Mesothelioma Lump Sum Payments (Conditions and Amounts) (Amendment) Regulations 2019

Lord Wigley Excerpts

Thursday 14th February 2019 Lords Chamber

My final point, alluded to a moment ago by the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, is on the position of people in the Armed Forces and those affected at a step’s remove, such as those who might have been washing overalls. I recall, in some of the debates I referred to earlier, that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, movingly described how his own sister had died through washing her husband’s overalls after he came home from the factory. The MoD mesothelioma scheme—to which the noble Lord, Lord West of Spithead, also referred in previous debates—pays lump sum compensation in lieu of a war disablement pension to veterans exposed to asbestos while serving in the Armed Forces. As the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, said, there has been little research on why these things occur in the Armed Forces. Why have we not increased payments since the scheme’s inception in 2016? Do the Government have any plans to increase the level of payments made under the MoD scheme? If not, why not?

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and will take advantage of the opportunity to pay tribute to him for the immense work on this matter that he has undertaken in recent years. I too welcome the uprating. On the points raised by the noble Lord, I agree entirely that research should be undertaken. But we should also look at all possible ways to eliminate the causes of asbestos-related diseases.

We are aware of the incidence of asbestos in schools: three-quarters of schools in the United Kingdom have asbestos in them and, every year, some teachers die as a result of asbestos-related diseases. I wonder how many perhaps unidentified children have been affected by this. I do not know how much research has been done on this, but clearly anything that can be done to avoid the disease is better than a cure.

None the less, I welcome the fact that some £130 million has been paid since 2014 in compensation to about 1,000 sufferers—about £40 million of this has come from the insurance industry. But I take very much to heart the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, that research is vital in these areas. The other sphere that could do with more research is MoD buildings. A number of them have been affected by asbestos, and families of servicemen have been hit by the disease.

I move on to the pneumoconiosis order, which I also welcome very much. The circumstances in which we are discussing this are so similar to those in 1979, when the original Act went through. I suspect that I am one of the few people in the Chamber who was involved at that time. There was a striking similarity—a Government without a majority striking a deal with a small party to get this through—and I was so pleased to be in the right place at the right time to help with it. The 40th anniversary reminds us of the tremendous contributions that have been made by this Act—not only to the slate-quarrying community, whose lobbying brought about the Act, but to a number of other workers in industries such as cotton and in kiln-related work, who were also able to get compensation.

The Act arose because, while coal miners had in general been helped by the 1975 tripartite agreement between the NCB, the NUM and the Government, that agreement did not cover other workers suffering from industrial lung diseases. The 1979 Act has paid out millions of pounds by now, and is still being called upon by a whole range of industries. Therefore, it is appropriate that it should be uprated in this way.

There are still some misgivings about other health conditions undoubtedly stimulated by working in such dusty environments. Conditions such as emphysema and chronic bronchitis are not accepted as lung diseases—although they are in all probability generated in many circumstances by that exposure to dust.

There are a couple of points I will put to the Minister; if she cannot answer them now, I would be grateful if she could write to me. First, what is the position of quarrymen who may have worked for periods of time in overseas quarries—such as in the United States or Spain—with regard to entitlement to compensation? The second relates to those who may have worked in the United Kingdom but who may be living in another EU country. How will the changes of Brexit impact on their entitlement to receive such compensation? That said, I support these regulations.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I am always glad to follow the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, who had knowledge of the original Act. I congratulate my noble friend on introducing this instrument.

This has been a very poignant debate, and there is very little I can add to the contributions of those who have spoken with such knowledge. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Winchester, I have a close family friend who succumbed to the disease. I was surprised that someone who had worked from a very young age for the Merchant Navy had this disease; where I grew up, he would not have been alone in doing so, because in those days the Merchant Navy offered huge opportunities for learning a trade—as did the Royal Navy. I know that it is not my noble friend’s direct responsibility, but could she reassure us today that the engine rooms of ships in the Merchant Navy do not now pose any danger from asbestos? I would like that reassurance going forward.

I was very disheartened when my noble friend very honestly told us that we can still expect a number of cases each year. The question I will ask her is simple—what is the length of time between the making of the claim and receipt of a payment? This also touches a little on the debate earlier. How would someone such as our family friend know that they are eligible for this compensation if they have not been contacted by their employer? Is there a mechanism in place for this? With those two questions, I would like to give these regulations a fair wind.

--- Later in debate ---

The noble Lord, Lord Wigley, asked whether people who come from abroad are allowed to make a claim for a lump-sum payment under the schemes. One of the conditions of entitlement to a payment under either the 1979 Act scheme or the 2008 Act scheme is that the exposure to certain harmful dusts—most commonly asbestos—must have occurred while the claimant was in the UK. People who have come from abroad will therefore be able to receive a payment provided they can demonstrate that they were exposed to certain harmful dusts, most commonly asbestos, in the UK. People who now live abroad but were exposed in the UK are also able to make a claim.

[Lord Wigley]

I was referring to those under the pneumoconiosis compensation scheme, whereby dust has accumulated, perhaps in a quarryman working in Wales for a number of years then working abroad, and the disability only becomes apparent after he has worked abroad.

[Baroness Buscombe]

Yes. As I said, it has to be demonstrated that the disease was as a result of working in the United Kingdom. If somebody worked for a number of years in the UK and then continued that occupation abroad, I assume that it would be for those who assess an individual’s case to make a reasonable assessment in the circumstances.

A number of noble Lords, including my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering and the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, spoke about the MoD scheme. With a son in the Fleet Air Arm, I have a personal interest in this. It is an extremely good question. Are we being careful to ensure that we are doing all we can to protect our Armed Forces—particularly those in the Navy, on ships? I would welcome a reply from the Ministry of Defence, so I say here and now that I will ask that question with all speed and reply to all noble Lords and place a copy in the Library.

