§ 10.42 p.m.
§ Dr. John A. Cunningham (Whitehaven)I welcome the opportunity to introduce a debate on pneumoconiosis compensation, but I wish to make it clear that I am speaking about compensation for people who contract that dreadful disease through employment other than coal mining. There are a number of reasons for drawing the attention of the House to the matter. For the past 12 months I have been raising the matter because of specific constituency interest.
I am disappointed because, despite my questions and letters to Ministers, the Government have not moved at all on the issue. It is particularly disappointing for me, because I support the Government on most occasions and I regret their intransigence on this issue.
The tripartite talks initiated by the Government with the coal industry resulted in a compensation fund supported by Government finance. It meant that those men who contracted the disease throungh working in the coal industry could, under certain circumstances, obtain financial compensation, or that their widows could obtain compensation without resorting to action in the civil courts. That scheme is understandably specific to the coal industry, but it has created a situation in which people suffering from the same disease are being afforded different treatment by the Government. I regard that as an intolerable situation, 1062 as do those affected by the disease. That is why I have been pressing the Government, in concert with some of my hon. Friends, for so long.
At present, although there is no fund for industries other than coal mining, those who have contracted the disease in another industry can still take civil action in the courts if—and this is important—there is someone against whom action is possible.
My interest is specific. West Cumbria has traditionally been an iron ore mining area as well as a coal mining area. I represent many people who have been—and some who still are—iron ore miners. The one iron ore mine in the United Kingdom remaining in operation is in my constituency—the British Steel Corporation mine at Beckermet. West Cumbria was a boom area for iron ore mining in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, but the industry is now in decline, although I am pleased to say that the one mine remaining is doing very well.
As in coal mining, there has been a considerable incidence of pneumoconiosis in the iron ore mining industry and in many others—the pottery industry, slate quarrying in Wales and elsewhere, gypsum and barytes mining, the lagging and construction industries, and the brickmaking industry. It is also found among foundry workers. Although the problem is not specific to iron ore mining, it is with that industry that I am mainly concerned.
In West Cumbria we have the intolerable situation of iron ore miners and coal miners living together, many with the same disease, and the iron ore miners receiving no help from the Government and being entitled to no compensation as of right, while their neighbours and friends, the coal miners, are able to obtain compensation. Similarly, the widow of an iron ore miner is unable to obtain compensation, while the widow of a coal miner in the same community can. That is so divisive and unhappy a situation in a community renowned for its closeness that it stands out as an error and injustice, which should be rectified.
It may be asked why there has been no recourse to the law by the men or their trade union. There are a number of reasons, the principal one being that in almost all mine closures, because of the rapid decline of the industry and the 1063 disappearance of companies that owned the mines, there is no organisation left against which civil action can be taken. That is yet another close parallel with the situation that existed in the coal industry and was one of the main reasons for the creation of the scheme, with Government support, for that industry. As I also represent a number of coal miners and their dependants, that is a scheme that I support, although it has its defects.
The union representing the iron ore miners has no organisation against which it can act. One of the reasons for the coal industry scheme was the elimination of the necessity for long and expensive litigation. If it was right that the Government should act for that reason in one industry, why are they refraining from acting to eliminate the same set of circumstances in a similar industry?
I visited the British Steel Corporation mine at Beckermet in January this year and was delighted to see that the conditions there were excellent. The mine is highly mechanised and the working conditions have been greatly improved. It is hoped to expand the operations, and I hope that that will happen.
I was delighted to learn that approximately 20 per cent. of all the iron ore used at the Workington plant is now mined locally. That is a considerable achievement, and I hope that the Corporation will be able to build on it. What is more important is that great strides have been made in eliminating the scourge of pneumoconiosis. I understand that there have been no new cases for many years. Workers with the disease from iron ore mines are still to be found in many of the urban communities and villages in my constituency, however, such as Cleator Moor and Frizington. There are many cruel disablements because of the illness, and there are also many widows in that area.
The Government have announced the establishment of a Royal Commission on civil liability. When the Commission was established by the previous Government, the then Prime Minister was pressed to give assurances that that body would not be used to delay or obfuscate possible action or decisions in the interim. The right hon. Gentleman was pressed by Labour Members, many of whom are now members of the present Government. Therefore, it ill becomes 1064 them now to take the view that nothing can be done when they themselves made criticisms of an earlier Administration. Although I do not doubt the usefulness of the Royal Commission, which is examining various categories of liability, I must point out that it has no special remit on this problem and there is no guarantee that it will be able to come up with a solution.
I should like to draw the Minister's attention to Early-Day Motion No. 205 on this subject, which has now been signed by more than 200 Government supporters. Although I do not seek to over-emphasise the importance of Early-Day Motions, it is unusual to find such overwhelming support for a motion. Obviously there is considerable feeling on the Labour Benches, as on the Conservative Benches, on this subject.
