Endometriosis Workplace Support

Tracey Crouch Excerpts

Tuesday 29th October 2019 Westminster Hall

[Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered endometriosis workplace support.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. This issue affects not just the Minister’s Department, but the Department of Health and Social Care, the Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the Department for Education and the Department for Work and Pensions.

I thank Dr Larisa Corda, who is an obstetrician, gynaecologist and fertility expert—she is in the Public Gallery—the many hundreds of women who have contacted me, and the very brave women who have made the journey to London today to support this debate. I will not reveal the names of the people who have written to me even if they are happy for me to do so, because I want to maintain their confidentiality and ensure that it remains their choice. In opening the debate, I will cover the following areas: the disease itself; the poor diagnosis and medical expertise in dealing with this debilitating condition; its impact on women’s lives; its impact on workplace activity; and the protections that many women feel are not honoured, despite strong workplace health assessment laws.

The disease is often described as cells from the womb growing in other places, but that is a gross underestimation. I believe that that simplistic description is among the reasons why women find it hard to get employers to understand the terrible condition that they are suffering from. According to Dr Corda, since the start of this year more than 100 women have taken their lives as a direct result of this disease.

Endometriosis comes with many symptoms, which occur not just at the time of a woman’s period. The most common are abdominal cramps, back pain, severe menstrual cramps, abnormal or heavy bleeding, painful bowel movements, pain urinating, painful sex, difficulty becoming pregnant, and nausea or sickness. According to endometriosis.org, people with endometriosis are more at risk of several diseases. The risk of ovarian cancer is 37% higher than for the general public; the risk of endocrine tumours is 38% higher than for the general public; the risk of kidney cancer is 26% higher than for the general public; the risk of thyroid cancer is 33% higher than for the general public; the risk of brain tumours is 27% higher than for the general public; the risk of malignant melanoma is 23% higher than for the general public; and, according to cardiosmart.org, a heart attack is 62% more likely. That series of statistics does not describe the impact of the symptoms; I will give some real-life examples later, but the stark truth is that 30% to 50% of women become infertile from the disease.

[Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on securing this incredibly important debate. I am sure millions of women around the country will be enormously grateful that he is raising this issue at the highest level. Does he agree that one of the challenges that many people face is that there is a significant lack of understanding of the condition? That leads to all sorts of things, including dreadful delays in diagnosis and a lack of understanding in workplaces of what the chronic pain really means to those women.

[Alec Shelbrooke]

My hon. Friend summarises the biggest issues that those women face. I will talk about the real-life experiences of the women who have contacted me, but one of the most important things—I hope other Members will expand on this—is that there are support networks out there, because women often suffer in silence. As I said, this subject goes beyond the DWP: certainly, the Department for Education and the Department of Health and Social Care have a role to play.

In June 2015, the BBC carried out a study on 15,000 women in Scotland. It found that women with the condition had a 76% chance of miscarriage, which is unbelievably high. The article reported that women with endometriosis had a trebled risk of ectopic pregnancy. The chance of premature birth was 26% and the chance of having a caesarean was 40%.

Later, I will talk about the impact on women of abnormal and heavy bleeding and bowel movement impacts, which can be distressing in the workplace. I am aware that the issue I am about to talk about falls under the authority of the Department of Health and Social Care, but it is vital to add context and explain why this disease has a knock-on effect in the workplace. I ask the Minister to ensure that this debate is fed into the relevant Ministers in the Department of Health and Social Care.

The House of Commons digital engagement team put out a survey only last Thursday, and there have been 2,610 responses, 1,083 reactions, comments and shares on Facebook, and 215 retweets. I want to cite some of the quotes from it. Again, I will not put the names out there; I will just set out the reports.

“At 18 I am currently being put through medically induced menopause to try and fight back against my endo, it’s horrific, it’s debilitating and it’s exhausting. The pain I have I cannot even describe, and two operations later I am no further to being pain free or living a normal life. My next step is a hysterectomy, I haven’t even had children yet and this is what is being recommended to me. My life has been overtaken by operations, drugs, injections, sickness, anxiety, depression and a whole load of awful nights with no sleep and no rest. I am currently finishing my A Levels and I am absolutely terrified of what life will be like after. My dream is to become a primary school teacher, but I think that dream is unachievable. How will I find an employer who will understand that I often have to lay in bed because as soon as I move I will throw up, or that I have had to have time off work because I’ve got to have my ovaries removed? It’s about time that endometriosis is taken seriously, and people understand that life is so challenging and excruciating, but we carry on, smiling through the pain, simply because we have no alternative.”

