§ Mr. Gwilym Robertsasked the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) if he will study the criteria for identifying industrial diseases with the aim of bringing into benefit those who suffer from diseases such as bronchitis, where the incidence level is significantly higher among those with employment history in certain industries such as mining, if the subsequent sufferers have worked for a given number of years in the relevant industry;
(2) if he will list the diseases such as bronchitis where the incidence is considerably higher among those who have, or are, employed in certain industries such as coal mining; and if he will set out the incidence of these diseases among those with employment history in the relevant industries as compared with the incidence in the population as a whole.
§ Mr. OrmeAs my hon. Friend is aware, before a disease can be prescribed as an industrial disease certain statutory conditions must be satisfied. It must be shown to be a particular risk of occupation and not one shared by the population in general and, in particular cases, the connection with employment must be capable of being established or presumed 185W with reasonable certainty. These conditions are essential if we are to continue to justify the payment of preferential benefit under an industrial injuries scheme, and I have no plans to change them. However, at the request of my right hon. Friend, following the report of the Royal Commission on civil liability and compensation for personal injury, the industrial injuries advisory council is now engaged in a review of the schedule of prescribed diseases; and is also considering whether, in addition to the schedule, industrial injury benefits should be available to those who can show that their disease is occupationally caused and a particular risk of their occupation. I am arranging for the secretary to the council to write to my hon. Friend in case he wishes to submit any evidence.
At present, common respiratory diseases such as chronic bronchitis and emphysema do not satisfy the conditions for prescription. The present state of medical knowledge does not permit a clinical distinction to be made between those cases which are due to a person's employment and those which are not. Even where epidemiological studies point to a higher than average incidence of those diseases among workers in particular industries, the evidence on causation and the effects of long-term exposure to dust remain inconclusive. With a disease such as chronic bronchitis, the incidence of its disabling effects in a particular group of workers, even supposing it were possible to discount the effects of smoking and genetic factors, would need to be exceptionally higher than among the general working population before prescription could be considered on that count alone. In summary, the position remains therefore, as I have previously explained to my hon. Friend, that until such time as bronchitis due to occupational causes can be so distinguished from that due to other causes there is no prospect of its prescription for any particular occupation or for those who have been working in a particular occupation for a particular length of time.