§ Mr. Michael Jopling (Westmorland)I am very glad that the hon. Gentleman said that there was support on both sides of the House on this matter. As he knows, this problem has expressed itself in my constituency, which adjoins his. Many Conservative Members echo the sentiments that he has expressed.
§ Dr. CunninghamI pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for supporting me in this matter. He continues to keep in contact with me on it. Some of his constituents are involved in civil actions in the courts and, through him and their solicitors, have been in contact with me on a number of occasions.
The TUC also is taking an interest in this matter. The case is just, particularly for iron ore miners, in exactly the same occupation of mining, who are suffering exactly the same disease for the same reasons. One hopes that in acknowledging the case the Government will be more forthcoming in answering our requests. I cannot bring myself to believe that when the Government agreed to the establishment of a fund for the coal industry they decided to go no further on pneumoconiosis. I cannot believe that a Labour Government said "We must do this because coal mining is a major industry, involving thousands of men, but we can contain it here. The small groups in other industries, who suffer, as do their dependants, from the same dreadful disease, will not have social justice extended to them." That 1065 would be the very antithesis of Socialism. Ministers must be sympathetic to the point.
The extent of the problem of the Cumberland iron ore miners is not easy for me, as a Member of Parliament, to gauge. We want the Government—it is a matter for the Government—to take the initiative and to call together both management and unions in the industries affected and to set up a working party to gauge the extent of the problem with some accuracy and bring it home to those propagating the arguments and to the Government themselves. Without such research, no one can say how widespread the problem is.
This is not a plea for immediate public expenditure, so the Government cannot reject it on those grounds—although obviously, if the Government conceded the case, public expenditure would be involved in the longer term.
The Cumberland iron ore miners have made a great contribution to this country. In my work on this case, in an old file I came across a public notice issued under the Defence of the Realm Act by the Ministry of Munitions of War. Referring to a strike by the miners, it urged the men to return to work because of the importance of their work to the national well-being and welfare. It called upon "all loyal citizens" to resume work immediately and gave notice that
all persons who incite to any stoppage of war material or to acts calculated or likely to restrict production of such material are guilty of an offenc under the Defence of the Realm Regulations, the penalty for which is penal servitude for life or such lesser punishment as may be awarded.Many iron ore miners were awarded lesser punishment. As a result of resuming work, they contracted pneumoconiosis. I hope that the Minister will be able to assure them now that that punishment is not one that they will be left to endure alone.
§ 11.0 p.m.
§ The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Harold Walker)My hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven (Dr. Cunningham) spoke with great sympathy and much understanding tonight of a matter of concern to many of his constituents—the compensation of workers from industries such as iron ore mining, 1066 quarrying, foundries and potteries, who have the misfortune to suffer from pneumoconiosis or similar lung diseases. This is a matter of concern to many hon. Members and is reflected in the Early-Day Motion that my hon. Friend tabled and to which he referred. It is one about which there is still, regrettably, much confusion.
I therefore welcome the opportunity of this debate to explain the Government's position in the matter and to clear up some of the misconceptions about the imaginative compensation scheme that is operated by the National Coal Board. I shall do my best in the short time available to deal with the various points that my hon. Friend raised. I hope that he will forgive me if, in doing so, I find it necessary to retread some of the ground that he has already travelled.
A person who suffers injury or disease as a result of his employment may recover damages against his employer if he can show, to the satisfaction of the courts, that his employer was negligent or in breach of a statutory duty. It is open to the employer and employee concerned to reach agreement on the settlement of such claims without recourse to the adjudication of the courts. In a successful claim for damages, it is the employer who is liable to pay, and under the Employers' Liability (Compulsory Insurance) Act 1969 all employers, other than the nationalised industries, are required to take out and maintain insurance against this liability. That Act does not confer the right of compensation without proof of fault but ensures that a successful plaintiff or a claimant whose action is settled will receive the damages due to him. He will not be denied compensation because of his employer's inability to pay.
All sufferers from pneumoconiosis and similar prescribed diseases are, of course, also able to apply for the industrial injuries benefits of the State's social security scheme. The rates of disablement benefit, which are the same for all prescribed diseases and industrial accidents, are reviewed periodically by the Government. In order to receive such benefits it is enough for a pneumoconiotic to show that he has the disease and that he has worked in one of the occupations involving exposure to dust. The assessment of pneumoconiosis for benefit purposes is for a pneumoconiosis medical board, 1067 whose decision at the moment is final. However, as my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Social Services announced recently, a limited right of appeal is to be introduced as soon as possible and draft Regulations for this purpose have been submitted to the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council for consideration. Receipt of industrial injuries benefits does not preclude a claim for damages at common law in respect of the same disease.