Invisible Disabilities and Accessibility Challenges

Tracey Crouch Excerpts

Wednesday 5th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)]

It is truly an honour to follow the hon. Member for East Lothian (Martin Whitfield) in this debate. I congratulate him on his excellent speech and thank him and the hon. Member for Newport West (Ruth Jones) for bringing forward this important debate this afternoon.

Reading the original application to the Backbench Business Committee, I was struck by the campaign from the hon. Gentleman’s constituent Grace Warnock. Members across the whole House should be grateful for the work that she has done to raise awareness of the challenges that she and, indeed, very many of our own constituents face on a daily basis.

Although it is an enormous time after the actual event, may I welcome the hon. Member for Newport West to this House? I served with her predecessor on various Committees and cross-party groups and was proud to be one of the very few Tories that he never verbally slaughtered in the Chamber, presumably because we mischievously used to gang up on the then Chairman of the Committee on which we both served just for a giggle. He will be much missed in this place, but I am in no doubt that she will very quickly find her own way in this incredible madhouse.

I will not pretend that I am an expert on disability, hidden or otherwise. I am, however, very proud to be the independent chair of Medway Council’s physical disability partnership board—a role that I have had for some time. I have learned a phenomenal amount about the challenges that those with physical disabilities face—something that I as an able-bodied individual would never ordinarily appreciate. The right hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd), who is no longer in her place, was quite right to mention some of the challenges that exist, such as being able to find suitable toilets, which is something that Baroness Grey-Thompson experienced.

I recall hearing a story while serving on the partnership board that may make Members laugh because it is amusing—apart from to those to whom it is relevant. A blind constituent of mine got on a bus and asked the driver to tell her when she was at her stop, to which the driver replied, “Well, can’t the dog tell you?” That just shows how we as a society still have so much to learn about physical disabilities, and even more to learn about hidden disabilities. In my time as chair of the partnership board, I have got to understand other disabilities or health conditions better, but I am always willing to accept that I need to learn so much more.

One of my great pleasures in life is whiling away time shopping, yet so many places are desperately inaccessible to those with hidden disabilities. I am pleased that, across my constituency and slightly beyond its borders, greater efforts are being made to support better accessibility for those with varying disabilities. The Pentagon shopping centre in Chatham, for example, has Sound-Out Sunday on the first Sunday of every month. It is not until it is explained that it seems like a complete no brainer. The centre minimises ambient noise, including turning off music and hand dryers, as well as having a chill-out zone, should people need to take a break from the crowds. Bluewater, which is a major retail outlet in north Kent, beyond my constituency, is permanently introducing services, including weekly quiet hours, sensory toy bags and hidden disability lanyards that allow staff to proactively offer assistance.

My young son’s soft play centre of choice, Adventure Kidz in Aylesford, offers special educational needs and autism friendly sessions so that there is inclusivity even at the earliest stage in life. My son does not have autism, but he does not like hand dryers. He gets incredibly upset by them, so we find it difficult to take him into a public toilet. I therefore just have that tiny insight into what it must be like for those who do have autism to find themselves really quite unsettled by noise. Anything that public places can do to reduce that impact and that disturbance, particularly for young children with autism, is incredibly important and very welcome.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

The hon. Lady’s speech is very enlightening about many of the things we could be doing. Following on from the comments by the hon. Member for East Lothian (Martin Whitfield), does she think that one of the issues we have to overcome with invisible disabilities is not only our own ignorance of what they might be, but people’s reticence to come forward because they fear that their invisible disability might be rejected as a disability?

[Tracey Crouch]

I absolutely agree. I always think that one of the main advantages of being Members of Parliament is that we get exposure to issues that, ordinarily, members of the public do not. We get to learn things and to discover issues and conditions that ordinarily pass the vast majority of members of the public by. The more we can do to educate and inform people about these issues, the better. My hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Joseph Johnson) mentioned what he had learned as a dementia friend. Like the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams), I was previously—before ministerial life—a co-chair of the all-party group on dementia. What we learn in this place about dementia is incredible, and we need to get that across to everyone.

