SPECIAL PROVISIONS AS TO PNEUMOCONIOSIS (Hansard, 19 October 1973)

§ Mr. O'Malley
Will the Under-Secretary say something about the clause so that all hon. Members can understand what it means?

§ Mr. Dean
I will gladly do that. I am sorry that it has not been possible in the time available to have the full report from the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council made available and placed before the House. But the House has had an answer to a Question which appeared in HANSARD for yesterday.
Broadly, the position is that the Advisory Council, which has been studying particularly the medical aspects, came to the conclusion that there was no longer a medical case for accepting that pneumoconiosis necessarily led to disablement and, therefore, to a disablement benefit being available. That was the medical evidence which the committee has made available. It will be made available to the House next week.
Under the present practice, pneumoconiosis cases receive disablement benefit which always takes the form of a weekly pension. Because of the difficulty of making precise measures of disablement caused by the disease, assessments are made in 10 per cent. steps. This means in practice that a minimum pension for pneumoconiosis cases, payable for assessments of 1 per cent. to 10 per cent., is £1.28 a week. Were the medical recommendations of the advisory council to be followed, as they probably would be, by the doctors who make the assessments, the prospects are that some people who are now drawing a disablement pension would cease to be entitled to it and that some people who would have been entitled in the future would not be entitled under the new arrangements.
In spite of the medical evidence which has been put forward—we are very grateful to the advisory council for its work—we felt that it would be wrong, for social and other reasons, to withdraw benefit that was being paid at present for a distressing disease of this kind.
609 The essence of the clause, therefore—we have taken the first opportunity available—is to maintain current practice. The clause has been made necessary because of the medical evidence which is coming forward in the advisory council's report.

§ Mr. O'Malley
The Government have shown more sense than the majority of the members of the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council. We regard it as entirely right and sensible that this clause should be included in the Bill even though the purpose of the Bill is not generally to deal with pneumoconiosis matters.
There are two other points I wish to make. First, this debate is based, as it has to be based, on a Written Answer, dated 18th October, in reply to a Question by the hon. Member for Reading (Dr. Vaughan). Reading is not in the centre of any British coalfield which I know. Secondly, this was obviously a planted Question. Even worse, it was a planted Question asking about information on a report which is not published and so is not available. I would have liked to have that report. It would have been proper for the report to be available to hon. Members to enable them to consider this clause today.
There is something odd about a situation in which we have to reply on information given in a planted Written Question which asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he was in a position to make a statement on the report of the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council about pneumoconiosis and byssinosis. The Secretary of State in his reply said: Arrangements have been made for the report to be published as a command paper on Tuesday next. We are faced with an odd and unsatisfactory situation and, therefore, I am unable to comment in detail on that report and its implications, as they affect Clause 6, or general legislation which deals with pneumoconiosis.
However, on the basis of the parliamentary Question it should be said that if this is all that the Advisory Council can come up with after several years, it will do nothing to alleviate the deep dismay and deep dissatisfaction which exists in the coalfields of this country about the present arrangements for dealing with the victims of pneumoconiosis. As I 610 understand the Written Question, the significant point is that no changes are to be made in the present provisions for taking into account disablement due to other respiratory conditions found in the presence of pneumoconiosis in assessing the extent of disablement due to the disease.
That may satisfy some of the medical profession. But I say to the hon. Gentleman and those senior members of the medical profession who apparently give advice to the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council, or are members of it, that their views about pneumoconiosis are not shared by many general practitioners and chest consultants working in hospitals in the mining areas.
I welcome the modest proposals in Clause 6, which merely keep the situation as it is and prevent the medical profession from doing harm to the claims of sufferers from pneumoconiosis. But that is not enough. We are still operating on systems of paying compensation in pneumoconiosis cases which have not been examined or changed in major detail for years. I hope, therefore, that with this clause the hon. Gentleman will not regard the matter as being closed, but that an examination is made of the entire Workmen's Compensation Acts, not only regarding the level of benefit payable, but also taking all those who are not at present in any categories under the general umbrella of the industrial injuries system.
Consideration should also be given to the Pneumoconiosis and Miscellaneous Diseases Scheme to look at the level of benefits payable to widows. Diagnosis of pneumoconiosis should also be examined, with a view to a better understanding being reached on definitions, so that a payment can be made in respect of dust retention and chronic bronchitis and all forms of emphysema which are so often accompanied, and made worse by. the pneumoconiosis condition.
I thank the Government for this clause. They have been sensible and speedy in this matter, but I understand that they have received representations from the National Union of Mineworkers. I thank the Government for taking this action, but it is not enough. The time has come when this nation must look completely afresh at this disability and the sufferings of men caused by pneumoconiosis as a 611 result of working in mines, to ensure that there is better, more adequate provision than at present. These men are dissatisfied—they have a right to be—at the benefits available and at the way in which these benefits are decided and administered at present.

