Emphysema (Compensation) (Hansard, 22 March 1983)

§ Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse (Pontefract and Castleford)

I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide compensation for mineworkers under the Industrial Injuries Acts for emphysema. The House will recall that I presented a similar Bill last Session. I shall not rehash the evidence that I gave then, but I shall present new evidence to make the House aware of the shallowness of the argument presented to me in a letter from the Minister for Social Security on 3 March this year. My predecessor as Member for Pontefract and Castleford was Joe Harper—a most respected man. In 1963, Joe fought for similar legislation. He received from the Conservative Minister of Pensions and National Insurance a bromide answer that closely resembled the answer that I received recently. He was told: This disease has been kept under review all the time by the Pneumoconiosis Research Unit of the Medical Research Council, but the fact is that up to date those concerned have been able to find no causal relationship between dust in these particular occupations and the disease."—[Official Report, 11 March 1963; Vol. 673, c. 941.] I was told at the beginning of this month that, from present medical knowledge, cases that might be due to such employment cannot be clinically distinguished from others. That is not true. If the word "lies" was not unparliamentary, I would say, as a former coal miner, that it is a lie. The Minister also said that the matter was once again under review. I do not see this as a party matter because, following a parliamentary question in 1978 to my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme), I received a similar answer, although perhaps more courteous and full. He said that the matter was subject to close study or, to put it in another way, that it was under review. But that is not enough, because for some study can be a lifetime's occupation.

Research exists and is proved. The House will accept that in academic research papers are criticised by other specialist authorities, but from all that I hear and read the case that establishes that coal miners are 10 times more at risk than other members of the general public has never been challenged. It cannot be challenged. The evidence to support this is overwhelming, yet when I present it—as I did in my previous Bill—it is ignored, and I am told that there is insufficient evidence.

In the previous Session I used eight learned papers, and especially drew attention to Dr. Ann Cockcroft's research from the paper "Cockcroft et al" that was published in The Lancet in 1982. Dr. Cockcroft has more recently submitted a strong and easily understood argument that is contained in the current edition of The Lancet on 19 March and that is based on 20 learned papers. She recommends action and again suggests that X-ray diagnosis is not enough but that functional disability should also be considered. She says that panels should consider lung functioning, testing and exercise tolerance and not only radiographic evidence. In a letter to me, she says that from now on progress will come not from medical research, because research evidence exists to show that mining produces many emphysema sufferers, but only if politicians have the will to take action. We should not shirk that responsibility. I am not asking for much, simply 725 that the British miner should receive the same benefit as is afforded to miners in the United States of America, Canada and Australia.

I always listen to the breakfast radio programme, and recently I heard ten-minute Bills described as the Back-Benchers' soap box, which implied that this procedure was meaningless and a device to allow Back-Bench Members a chance to let off steam. Governments may believe that to be its function, but I do not. It is a chance to place before the House a serious matter, but, like much that goes on here, it is as barmy as it is inefficient. I sat outside the Private Bill Office for 13 hours throughout the night, but I did so because it is an important subject.

The matter is serious and my case is based on systematic research by several medical research teams. It concerns men in a great but dangerous industry and should not be treated lightly. Action must be taken, because we cannot allow the matter to be continually under review. Twenty years ago, Joe Harper received the answer that it was under review. For how long must sick miners be refused their rights? How many 20-year periods must pass before the House takes action?

The House should give time for my Bill and should allow it to pass to Committee, because then I could present specific medical evidence to show that miners are more at risk from emphysema than are the general public. The Minister, in the light of his reply, would have an opportunity to produce detailed medical evidence to refute my case. At worst, this would mean that his experts must do some reading. No other medical authority refutes the fact that miners are 10 times more at risk from this disease than are the general public. His advisers would have the opportunity to say that that is not true. It will be a hopeless task, but they should be allowed to have a go.

It would be monstrous not to act. Men who have given a lifetime to an important national industry and who are now sick should not be overlooked. At least let their case be considered by a Committee of the House, and let us no longer to told that the case is under review. My Bill would cost about £2.25 million, which could be found easily in the first year, if Mr. MacGregor is not appointed to the National Coal Board at a huge salary, from the industrial injuries fund without any further moneys having to be made available.

I beg the House to support my Bill.