As the chair of the partnership board, I have learned things about disabilities that I would never have come across. Some of that is just about basic education and information. Unless someone has a family member who is affected, or they themselves have a disability—physical, visible, intellectual or hidden—they do not necessarily know about these things, and they certainly do not understand them. I have tried in my speech not to use the word “understand”, because I do not think I would ever fully understand these things; I could only appreciate the challenges that people face.

It will be no surprise to anybody in the House that one of my other great pleasures in life is watching and participating in sport. I want briefly to give a nod to the amazing Special Olympics team and their sponsors—especially Coca-Cola, which has partnered them since 1978. Special Olympics is by far the largest disability sports organisation in the world, with a strapline of transforming people’s lives through sport. Our competitors, who do not receive any regular funding from central Government—much to my disappointment, but not due to a lack of effort—are quite possibly the happiest, smiliest, most appreciative group of people you will ever meet in your life. I would like to mention the phenomenal work of my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris), who has supported Special Olympics for many years.

Special Olympics GB notes that 200 babies are born with an intellectual disability every week. Eight out of 10 of them will be bullied and all will be socially excluded. Sport dramatically enhances the psychological, physical and social wellbeing of every athlete, as well as having a positive impact on family members, who often face increased isolation and mental health deterioration.

Team GB has just returned from this year’s world games in Abu Dhabi with 169 medals, 61 of which were gold. What an amazing achievement, but what a shame it was barely mentioned. For the competitors, the world games would have been a life-enhancing moment, and I for one am trying to get some of the medal winners to come to my constituency, to go round some of my local schools and especially to meet those who share similar challenges—who knows, those athletes might even inspire them into sport in one way or another.

Sport England has been enormously helpful in recent years, and it now provides much-needed funds to get more people with physical, hidden and intellectual disabilities active. We know that those with disabilities are twice as likely to be inactive as able-bodied people. Sport England has also provided funds to Special Olympics to engage more volunteers and to support the delivery of competitions, to help it develop its commercial opportunities. However, I firmly believe we should be doing more as a state to support the Special Olympics organisation and its competitors.

When the Minister held this brief before, and I was still in my old post, we spoke of what more we could do to support Special Olympics. I would be grateful if he agreed to resume that discussion with this now humble Back Bencher and others who might have an interest. There is a real appetite for the future world games to be held here, and I see no reason why we should not support that bid in the way we did for the Olympics and the Paralympics. Imagine how brilliant it would be for our athletes who have a variety of different disabilities to compete in front of home crowds as we welcome several thousand athletes from 170 countries around the world.

Had I realised that I would have more time, I would have prepared something celebrating some of the excellent work that goes on in my constituency, in this House and beyond on having a better understanding of dementia. The hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth has been doing a fantastic job in that regard. Locally, we have a dementia alliance that is trying to work with all partners to ensure that we have proper dementia-friendly communities. We have an ambition to make this place dementia-friendly, but we still have a very long way to go with that. We could start by getting rid of all the black strips and black rugs in this place.

Bradfields Academy is one of my favourite schools in my constituency. I am an honorary member of its school council. It is a special educational needs school. It has children there with extremely challenging disabilities, yet it is one of the calmest and kindest schools that I go to in my constituency.

I pay tribute to Kent Autism Trust, which is doing some brilliant work with local people and local employers to get a better understanding of autism and how we can support people with autism into the workplace and in our communities.

I would like to make special mention of those who support people with Parkinson’s disease. As the hon. Member for East Lothian said, some people assume that people with Parkinson’s are drunk. It is one of those conditions where people think that some sort of inebriation has been involved because of their reactions. We still have a long way to go in getting a better understanding of that.

I pay tribute to the work that the Government are doing with Changing Places. I recently listened to an incredibly powerful and emotive phone-in on a local radio station about the challenges that people still face in just going into their own communities, particularly town centres, and finding it very difficult to find places to use the toilet.

Some debates in this House really influence and inspire Members to do more for their constituents, and so far this has definitely been one of them. I am genuinely inspired by the hon. Gentleman’s constituent Grace. I will take away much of what I have learned today and consider what more I can do, in addition to the work I do on physical disabilities, to support those with hidden disabilities in my own constituency and beyond.