My noble friend Lady McIntosh also asked how long it takes to deal with claims under the 1979 Act scheme and the 2008 Act scheme. Claims lodged under both schemes are dealt with as quickly as possible. For the 1979 Act scheme, which includes diseases other than diffuse mesothelioma, it can take a number of weeks as investigations may be required into the existence of a relevant employer against which civil action may be taken. However, that is still very quick in comparison with civil litigation cases, which of course can take years. Under the 2008 scheme, where there is no need to ascertain the existence of a relevant employer to sue, cases are dealt with very quickly. Dependant claims under both schemes can take longer, as the department may have to await the death certificate or other official confirmation that establishes the cause of death. We are not aware of any general delays or issues with processing claims.

A number of noble Lords touched on what we do to promote awareness of the schemes. The Department for Work and Pensions highlights the availability of the 1979 Act scheme to industrial injuries disablement benefit claimants in official letters. A leaflet is included with the award notice for any of the five diseases covered by the lump-sum scheme, encouraging people to make a claim. All government schemes are publicised on GOV.UK. The department also maintains regular telephone contact with a range of asbestos support groups, and meets their representatives face to face at the annual asbestos forum to discuss the lump-sum schemes.

The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, asked about the amounts recovered each year by the Compensation Recovery Unit of the Department for Work and Pensions. It recovers around £27 million per year from civil compensation awards. If a mesothelioma claimant subsequently recovers compensation in civil proceedings, the process for clawback of any lump-sum payments is as follows. Once a claim is settled or determined against a compensator, a certificate is requested from the Compensation Recovery Unit that details an amount equivalent to the value of benefits paid in respect of the condition for which the claimant has successfully pursued civil action. The compensator makes a payment of the value of the certificate to the CRU.

The 2008 Act scheme was set up on the basis that it would be funded by compensation recoveries from civil claims. The 1979 Act scheme is funded partly by civil compensation recoveries and partly by the department. It is a long-standing principle that people should not be compensated twice and, in most cases, where social security benefits are paid, they are recovered from compensation where people have been successful in a subsequent civil claim for damages. The net cost to the department of making payments under both schemes in the last financial year, 2017-18, was £22.2 million. Payments totalled £49.2 million and £27 million was recovered.

The noble Lord also asked how many people had benefited from the diffuse mesothelioma payment scheme, how much had been paid out and what was the average award. In the fourth year of operation, 2017-18, the scheme paid out £36 million in compensation to 200 successful claimants, with the average mean award being around £145,000—up from £141,000 the previous year. Since the scheme was launched in April 2014, it has helped just under 1,000 sufferers from mesothelioma, with £133.8 million awarded in compensation.

The noble Lord referred to tax credits and universal credit. Payments made under both schemes are paid by a lump sum and regarded as compensation. Therefore, they are not included as income for the purpose of income tax or tax credits. However, interest arising from the lump sum is subject to income tax and included in the income calculation for tax credits. For universal credit, payments are treated as personal injury compensation and, as I said, disregarded for one year. If they are then placed in a trust, they are disregarded indefinitely.

I hope that I have managed to answer noble Lords’ questions to the best of my ability. I thank all noble Lords for their many and helpful contributions to this debate. The Government recognise that the two schemes form a hugely important part of the support available to people with mesothelioma and certain other dust-related diseases. The regulations will ensure that the value of that support is maintained. I thank all noble Lords who have been supportive of the uprating of the payment scales for these schemes and ask approval to implement it.

Work Capability Assessments

Lord Wigley Excerpts

Tuesday 8th November 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Freud]

We announced earlier this year that there would be no more welfare savings but we would go through with those that had already been announced. The job of the Government is to implement what has been announced, but there will be no more. This Green Paper looks at how we can have a better system of managing health issues with getting people into work. We have got half a million more disabled people into work in the last three years, and we need to keep that trajectory going.

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords—

[Lord Brookman (Lab)]

My Lords, many of us do not speak very often, so maybe I could get in for once. I heard the noble Lord speak yesterday, several times. Nissan has been mentioned. I am interested in the Government’s view on directing steel manufacturers in the UK to produce steel for the Nissan cars in Sunderland. Is that discussion taking place?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

We inherited the work capability assessment, and we have now put it through five independent reviews and developed it considerably. The point at issue in the Green Paper is whether we should combine the assessment of financial need with that of the support that the person needs. That is the main focus of the Green Paper.

[Lord Wigley]

My Lords, I declare my interest as vice-president of Mencap. Will the Minister confirm that the needs of those with learning difficulties will be given as much attention as those with health problems or other forms of disability?

[Lord Freud]

Yes. My colleague Penny Mordaunt and I had a conversation on this issue just yesterday. We have slightly more than 1 million people with learning difficulties, with a very low proportion in work— I think the figure is 6%. If we are to start closing the disability employment gap, we have to do something in this area.

Housing: Underoccupancy Charge

Lord Wigley Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd March 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Freud]

The noble Baroness has put her finger on a Supreme Court issue, which I will just have to duck today.

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, if it turns out that the funds available to local authorities, which the Minister mentioned, are in fact inadequate to meet the defined needs of disabled people and others who should come within their orbit, will the Government make more funds available?

[Lord Freud]

We keep this under review and, as I said, we have increased the amount quite substantially for the next five-year period. Currently, local authorities have been somewhat underspending and we get a small return of the money that they do not spend. The bulk of local authorities, at the halfway point of the current financial year, have been spending under 50% of their allocation.

Welfare Reform and Work Bill

Lord Wigley Excerpts

Monday 25th January 2016 Lords Chamber

I conclude by highlighting one of the biggest issues with back-to-work support at the moment; it is one on which we really need to make some progress. The whole system is desperately out of date: it is based on an assumption that people with mental health problems lack motivation or the willingness to work. This simply is not the case, and I agree with the Government that people with mental health problems have a high want-to-work rate. My amendment seeks to end this outdated and unhelpful system. It provides a real opportunity to transform the support offered to people with mental health problems. I hope that the Minister and the Government will accept my amendment.

