentleman comes to one of my weekend surgeries he will see one elderly widow after another coming in who is baffled and angry at the fact that she does not receive a pension or house coal because it has been ruled that, although her husband may have been suffering 100 per cent. disability in terms of dust in his lungs, that was not a contributory cause of his death. I hope the hon. Gentleman will change his mind. Instead of saying that this is a difficult area he should wipe the rule away altogether and establish the right of widows to receive pensions and coal in these circumstances.

Mr. Dean

As a Member representing a coal-mining area, I also see coal miners' widows in my surgeries and therefore I know something about this matter from personal experience. What the hon. Gentleman is saying is that the whole basis of the injuries scheme which has existed since the war—namely, that death must have been caused or aggravated by the conditions of a person's work—should be completely changed. He raises a very wide question.