Social Security

Tracey Crouch Excerpts

Wednesday 6th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)]

I welcome the draft Mesothelioma Lump Sum Payments (Conditions and Amounts) (Amendment) Regulations 2019 and the draft Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) (Payment of Claims) (Amendment) Regulations 2019. I understand that both schemes, which will ensure fair and timely payments to those with asbestos-related diseases, fall outside the general benefits uprating process and that, as such, no review mechanism is formally built into legislation to uprate the payments each year.

The Government’s 2.4% increase in the payments is very welcome and rightly demonstrates an ongoing commitment to supporting those suffering from asbestos-related diseases, many of whom contracted the disease through no fault of their own, and their families. For reasons that will become apparent, I wonder whether a future statutory instrument will include a table of occupations or professions—the regulations include a helpful breakdown of the ages of those with mesothelioma at first diagnosis—as that would help to identify those at risk and could perhaps be cross-referenced with other areas of support for those suffering from mesothelioma, where necessary.

Five years and one month ago, our former colleague from Wythenshawe and Sale East, Paul Goggins, tragically and suddenly passed away. Paul and I had tabled several cross-party amendments to the Bill that became the Mesothelioma Act 2014, and colleagues on both sides of the House will agree that his expertise and compassion have been and continue to be a great loss. He was the driving force behind much of the work on mesothelioma, and the ongoing success of the scheme is testament to his commitment to the issue and a fitting legacy for him as a parliamentarian.

[Sir Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead) (Con)]

I was the Minister responsible for taking the Mesothelioma Act through Parliament and, despite the restrictions I was under, Paul was an enormously useful knowledge base. At times I went back to my civil servants and said, “No, I have facts from people who were involved in this.” That was very useful, and the House should recognise the work of Paul Goggins.

[Tracey Crouch]

I am grateful for my right hon. Friend’s intervention. I still have the Christmas card that Paul gave to me just before we rose for Christmas in 2013, in which he started, “Dear fellow meso warrior”. He was passionate about this, and it was a real privilege to have tabled amendments in his name—obviously, he was unable to be here to push them through.

We were successful during the passage of the Mesothelioma Act—with the support of colleagues on both sides of the House and in the other place, led by Lord Alton of Liverpool—in aligning payments with the 100% average civil damages. I am therefore sure that, like me, Paul would have welcomed the Minister’s written ministerial statement of 23 January on the diffuse mesothelioma payment scheme which confirmed, thanks to the excellent work of my right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning), that the levy to be charged for 2018-19, payable by the insurance industry to fund the scheme, will be just short of £40 million.

Since the launch of the scheme in 2014, £130 million has been paid in compensation to almost 1,000 sufferers—that is £130 million that was not previously available to those suffering from mesothelioma who are not covered by the alternative schemes and unable to trace their employer’s liability insurance. I am grateful for the efforts of everyone in the House, including the late Paul Goggins and my right hon. Friend, who was the Minister at the time, in helping to provide such compensation for those who would not have had it previously.

Having worked with long-suffering officials at the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport for three and a half years as a Minister, I will take a second to praise the oversight committee’s annual report on the scheme. The report is well set out and tells us everything we need to know in a clear and transparent way, so I thank the officials who worked hard on it.

One amendment that Paul and I were sadly unsuccessful in adding to the legislation would have introduced an additional levy on the insurance industry to fund research into mesothelioma. It remains the case, as it has for decades, that mesothelioma is poorly understood and underfunded. We know it has a long latency period and is an incredibly aggressive form of lung cancer, and we also anticipate a future spike in diagnoses, with Medway a particular hotspot for the disease given its rich shipbuilding and industrial heritage. I am pleased that Medway clinical commissioning group is working with the local hospital to review its respiratory pathways, including the care of lung cancer patients, and the CCG is keen to be in the next round of lung health checks because of the higher incidence of mesothelioma in the area.