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, I apologise for not having taken an active part in Committee, for reasons outside my control. Noble Lords will be aware of my interest in these areas, and I particularly declare my links with Mencap and Autism Wales. I warmly support the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell. Attention needs to be given to the matters that she raised for two or three particularly important reasons. All our experience over the past 20 or 30 years has shown that having specific, detailed reports coming forward before Parliament in a coherent manner has enabled a focus to be given to issues relating to disability and, in particular, disability in the context of employment. It has enabled both Houses of Parliament to move forward in making better provision. The recommendations put forward in this amendment are important in that context.

The amendments are timely because, unfortunately, we are seeing a backward movement with regard to the employment of disabled people in many areas. We are seeing, for understandable reasons, the closure of some specific facilities that were available, such as Remploy and other similar organisations, where the argument was that disabled people would be employed within the mainstream and that, therefore, specific provisions did not need to be made in this way. That is fine, provided that that employment in the mainstream is available. However, as we see economic pressure increasing in both the private and the public sectors, the reality is that the number of jobs for disabled people is very often squeezed. I regret to say that in the public sector, jobs that had very often been specifically offered to disabled people because of their difficulties are the first to be cut when financial pressures lead to a reduction in resources and employment. For those reasons, I believe that this amendment, and the one put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, are important and should be taken on board. The resolution of the issues underlying them should certainly exercise our minds.

[Baroness Thomas of Winchester (LD)]

My Lords, I, too, am happy to support the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell. Although the Bill as drafted requires the Government to report on progress towards their aim of full employment, there is no reference to reporting on the employment of disabled people, even though the Government made a manifesto commitment to halving the disability employment gap, as the noble Lord, Lord Low, has said. This is an ambitious target and, of course, a welcome one, not just for the economy as a whole but for disabled people themselves, whose talents and contributions would otherwise be wasted.

Full employment cannot be achieved without getting more disabled people into work, so why are we not satisfied with the Government’s assertion that the amendment is not necessary because a report on the aim is already in the Bill? It is because we are not convinced by what the Government have told us so far. The current employment rate for disabled people, as we have heard, is about 48%. For those with learning difficulties, it is only 8%, and for those with autism, it is 15%. The gap between the employment rate for disabled people and the rest of the population has remained at about 30% for more than a decade, as the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, has said.

However, as the recent report Fixing Broken Britain? from Frank Field and Andrew Forsey has shown, existing policies, such as the Work Programme, have not been very successful in finding work for claimants with disabilities. It is estimated elsewhere that only about one in 10 of those on the Work Programme and in receipt of ESA have satisfactory employment outcomes; that is, keeping a job for at least three months. Evidence from Mind indicates that only 8% of people with mental health problems who have gone through the work programme have achieved a long-term job outcome.

The Government originally set a target for contractors of achieving a “job outcome” for at least 22% of ESA claimants. This was then reduced to 13%. Neither target had been met by the end of the last Parliament. The reduction in the number of people supported by the Access to Work programme, the reduction in the number of disability employment advisers at Jobcentre Plus centres and the job opportunities for disabled people in Remploy factories, to which the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, referred, have all played their part in the lack of progress in trying to get more disabled people into work. I fear that other proposals in this Bill will make the situation worse.

While announcements in the spending review on the provision of specialist employment support are to be welcomed, this is going to be offset by a cut of around £30 a week for new claimants in the ESA WRAG. For those whose recovery from, for example, chemotherapy will take some time, this cut in support is likely to push them further from the job market. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation found no evidence that disability employment rates are improved by reducing benefits.

In conclusion, it is unclear from the Bill, and from what Ministers have told us so far, how the Government intend to deliver on their commitment to narrow the disability employment gap. We need those answers and we clearly need this amendment to the Bill.

Employment: Job Creation

Lord Wigley Excerpts

Wednesday 16th December 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Manzoor (LD)]

My Lords—

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords—

[The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Stowell of Beeston) (Con)]

My Lords, I think that we ought to hear from the Lib Dem Benches, and then I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, will want to go next.

[Lord Freud]

Some of the statistics in this area are very interesting, in that among the younger generation the pay gap has disappeared. We will wait to see whether that goes on as that generation moves ahead. The most dramatic fact about female employment in this country is that the rate now stands at 69%, which is higher than the rate for the US for both men and women. That shows how far we have gone with female employment.

[Lord Wigley]

My Lords, is it not the case that the figures—understandably the Minister is boasting today about the high levels of employment—have taken place in the context of the UK being a member of the European Union? Is it not the case that, if the UK were unwise enough to leave that Union, these jobs would be put at jeopardy?

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, I am being bombarded with massive books of arguments about the economic effects, as are quite a lot of noble Lords, I imagine. I do not think there is time to go into the detail here.

Olympic and Paralympic Legacy Committee

Lord Wigley Excerpts

Wednesday 19th March 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, I, too, place on record my appreciation for the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, chaired the committee and the excellent support we were given by the committee clerk and his team, and the two special advisers.

As has been noted, the committee put in a very considerable volume of work at short notice to get our report completed by our deadline. Against that background, the Government’s response is disappointing. On many issues raised by the committee in its unanimous report there was little response more than restating government policy without regard to the report’s rationale. There is little point in incurring a commitment of time and money in undertaking such an investigation if the Government treat it less than rigorously. But, to be even-handed, I note my disappointment that there appears to be no direct comment from the Governments of Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland, either, although many of the recommendations have a direct bearing on the responsibilities of those devolved Administrations. Of course, they have no obligation to respond. However, the Welsh Government recently took their own initiative. I will return to that in a moment.

I make one general point before addressing six or seven of the 41 government responses. The Olympic Games are awarded to a specific city and not to a country. The ethos of the Games requires that the competitors, and hence the competitions themselves, function within a reasonable proximity of the location at which the Games are held. These aspects are not always fully understood. As the general UK taxpayer had to fund the considerable cost of the Games, there was a feeling sometimes that they should benefit more from a greater spread of the activities. For example, there was no need to build artificial mountain cycling locations in Essex. There are perfectly good natural ones in Wales. Sports such as sailing which, inevitably, had to move away from London could have been held in locations such as Pwllheli, where many European competitions are held.