§ Mr. Dean
The hon. Gentleman has been very unfair to the Advisory Council, the members of which are all dedicated experts who spent a long time considering a very difficult matter. One of their tasks is to give their medical judgment on these matters. It is the job of Parliament to decide to what extent this should be overborne by social and other considerations, including historic considerations. Surely it is right that the Government, having made a judgment on this, should come forward straight away with the clause, otherwise medical judgments would be made on the basis of the Advisory Council Report, so that some people would have been deprived of benefit to which they are now entitled. That is why the Government acted as early as possible. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has supported us on this.
I am sorry that it has not been possible for the whole report to be made available earlier. These are difficult matters which take time. I fully appreciate that the hon. Gentleman and the Committee will wish to consider the report fully when it is published next week.

§ Mr. Jack Ashley (Stoke-on-Trent, South)
I want to add my voice to those criticising the failure to extend the £10 Christmas allowance to disabled people and to supplementary benefit pensioners. I do not believe that any Government can sustain a situation in which they 612 give a £10 bonus to one section of the community—the pensioners—but deny it to severely disabled people and supplementary benefit pensioners.
I know that the Government's position is that they are giving the £10 to those most in need, and I welcome the sum as far as it goes. Of course it is grossly inadequate, but the failure to give it also to severely disabled people means that the Government are discriminating against some people who may, indeed, be worse off than many pensioners.
The Government may argue that it is difficult to categorise disabled people because there are so many of them. Indeed, there are three million people in the country with some degree of disablement. Of this number, 1,100,000 are severely or very severely disabled. Such people should have the £10 and there is not justification for excluding them.
If the Government refuse to give them the £10, however, let them consider another category—disabled people in invalidity benefit, so that people so disabled that for six months they have been unable to work and are badly in need get the £10. If the Government are establishing an order of priorities they surely cannot say, "We are taking one section of those most in need and giving the money to them while disregarding another section." They must be fair to all those in great need.
The second category consists of those in receipt of supplementary benefit. Some of these people are far worse off than some old-age pensioners. That cannot be gainsaid, although also it cannot be denied that there are some very poor pensioners. So the Government must, in justice, extend the £10 bonus to the very severely disabled people and to people in receipt of supplementary benefit. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will look at the matter again, if not now then in time for Christmas.

§ Mr. Dean
I am glad to be able to tell the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) that persons over the age of 65 for a man and 60 for a woman who are in receipt of a supplementary pension are indeed eligible—they are within the scope of the Bill. I am glad to be able to reassure him on that point. They are mentioned in Clause 2 as one 613 of the categories included. On that point I am able to concede to him 100 per cent.
We have debated the question of the disabled earlier in the Bill and I have explained the help which the Government have been able to provide through the attendance allowance and other payments for this very deserving section of the community. Of course we wish to do more and intend to do so in the future.
The Government are grateful to the House for the speedy passage of the Bill. I know that both sides are anxious that the work should go forward quickly so that these benefits can be paid at the earliest possible moment.