My hon. Friend has rightly praised and welcomed the National Coal Board's Pneumoconiosis Compensation Scheme, but in expressing a wish for similar treatment to be accorded to pneumoconiosis sufferers in other industries he is, perhaps, sharing what I fear is a widespread misconception of the origin, purpose and intention of that scheme. It is not a new and additional means whereby miners can secure compensation, but is an alternative to the present system of litigation. It is important to understand fully the unique circumstances that led to its introduction. The position was that the Coal Board, following the decision in Pickles v. the National Coal Board, faced an unmanageably large number of claims, running into tens of thousands, at the pursuit of miners and former miners suffering from pneumoconiosis. It would have taken many years and a vast expenditure of money to deal with each case as an isolated claim at law. The Government therefore welcomed the efforts of the Board and the coal mining unions to find a solution to this problem whereby all claims could be settled quickly on an agreed basis.
It must be emphasised that this is an industry scheme, freely negotiated between the Board and the unions as a means of avoiding costly and wasteful litigation for both the employer and employees concerned. Furthermore, miners who accept benefits under the scheme do so from personal choice, as an alternative to pursuing their individual claims in the courts.
The Government provided financial assistance towards the setting up of the scheme only because of the Exchequer's overall responsibility for the finances of the Board and because the Board's potential liability in respect of former miners was so great in relation to the industry's current size and financial situation. The 1068 Board is, of course, entirely responsible for any future costs arising from the continuance of the scheme.
My hon. Friend has said that he is not calling for an immediate extension of public expenditure, although he clearly accepts that this might eventually be necessary; he is merely seeking at this stage a Government initiative in setting up discussions between employers and unions in the industries concerned about the nature, size and extent of their pneumoconiosis problem.
If there is a single employer in these industries who is faced, as the National Coal Board was, with a large number of compensation claims it is, of course, open to him to discuss the possibility of settling these claims on an agreed basis either with the employees concerned or with their representatives. I see no reason, moreover, why employers and unions in these industries should not get together to review, discuss and assess the problems facing employees in the industry, and former employees, who suffer from pneumoconiosis, in just the same way as they meet to discuss other problems in the industry. Indeed, I welcome any such initiative aimed at resolving difficulties within an industry, but this should be for the employers and unions concerned. I very much doubt whether it would be appropriate for the Government to take such an initiative or for Government Departments to be involved in such discussions.
My hon. Friend has spoken of the various difficulties facing pneumoconiosis sufferers in bringing an action at law, but these difficulties are not peculiar to any one industry and may, indeed, arise in compensation cases generally; they are, no doubt, matters to which the Royal Commission on Civil Liability and Compensation for Personal Injury will be giving attention. As the House knows, the Commission was set up to consider to what extent, in what circumstances, and by what means compensation should be payable to persons who suffer injury or disease in a fairly wide range of circumstances, including employment. In the course of its work, which it hopes to complete by the end of this year, the Commission will undoubtedly have made a close study of those industries with a pneumoconiosis problem and of workers difficulties in obtaining compensation.
1069 The Commission's report will clearly influence future policy in this sphere and, notwithstanding what my hon. Friend has said on this point, we have made clear on numerous occasions in this House that we would not think it right to introduce new forms of compensation for industrial disease, particularly on a no-fault basis, until we have had an opportunity of considering the Commission's recommendations.
Finally, I should like to comment on the efforts being made by industry and by the Health and Safety Executive to reduce the prevalence of pneumoconiosis and other dust diseases and to minimise their effects. All employers are now required by the Health and Safety at Work etc Act to provide and maintain places of work that are, so far as is reasonably practicable, safe and without risk to health. Regulations under the Factories Act and the Mines and Quarries Act have sought to ensure that dust at work is so controlled that risk is minimised.
The development and refinement of scientific methods of dust detection and measurement, in conjunction with medical studies, is now enabling standards to be set so that the health of workers who are employed in dusty processes is adequately safeguarded. Similar developments in dust control techniques have achieved improvements, notably in coal mining, pottery manufacture, cotton processing and foundry operations. Guidance on all these matters is available in various publications issued by the Health and Safety Executive.
In a number of industries, including potteries, foundries and cotton, there are 1070 long-established joint standing committees comprising employers, workers, independent experts and officials of the executive, and these committees have done valuable work in applying new techniques to their own industries. A number of advisory committee reports have given details of the way in which to apply these new techniques to solve old problems. In addition, codes of practice have been prepared to assist industry in dealing with health risks. One such code, produced by a joint working party in 1974, dealt with the long-standing problem of dust produced when fettling castings with power-operated portable tools. The code sets standards for dust concentrations, describes how to measure them, recommends methods of dust control, gives guidance as to systematic monitoring of dust levels and the performance of control measures. Advice is directed towards both the workers who may be at risk and those who have the responsibility for protecting their employees.
I hope that the joint efforts of employers, trade unions, and the Health and Safety Executive will, in ways such as this, continue to make a significant contribution to the reduction of these diseases. Equally, I hope that the Royal Commission will have regard to what has been said in the House this evening, and take our remarks fully into account. I hope that they will find their reflection in the report eventually submitted to us.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Adjourned accordingly at eleven minutes past Eleven o'clock.