I accepted that London and south-east England would benefit far more from hosting the Games for those reasons, but perhaps the Government should have been more honest from the start by making that clear to everyone. I also repeat what I have gladly put on record many times: that the Olympic Games and, in particular, the Paralympic Games, were a tremendous success and that everyone involved—competitors, organisers, security services and volunteers and, indeed, both Governments—deserve congratulations.

Perhaps I may make a few brief comments on half a dozen issues arising directly from the Government’s response. First, there are the recommendations relating to sport in schools, to which several noble Lords have already alluded, particularly primary schools. I am looking at recommendations 4, 5 and 6. There does not seem to be any new government thinking on those matters; rather, there is the approach that “We are already doing what we deem appropriate”.

I urge the Government to follow carefully the initiatives taken in Wales arising from the work of the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and her review committee. In fact, just yesterday, the Welsh Education Minister Huw Lewis announced a new £1.8 million physical literacy programme for schools. That is part of the response to the report of the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, on schools and physical activity. It is to do four things: increase physical activity in schools; develop a physical literacy framework; involve prominent athletes in community sport; and build on Wales’s annual school sport survey.

The Welsh Government, in taking that strategic initiative, have asserted that physical literacy should be as important as reading and writing, which goes towards the proposal of the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, that PE should be a core subject, something which will now be considered by Professor Graham Donaldson in his curriculum review, due shortly. No doubt the noble Baroness will expand on some of those points in her contribution.

However, I welcome the Government’s response 13, dealing with the access to and facilities for disabled people at sports grounds, particularly football grounds. I am glad that the Government are prepared to consider further legislation on licence conditions, and I hope that we will be hearing more about that. Can the Minister —our poacher turned gamekeeper, if I may put it that way—indicate the timescale envisaged to progress that legislative aspect?

I am somewhat disappointed by government response 15. It relates to the identification of the net benefit figures and the committee’s call for them to be published. The response has been woeful. The Government appear to be totally complacent about measuring the economic effects in terms of gross benefit and stubbornly refused to identify the net benefit. I can only conclude that they may have something to hide and that the net economic benefit is a much smaller proportion than the gross figures.

As we are repeatedly told that so many aspects of the project spending would have taken place in due course irrespective of the Games, I can only conclude that such infrastructure spending is being treated coyly to avoid the possibility of generating Barnett consequentials for the devolved Administrations.

On response 32, the committee called for SMEs to be helped in the public sector procurement process by having the “compete for” system permanently available. The Government’s response did not address our worries about the danger to SMEs of the proliferation of procurement tools. Can we be assured that the Government have taken that fully on board and are sensitive to the needs of SMEs, and that opportunities for SMEs will be equally available throughout the UK?

The committee noted in item 33 that south-east England benefited disproportionately from the Games and called on UKTI to assess the reasons for the disparity. The Government defend their record by quoting the number of projects going to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland—14%, by number—but they do not give the figures with a breakdown by value and do not address the failure to give northern England a fair deal. That response is rather complacent.

I can, however, welcome the response to point 34 about the need to ensure that tourists coming to the UK get beyond south-east England. I notice that the DCMS has asked VisitBritain to address that issue and I hope that the House will be kept informed of progress.

I turn to response 37, dealing with the committee’s questioning of the existence of any long-term distinct legacy benefit of the Cultural Olympiad. The Government passed the buck in its entirety to the Arts Council of England, and every item that it mentions which has a geographic base is in fact in England. That is perhaps understandable for the Arts Council of England, but the Government are a UK Government, and taxpayers in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland contributed to funding the Olympic Games. Surely the Government should have been aware of the need to address legacy issues in terms of the arts and culture in the three other nations, not just in England. Perhaps they have done so and have just forgotten to mention it in their response. Perhaps the Minister can clarify that.

Finally, I address item 39, which concerns the omission, tacitly acknowledged in the Government’s response, on ensuring that the legacy is delivered outside London and that a designated Minister should work with the devolved Administrations. The Government’s response is that it is a matter for the devolved Administrations to make the most of the Games’ legacy in devolved functions, so there will be no additional resources or co-ordination on those matters. I believe that that is letting down a particular aspect of the legacy. I pick out those points and ask for the Minister’s response on them, but there are many other points in the body of the report which I hope will not be forgotten.

Diffuse Mesothelioma Payment Scheme Regulations 2014

Lord Wigley Excerpts

Monday 17th March 2014 Grand Committee

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, the Minister has been generous in thanking Members of the Grand Committee for the work they put in when the 2014 Bill was being considered on the Floor of the House. However, it would be churlish at this juncture if Members of the Grand Committee did not pay tribute to the Minister for the work that he did tirelessly throughout. Although we had our differences on details of the Bill, we all committed to seeing it through its stages here and in the other place because we knew that this legislation was long overdue. It sets in place a scheme that will respond compassionately to people who are given a death sentence when they learn that they have mesothelioma. It is also based on justice, and I know through the contact that I have had with the Minister that he is always keen to see that things are dealt with expeditiously. He deserves warm thanks for the personal efforts that he has made. It is not easy to get legislation through Parliament, and he has done that deftly, while also working with the insurance industry. I think that all of us are sufficiently worldly wise to know that balancing all of those things at once is no mean achievement.

The United Kingdom, as we have heard, has the highest rate of mesothelioma in the world, with a further 60,000 people in the UK predicted to die from this disease in the next 30 years—as the Minister said, more than 2,000 people annually. The need is paramount constantly to urge greater attention to how we assist victims and keep focus on the insurance industry as well as how we better fund and pool research in finding causes and cures for this lethal disease. I was struck by a reply that the Minister gave to me in response to Parliamentary Question HL3144, where he said:

“The statistical model suggests an uncertainty range of 55,000 to 65,000 deaths on that estimate. However, the true uncertainty range may be wider as longer-range predictions are reliant on assumptions about asbestos exposures that cannot currently be fully validated”.—[Official Report, 19/11/13; col. WA194.]

