Chronic Bronchitis and Emphysema. (Hansard, 16 October 1996)

§ Mr. Tipping
To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he expects to respond to the Industrial Injuries Advisory Committee's report on chronic bronchitis and emphysema. [40714]

§ Mr. Roger Evans
No decision has yet been made with regard to the recommendations set out in the report, which is being given full and careful consideration. We will 1015W announce the decision as soon as we have completed our necessarily detailed examination of the issues it raises.

§ Mr. Tipping
To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list by region the number of claims that have been made for industrial injuries benefit in respect of chronic bronchitis and emphysema; how many have been successful; how many have been refused; and for what reasons. [40715]

§ Mr. Burt
The administration of industrial injuries disablement benefit is a matter for Peter Mathison, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

Chronic bronchitis and/or emphysema activity from 1 April 1996 to 31 August 1996 analysed by benefits agency area directorate

Claims received Successful claims Claims disallowed Disallowed under:

20 year rule¹ 1–13 per cent.² Fev(1) test³ x-ray⁴

AD1 East London and Anglia 4 0 1 1 0 0 0

AD2 Chilterns 1 2 0 0 0 0 0

AD3 London south 3 1 7 5 0 2 0

AD4 West Country 5 2 4 1 0 0 3

AD5 Mercia 230 44 131 18 0 55 58

AD6 West Midlands 11 2 10 2 0 3 5

AD7 Wales 220 28 150 14 2 75 59

AD8 North west Coast 24 5 18 6 0 3 9

AD9 Greater Manchester 23 4 18 4 0 2 12

AD10 Yorkshire 232 53 291 17 0 128 146

AD11 Tyne Tees 83 6 57 6 0 31 20

AD12 West of Scotland 4 0 3 1 0 1 1

AD13 East of Scotland 28 3 40 7 0 14 19

The number of claims received includes claims that will not have been determined by 31 August 1996 and the number of successful and disallowed claims includes claims received before 1 April 1996.

¹ 20 year rule: these cases were disallowed because the customer had not worked underground for at least 20 years.

² Disablement 1–13 per cent, cases disallowed because Industrial Injuries benefit only becomes payable at 14 per cent, disablement and the customer had no other entitlements which, when added to the CB and E assessment, would result in an aggregated minimum 14 per cent, disablement.

³ Customers failed the FEV (1) test: cases disallowed because the lung capacity test did not show that the customer's lung capacity was sufficiently restricted.

⁴ Customers failed the x-ray test: cases disallowed because findings from the customer's x-rays(s) were not sufficiently conclusive in respect of dust retention.

Source:
Benefits Agency Central Data Unit. Based on 100 per cent. count and subject to amendment. NB: not all claims will have been decided by 31 August 1996.

Chronic bronchitis and/or emphysema activity from 1 April 1996 to 31 August 1996 analysed by benefits agency area directorate
	Claims received	Successful claims	Claims disallowed		Disallowed under:
				20 year rule¹	1–13 per cent.²	Fev(1) test³	x-ray⁴
AD1 East London and Anglia	4	0	1	1	0	0	0
AD2 Chilterns	1	2	0	0	0	0	0
AD3 London south	3	1	7	5	0	2	0
AD4 West Country	5	2	4	1	0	0	3
AD5 Mercia	230	44	131	18	0	55	58
AD6 West Midlands	11	2	10	2	0	3	5
AD7 Wales	220	28	150	14	2	75	59
AD8 North west Coast	24	5	18	6	0	3	9
AD9 Greater Manchester	23	4	18	4	0	2	12
AD10 Yorkshire	232	53	291	17	0	128	146
AD11 Tyne Tees	83	6	57	6	0	31	20
AD12 West of Scotland	4	0	3	1	0	1	1
AD13 East of Scotland	28	3	40	7	0	14	19
The number of claims received includes claims that will not have been determined by 31 August 1996 and the number of successful and disallowed claims includes claims received before 1 April 1996.
¹ 20 year rule: these cases were disallowed because the customer had not worked underground for at least 20 years.
² Disablement 1–13 per cent, cases disallowed because Industrial Injuries benefit only becomes payable at 14 per cent, disablement and the customer had no other entitlements which, when added to the CB and E assessment, would result in an aggregated minimum 14 per cent, disablement.
³ Customers failed the FEV (1) test: cases disallowed because the lung capacity test did not show that the customer's lung capacity was sufficiently restricted.
⁴ Customers failed the x-ray test: cases disallowed because findings from the customer's x-rays(s) were not sufficiently conclusive in respect of dust retention.