Emphysema (Compensation of Coal Miners) (Hansard, 23 November 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. Having discussed at some length the problem of the arms race and the millions of pounds that it will probably cost to blow us off the face of the earth, it is ironic that I, in my meak and mild way, should request the Government to provide a few measly pounds to protect and comfort the living.

Hon. Members will be aware that this is the third time that I have brought this matter to the attention of the House. I presented a Bill in October 1982 and a further Bill in March 1983. I make no apology for my persistence. I consider that those who suffer from emphysema and have become incapacitated, because they are or were coal miners, should be recognised as suffering from an industrial injury.

Miners suffer from many industrial diseases—for example, pneumoconiosis and silicosis—which are recognised as being industrial illnesses. However, some are not. Unfortunately, emphysema falls into the latter category. The reason is that there is insufficient evidence to show that it is an occupational rather than a generalised disease. Recent research has shown that emphysema should no longer be classified in this way. It must be put alongside industrial diseases in the primary class, and thereby enable sufferers to receive compensation. As a result of the overwhelming research carried out in this sphere, it is unlikely that subsequent research will reveal anything new. In October 1982 I presented a detailed list of research. I do not intend to cite that detail again. I assure the House that it was scholarly and decisive.

Yesterday morning I received a letter from a constituent who is a consultant in respiratory diseases. He referred to the case of a non-smoking miner who was refused compensation by a pneumoconiosis panel. The same panel deals with cases of emphysema. He considered that the panel's reasoning for refusing compensation was poor. The letter states: Whilst I would accept the assessment of the pneumoconiosis panel that this man only qualifies for 10 per cent. compensation with regard to pneumoconiosis, I think that his respiratory disability is almost entirely related to his work in the colliery, and as such that it severely limits his exercisability. I would strongly support his claim to receive further compensation on the basis of an obstructive airways disease related to the pneumoconiosis. I challenge the authority of the pneumoconiosis panels. Rumour has it that many such panels consist of retired medical practitioners who need ready cash. I wonder how many members of the panels in Sheffield or in other parts of the country have specific qualifications in respiratory research or have attended courses on this subject in the past five years?

An editorial in The Lancet in March, which relied on a body of recent research, stated that emphysema in coal workers was an occupational illness and that sufferers should receive compensation. All hon. Members are aware that The Lancet has great authority. Eight months have 341 passed since the article was published, yet no champion has come forward in its columns to challenge that opinion. We should heed what the article says.

Armed with that information, I approached the then Minister for Social Security. I asked if he would list the research used by the industrial injuries advisory council as I wished to compare it with my research. He said that to review all the evidence used by the council would be impracticable.

Miners are practical men and mining is a practical occupation. Emphysema is a physical condition of practical miners. It behoves me, as an ex-miner, to ask whether any practical clerk can produce such a list. The reason why such a list cannot be produced is that it is undesirable, rather than impracticable, to show that the civil servants have not seriously reviewed the new research.

At the beginning of 1982, I presented two Bills which rested on research conducted in the 1980s. The House requires an answer to the question: why are coal miners 10 times more at risk from emphysema than the rest of the general public? The total compensation award for sick miners would in the first year cost about £2.25 million. Such a sum is coppers compared with the amounts involved in producing nuclear warheads.

On 22 March I told the House that academic research had established that coal miners are 10 times more at risk from emphysema than other members of the general public. That fact has still to be challenged. I challenge any member of the medical profession to refute my statement, but only after in-depth research. I challenge the Government to institute in-depth medical research and to provide evidence to the industrial injuries advisory council. If the Government are not prepared to acknowldge my evidence, they should set up an investigation to show that The Lancet editorial is fallacious.