We can add to that the trends in many of the developing BRIC countries, which are going through many of the same experiences that we have gone through, although the figures worldwide are not collected; in answer to another Question that I tabled asking for worldwide statistics, I was told that none were available. Given our own experience as the country with the worst rate of mesothelioma in the world, we should be at the cutting edge or, to mix my metaphors, in the driving seat in insisting that there is a collaborative global approach to this horrendous problem.

The Minister will be aware that I have tabled a Private Member’s Bill, the Mesothelioma (Amendment) Bill, on research. Today gives the Minister the opportunity to say whether the Government intend to facilitate the Bill’s progress and accept the principles that underpin it. The Bill mirrors the all-party amendment defeated here on a whipped vote by a mere seven votes, which was tabled again in the House of Commons by the late Paul Goggins and the Conservative Member of Parliament, Tracey Crouch. On 7 November, the Minister in reply to a Parliamentary Question recognised the importance of research, saying:

“As you are aware there is a cross-Government commitment to support more quality research into mesothelioma. The work that the Department of Health are taking forward on this issue is designed to encourage researchers to pursue projects that will hopefully benefit sufferers of this terrible disease”.—[Official Report, 7/11/13; col. WA69.]

Can we be told today how that work is progressing? Inter alia, I commend to the Minister Early Day Motion 995, moved by Tracey Crouch in another place, which has now been signed by more than 60 Members of the House of Commons. It says:

“That this House notes with concern that mesothelioma is an invasive form of lung cancer caused primarily by prior exposure to asbestos”.

It goes on to give the kind of statistics that I have just given and ends by paying tribute to the,

“great work of the former hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe and Sale East, the late Paul Goggins, to raise the profile of the need for long-term investment into mesothelioma research; and calls on the Government to facilitate the establishment of a long-term sustainable mesothelioma research scheme funded by the insurance industry”.

I would simply add to that the point that I made in the previous debate. Given that some £71 million will come into the Government’s coffers in the next 10 years, less the £17 million that will be given to insurers, surely it will be possible to use some of that money to create a pound-for-pound research fund, where we work collaboratively with the insurance industry.

On the Floor of the House, I recently asked the noble Earl, Lord Howe, about a breakthrough in mesothelioma research which has taken place in Canada. In reply, he said:

“Mesothelioma is a devastating disease, and I certainly undertake to look at the material that the noble Lord has sent me”.—[Official Report, 27/2/14; col. 1005.]

This is probably the most hopeful small breakthrough that I have seen over the years that I have been following this and I wonder, having spoken privately, very briefly, to the Minister, whether he is in a position today to tell us what follow-up has been done by the Department of Health in looking at that breakthrough and what the initial conclusions are. Will he say whether his department and the Department of Health are not only collaborating across government in the United Kingdom but working with others to try, not to duplicate work that has already been done or to reinvent the wheel, to bring together the best practice and knowledge that there is worldwide?

Perhaps I may ask about a reply that the noble Lord gave to me to Parliamentary Question 14/5095, which concerned the extensive tables he produced for the House about the occupations of people who die from mesothelioma. In that reply he said:

“The latest available analysis of citizens dying from Mesothelioma in Great Britain is based on deaths between 2002 and 2010 at ages 16-74. Only the last occupation of the deceased is routinely recorded”.

It is not the last occupation that we need but the data on all the occupations that someone has had. If we are going to get any kind of idea about tracking the causes of mesothelioma we need to know where the hot spots are with this disease.

The Minister continued:

“It is important to note that, for those Mesothelioma cases that are caused by occupational exposure, the last occupation of the deceased which is recorded on the death certificate may not reflect the source of exposure due to the long latency of the disease.—[Official Report, 11/2/14; col. WA 122.]

That begs the question of what use are the tables in those circumstances. Would it not be better to acquire data that would help us?

I was about to turn to the Questions from the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, but as he is about to intervene, perhaps he will save me doing so.

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Given that it is the last employment that is detailed in the Written Answer, of which I have a copy, does that not camouflage any cases that may arise from the armed services? There are indications that the premises in which many members of the armed services live have asbestos. That raises the question of the incidence and whether or not those families are notified of the dangers with which they are living.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool]

My Lords, I did not have a chance to compare notes earlier with the noble Lord, Lord Wigley. He has a copy of my parliamentary reply and I have a copy of a reply that he was given on 11 February by the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever. After a Written Answer from the noble Lord, Lord Astor, on 4 February, the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, asked about the accommodation of families working for the Armed Forces and whether those living in accommodation that is known to contain asbestos are systematically informed of that fact and the outcome of the regular inspections undertaken of such premises. I was struck by the reply:

“However these reports are not automatically made available to occupants”.—[Official Report, 11/2/14; col. WA 122.]

What value are such reports if they are not made available to occupants?

In reply to another Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, about the prevalence of asbestos materials in Ministry of Defence buildings and married quarters, he received a reply saying that some are known to contain asbestos and that the ministry keeps a register of all buildings which are regularly inspected. Surely anyone living in such buildings has a right to know these things.

My noble friend Lord West of Spithead said to me recently—he said that it was perfectly proper for me to repeat this remark in public—that 10 of the cohort that were at Dartmouth with him died of mesothelioma. This relates to a Question that I tabled to the Ministry of Defence. I hope that the Minister will pursue this matter, not only with the Department of Health but with the Ministry of Defence. I asked about the number of annual fatalities caused by mesothelioma involving members of the Armed Forces. I asked what data are kept on the cause of death of former servicemen and what research it planned to commission into the incidence of mesothelioma among former servicemen. I received a long reply on 11 February but the first sentence states:

“Data on the number of annual fatalities caused by mesothelioma does not identify those who were former members of the Armed Forces”.—[Official Report, 11/2/14; col. WA 124.]

Again I ask the question: why not? These are people serving in our Armed Forces who are willing to risk their lives on our behalf. Surely we owe a duty to them to ensure that, if they are in any way being placed at risk as a consequence of exposure to asbestos, everything possible is done to avert that.

--- Later in debate ---

Some of these additional funds which I mentioned earlier should be used to reduce the differential that we discussed in the previous regulations, but surely the Government should also use some of them to provide pound-for-pound matching money to find the causes and cures of this horrible disease and to do the necessary research into providing the kind of data that I have been asking for. That would entirely eliminate the need for mesothelioma lump sum payments or levies on the insurance industry. It is in nobody’s interests—not victims’, insurers’ or government’s—not to push research into this killer disease to the top of the department’s and the Government’s agenda.

[Lord Wigley]

I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for intervening when I did. It clearly shows that we have not been comparing notes, because he was coming on to the very point to which I referred.

Perhaps the Committee will indulge me for a moment if I refer to the debate that we had in this Room on 16 January when I referred to a good friend of mine, Peter Wolfe of Cork in Ireland. Within a matter of days of that debate, he died. He had learnt of his mesothelioma only a few weeks before Christmas. That underlines how quickly this insidious disease kills people. I was at his funeral in Cork on 27 January. That casts a shadow over my contribution to debates on these matters.

The fact that the scheme under consideration today has been set up is a very positive development for victims of diffuse mesothelioma who cannot trace their employer’s insurance. I, too, pay tribute to the Minister for his perseverance in responding to the points raised during the passage of the legislation. I was especially glad to discover earlier this month, and to hear the Minister reiterate today, that claimants under this scheme will be able to gain 80% of the value of compensation claims, up from the 75% threshold which the Government seemed determined to stick to during debates at earlier states. I understand that claimants can now expect to receive an average payment of £123,000 before benefits are recovered, together with £7,000 towards their legal fees.

However, in my usual Oliver Twist fashion, I remain to be convinced about why claimants under this scheme should expect any less than 100% of the average compensation award for this type of disease. Those suffering from diffuse mesothelioma will be in debilitating pain, yet the Government insist that they are limiting the amount of compensation that can be claimed in order to ensure that claimants exhaust all other avenues before coming to the scheme. Surely this is grossly unfair. In effect, it penalises victims of the disease for the negligence of their employers. For the purpose of comparison, it is worth noting that the Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) Act 1979 scheme was designed to award 100% of the value of compensation claims to claimants and, as we debated a few moments ago, it is reviewed annually. Why victims of diffuse mesothelioma should not have the same recourse available to them is beyond me, but perhaps that is another battle to be won at some stage.

It is also astounding that claimants under this scheme will have 100% of their benefits recouped from the compensation that is awarded, even though they receive only 80% of the damages. Claimants will thus lose out financially even more, and the Government surely must look again at that aspect.

There were other problems aside from the amount of compensation to be awarded, which were likewise highlighted during the debates on the Mesothelioma Act—problems that have yet to be erased. Principally, it is at best short-sighted that the Government have decided to place an arbitrary cut-off date for eligibility under the scheme. A draft of this compensation scheme was published, as we all know, by the previous Government shortly before the 2010 election, and consultation closed in May of that year. The present Government made no announcement on taking the scheme forward until 25 July 2012, which is the date that they have set as the earliest time when a patient can have been diagnosed with diffuse mesothelioma for these purposes. Individuals who had the misfortune of being diagnosed between February 2010 and July 2012 thus fall between two stools through no fault of their own—a matter that we on all sides of this Committee have emphasised, as well as in previous Committees and in the Chamber during the passage of the legislation. Surely the Government must look at this again.

Furthermore, it is disappointing that the scheme is open only to individuals suffering from diffuse mesothelioma, which is only one of a number of asbestos-related conditions that can come about as a result of exposure to this deadly substance. I would welcome any clarity that the Government can give as to the steps that will be taken to protect the interests of those suffering from asbestosis and other asbestos-related lung cancers.

Finally, I know that many individuals will be grateful if the Government can confirm when people will be able to start making applications under this scheme. I am not sure whether the Minister mentioned that in his comments—I did not catch it if he did—but that would be useful.

[Lord Howarth of Newport (Lab)]

My Lords, I add my thanks to the Minister and congratulate him on achieving this legislation and bringing in these regulations. I thank him for his compassion, for the collaborative way in which he worked with noble Lords on all sides of the House, and for his strong determination to get to where we have now reached. It is a very significant achievement and he deserves our admiration and gratitude. Like other noble Lords, I am grateful to him for raising the level of compensation to 80% of average compensation awards. That is a significant improvement that will make a lot of difference to families when they find themselves in such dire need.

I want to ask the Minister just one question. Will he clarify that it is his intention that the overall value of the scheme should continue to be set at 3% of gross written premiums after the peak year for claims? He has told us that we are to anticipate perhaps 2,500 claims in 2018, after which the numbers may reduce—although the noble Lord, Lord Alton, told the Committee that it is projected that there will be another 60,000 cases over the next 30 years. There will continue to be a significant volume, and I put it to the Minister that it is important that that 3% of gross written premiums is not reduced in the years after 2018. We all hope that after a long period of Labour Government, starting in 2015, the Minister may still have an opportunity to play some part in these affairs. I appreciate that it is difficult for him to bind his successors but it would be helpful if he would say on the record that he, as the architect of this scheme, envisages that the employers’ liability insurers should continue for the whole future life of the diffuse mesothelioma scheme to have to provide 3% of gross written premiums. If that was the case while the numbers of claimants or beneficiaries of the scheme were falling, it would make it possible to move the level of compensation up from 80% towards, or perhaps to reach, 100%. That would be one very important possibility.

There are other good things that it would be possible to do were funds to remain available while the total number of claims fell. It would become possible to backdate the eligibility for the scheme beyond July 2012 to February 2010 or even further. It would also be possible—I tabled an amendment to this effect in Committee on the Bill—provided that the legislation allows it, which of course is questionable, to adapt the regulations to cover family members who themselves contract mesothelioma even if the person who was exposed to asbestos in the workplace did not personally contract the disease. We talked about the case of a member of the family—most likely the wife—who washes the overalls of the person who has been exposed to asbestos fibre in the work-wear and she contracts the disease. As I understand it, the Minister has still not been able to bring those people into eligibility. However, if we had a slightly less tight financial envelope, then, through keeping the 3% of gross written premiums to fund the scheme, it would be possible to help those people.

Of course, it would also be possible to mitigate benefits recovery. I know that the Minister’s department, for theological reasons, will set its face against that, but, as the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, said, it seems very hard and unreasonable to claw back 100% of benefits from people who are receiving only 80% of average compensation. So there would be further latitude there. There would of course be further latitude to provide additional funding for research, the case for which has been so consistently and eloquently made by the noble Lord, Lord Alton. Among the range of options, it would also be possible to extend the benefits of the scheme, or perhaps a newly created parallel scheme, to victims of other long-latency industrial diseases whom we want to help.

I do not know what sorts of permutations might be possible but one could envisage this range of possibilities, and I hope very much that this afternoon the Minister will at least be able to tell us that there will not be a tapering of the overall value of the fund. The industry having treated mesothelioma sufferers so very badly over many decades, it seems to me that it should not be let off the hook. I appreciate that the current generation of employers’ liability insurers are not the worst culprits, and perhaps not the culprits at all in individual cases, of the failure to honour the policies that were written. However, I think that the industry as a whole has to continue to bear its share of responsibility and—I know that this is the spirit in which the Minister has always approached this whole issue—we should do the very best that we can for people who at the moment the scheme is not intended to help but who it would become possible to help if we maintained the value of the fund past 2018.

Mesothelioma Lump Sum Payments (Conditions and Amounts) (Amendment) Regulations 2014

Lord Wigley Excerpts

Monday 17th March 2014 Grand Committee

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud) (Con)]

My Lords, in moving that the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Mesothelioma Lump Sum Payments (Conditions and Amounts) (Amendment) Regulations 2014, I will also speak to the draft Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) (Payment of Claims) (Amendment) Regulations 2014. These two regulations increase the lump sum amounts payable under the Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) Act 1979 and the mesothelioma scheme set up by the Child Maintenance and Other Payments Act 2008. These new amounts will be paid to those who first satisfy all the conditions of entitlement on or after 1 April 2014.

These two schemes stand apart from the main social security benefits uprating procedure and there is no legislative requirement to review the level of payments each year. None the less, I am happy to increase the amounts payable for 2014 by CPI—that is, by 2.7%, which is the same rate as that applied to some social security disability benefits and the industrial injuries disablement benefit under the main social security uprating provisions which were recently debated in the House.

The Government recognise that people suffering from diseases as a result of exposure to asbestos or one of a number of other listed agents may not be able to bring a successful claim for civil damages in relation to these diseases. That is mainly due to the time lag between exposure and onset of the disease, which could be as long as 40 years. Therefore, we fulfil an important role by providing lump sum compensation payments to people suffering from certain asbestos-related diseases through these two schemes. These government schemes also aim to ensure that sufferers receive compensation while they can still benefit from it, without first having to await the outcome of civil litigation. Improved health and safety procedures have restricted the use of asbestos and provided a safer environment for its handling. However, the historic legacy of the common use of asbestos is still with us. That is why we are ensuring that financial compensation from both these schemes is available to those affected.

I will briefly summarise the specific purpose of each scheme. The Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) Act 1979—for simplicity I shall refer to it as the 1979 Act—provides a lump sum compensation payment to those who suffer from one of five dust-related respiratory diseases covered by the scheme and who are unable to claim damages from employers because those employers have gone out of business and who have not brought any action against others for damages. The five diseases covered by the 1979 Act scheme are diffuse mesothelioma, bilateral diffuse pleural thickening, pneumoconiosis, byssinosis, and primary carcinoma of the lung if accompanied by asbestosis or bilateral diffuse pleural thickening.

The 2008 mesothelioma lump sum payments scheme was introduced to provide compensation to people who contracted mesothelioma but were unable to claim compensation for that disease under the 1979 Act, perhaps because their exposure to asbestos was not due to their work. The 2008 scheme means that payments can be made quickly to mesothelioma sufferers at their time of greatest need. Under both schemes, a claim can be made by a dependant if the sufferer has died before being able to make a claim.

Payment levels under the 1979 Act scheme are based mainly on the level of the disablement assessment and the age of the sufferer at the time that the disease is diagnosed. The highest amounts are to those diagnosed at an early age and with the highest level of disablement. All payments for mesothelioma under the 1979 Act scheme are made at the 100% disablement rate—the highest rate of payment. Similarly, all payments under the 2008 scheme are made at the 100% disablement rate and are based on age, with the highest payments going to the youngest sufferers.

I would like to give some detailed figures on claims and moneys paid out under the two schemes before us today. In the last full year, April 2012 to March 2013, over 3,500 payments were made in respect of both schemes, totalling just over £53 million.

I know that the occurrences of mesothelioma are of particular concern to Members, with the number of deaths from mesothelioma in Great Britain continuing to rise. In 1968, 153 people died from mesothelioma. By contrast, over 2,000 deaths occur each year from that disease now. Mesothelioma is a fatal disease caused almost exclusively by exposure to asbestos. Those diagnosed with mesothelioma usually have a short life expectancy—generally between nine and 12 months—with the sufferer becoming severely disabled soon after diagnosis. This rise in the number of deaths reflects the long latency period of the disease, which can take decades to become apparent. Latest available information suggests that mesothelioma deaths will continue to increase to a peak of around 2,500 in 2018, and then start to fall—thus reflecting a reduction in asbestos exposures following its peak use in the 1960s and 1970s. Just under a half—47%—of payments made under the Government’s 1979 scheme are in respect of mesothelioma.

I remind noble Lords that immediately following this debate we will be debating the Diffuse Mesothelioma Payment Scheme Regulations 2014, and I would ask that any questions about that scheme, and how it interacts with these older schemes, be raised in that debate.

These regulations increase the levels of support through the government compensation schemes. I am sure that we will all agree that, while no amount of money can ever compensate individuals and families for the suffering and loss caused by mesothelioma, those who are suffering rightly deserve some form of monetary compensation. The government schemes go some way to ensuring sufferers receive it as soon as possible. It is a requirement that I confirm to the Committee that these provisions are compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights, and I am happy to do so. I commend the increase of the payment scales and ask for approval to implement them. I beg to move.

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, I shall certainly follow the Minister’s suggestion that we leave consideration of the new mesothelioma provisions until the next debate, which makes a lot of sense. I shall want to contribute then, if I may. Perhaps I may ask a couple of questions particularly on the regulations made under the 1979 pneumoconiosis Act. In doing so, I welcome, of course, the upratings that are taking place. They should not lose their value as time goes on.

As the Minister and others may know, I have an interest in the 1979 scheme, particularly from the point of view of slate quarrymen. The issue was not, of course, related only to slate quarrymen; it also affected those working in the kiln and cotton industries, and a number of other conditions came under the purview of that Act. Over the period since 1979 there was initially a surge of applications, which reduced in 1986 to just 95. A decade later, in 1995, this had built up to 900, and was running at a level of 1,000 to 2,000 by 2002-03. I believe that some of the cases leading to that surge arose from coal-mining pneumoconiosis, which had not been covered under the coal-mining scheme—there was originally a tripartite scheme between the NUM, the NCB and the Government, in 1975, for that purpose.

I have been trying to ascertain the breakdown of the figures since 2002-03, and would be grateful if the Minister would give some undertaking on this. My colleagues in the House of Commons have been unable to get from the House of Commons Library the breakdown with regard to industry and to the regional spread of those cases. I imagine that the information must be available in the department because it was available 10 years ago. I hope that it might be possible, by letter or some other way, for this to be disclosed. It would be interesting to see how the pattern has changed from the point of view of the sustainability of the scheme itself, which is an important factor.

The second thing I want to ask the Minister is the breakdown of the figure that he has just given us for 2012-13. He mentioned 3,500 payments and £53 million. That figure covered both the 1979 scheme and the 2008 mesothelioma scheme. Presumably there is again some breakdown between those two at the very least, and perhaps the Minister is in a position to give it today, so we can see where this is going. There will be questions about the interplay of the schemes, but I am content to leave those until the subsequent debate.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, like my noble friend Lord Wigley, I will reserve my remarks about the current 2014 scheme to the later orders. However, perhaps I can ask about the earlier scheme and take the Grand Committee back to remarks that the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, made in 2010 when he was Minister. It is good to see him in his place. He said that the,

“differential in payments puts pressure on sufferers during already extremely difficult times. For example, many feel that they need to rush through a quick claim to the department in order to maximise compensation for their families. Some are too sick to make a claim before dying and therefore their families are able to claim only the lesser amount after the claimant's death. In addition, because mesothelioma is difficult to diagnose and the disease onset is rapid, some sufferers are not diagnosed until after death”.—[Official Report, 23/3/10; col. GC 355.].

This therefore raises the question of dependency and lump sum payments which, when the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, was Minister, he said should be the same. He commenced the process of reducing the differential and both his remarks and the action he took then are to be greatly welcomed.

Each year since 2010, Members of both Houses have asked that the differential should be reduced and each year that has been rejected, due to economic circumstances. My question to the Minister is: as the economic situation continues to improve, at what point in the recovery will there be the trigger that will lead to the Government honouring the commitment to reduce the differential and in-life lump sum payments? Until we do that, it leads to three specific anomalies. First, the dependants are paid significantly less than in-life claimants; secondly, dependants’ age is cut off at 67, compared to 77 for in-life claimants; and thirdly, the 2008 scheme dependants do not receive the 10% enhancement.

Over the next 10 years, the Government are expected to receive some £71 million, less £17 million gifted to insurers, in additional recoveries under the terms of the Mesothelioma Act 2014. Could some of those additional funds be used to reduce the differential? As I will argue later, perhaps some of those funds could also be diverted towards research because once we have established what the causes and cures are, then we will not have a need for schemes like this at all.

Disabled People: Mobility Benefits

Lord Wigley Excerpts

Monday 2nd December 2013 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Wigley]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the number of disabled people who have had access to adapted cars removed as a result of changes to their entitlement to mobility benefits.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud) (Con)]

My Lords, no such assessment has been made. The controlled approach to the reassessment of recipients of disability living allowance began only on 28 October 2013. There is not enough information yet to assess the effect this phase will have on Motability customer numbers, including those with adapted cars. In addition, the vast majority of reassessments will not start until October 2015.

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, does the Minister recall that exactly 12 months ago his department estimated that by 2018 there would be 428,000 fewer enhanced mobility claimants aged 16 to 64 on the new PIP system, compared with the old system? Does he appreciate the anxiety this has caused to those dependent on these payments to finance their Motability vehicles? Will he update the House on the latest position, and do everything in his power to lift the threat felt by those people whose degree of disability almost certainly will mean that they should not lose their Motability entitlement but who, until they know, will inevitably fear the worst?

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, I emphasise that we are looking to create a thorough assessment under PIP that is balanced and also looks after some of the gaps in DLA, particularly concerning people with mental health problems, who have not done as well under DLA as they should do under PIP. With regard to the concerns about the transition, we are working with Motability to put together a package of £2,000 per person for those who move off the enhanced DLA but not into PIP so that they can purchase a second-hand car at the appropriate time.

Mental Health: Cost of Living Support

Lord Wigley Excerpts

Thursday 7th November 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, on the process of getting PIP, we have been taking advice from people with an interest, particularly the autism group, which I know the noble Lord will be interested in, and we have been adjusting our PIP application process to reflect the observations and points made by those groups.

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, does the Minister accept that if people in those circumstances can find work, fine—but if they cannot, they need all the help they can get to access what they have a right to? Should we not therefore ensure that the citizens advice bureaux, which play a key role in these matters, have the resources they need to help such vulnerable people?

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, helping people with mental health problems and similar conditions is, clearly, not easy. The main problem is that they face a huge variety of problems. We need to help them as much as we can to negotiate their way through a complicated system. I have taken a huge interest in this issue myself, and in the most important area in this respect. We now have a study on what we are calling psychological well-being and work, to look at how we can help people negotiate their way into the workplace, with adequate health support on the way.