As the hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Mike Amesbury) said, we urgently need better to understand the disease. We need to work towards a meaningful treatment, and perhaps even a cure. Although I accept that this does not fall wholly within the remit of the Department for Work and Pensions, it is notable that the annual review shows that the levy scheme had a £3.45 million surplus last year. Following agreement with the insurance industry, the surplus was divided equally into the levy for the next three years. It might have been better to put that money into research, as while £3 million is small change in the insurance world, it is a lottery win for research. Again, that might be worth considering for next year. I would be grateful if, on the back of this debate, the Minister would write to me to elaborate on what work her Department is undertaking to engage the Department of Health and Social Care in better understanding the disease and improving outcomes for sufferers.

Asbestos in schools is an important topic. Although, again, this does not fall wholly within the remit of the DWP, it does have important implications for the various schemes the DWP administers for sufferers. In a 2015 Adjournment debate on asbestos in schools, I mentioned that the issue needed a cross-departmental effort led by the Department for Education through the Priority School Building programme. I would be grateful if the Minister could update us on any discussions she has had with DFE colleagues on the potential impact of asbestos in schools. For example, is any data shared on the profession of applicants to the asbestos-related schemes whose benefits are administered by her Department?

There is a huge amount to commend in the Government’s ongoing commitment to supporting those who suffer from mesothelioma and asbestos-related diseases. I miss my meso partner in crime, Paul Goggins, enormously. Although he would agree that the progress should be celebrated, he would continue to say that there is always much more that can be done further to improve the outcomes for sufferers of this terrible disease.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)]

I never thought that I would be involved in this debate at such a late stage in my life. I remember making my maiden speech. I had worked down the pits. There were 700 pits and 700,000 miners at the time. Those miners were very much responsible for assisting the nation both during the second world war and after. Those were very hard days in the mines, yet I finished up in this place, mainly because they wanted me to stop another Labour candidate from getting the seat. [Interruption.] That is the truth. I finished up in the palace of varieties, and here we are, many years later, discussing the very thing that I spoke about way back in 1970. It is almost like the Common Market coming back all over again—which it is.

I want to say from the outset that I agree with the right hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning) and the hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) who talked about the yearly increase. We do that for a lot of things in Parliament; we increase things automatically. When I think about this subject, I can say that there is no better reason for having an uprate in September, or whenever it is, in accordance with the increases that have taken place in inflation, in pensions and in quite a lot of other things. It would be excellent if, in these 90 minutes, we were able to get that message across. If we get the right kind of people at the Dispatch Box later, perhaps they will be able to give a nod and a wink in this direction. I have seized on this issue today mainly because it was raised by the right hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead from the Tory party and the hon. Member for Glenrothes from the Scottish National party.

I remember the time when mesothelioma was first raised in the House; it was raised by Mick Clapham, one of my colleagues from Barnsley. Unlike Lord Hutton, he is not in the House of Lords. I suppose that he should be—in a way. He was the one who came here with this funny sounding word that is very difficult for people to remember—mesothelioma. I remember thinking, “How does he manage to get it out of his mouth?” I had to practise saying the word at night. Yes, it is very important to remember Mick Clapham and the fact that he seized on this very important subject.

[Tracey Crouch]

I remember Mick Clapham because for my sins—for which I have repented through my rebellions over the Mesothelioma Act 2014—I worked for the insurance industry. Mick was the bane of our lives, particularly around the subject of compensation not just for mesothelioma—for those who could not find their employers—but for pleural plaques. The hon. Gentleman is quite right to recognise the sterling work that he did to change hearts and minds among not just Labour Members but Conservative Members for the plight of those who suffer from asbestos-related diseases.

[Mr Skinner]

Yes, I will get on the phone to Mick and let him know about today’s events. Seriously, if I can tell him that there will be an automatic yearly increase, it will be a token to him and to all those who took part in that exercise at the time. I am very pleased to be here, and very pleased to be taking—

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Newton]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for sharing with us the tragic case of his grandfather. That reminds us, as so many colleagues have done today, of the sacrifices that people have made in these essential industries. So much of what we look around at has been created by people who made the sacrifice of working in these very, very physically demanding and dangerous industries. He is right to remind us of the sacrifices that the families have made.

The hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) recognised—I join him in this—the work of Willie Clarke and John MacDougall, and other NUM officials, in creating the schemes that we have before us today. He also talked about Peter Quinn, his grandfather, and his premature death as a result of exposure to asbestos. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully) about his father, who died 30 years ago. That really shows how the exposure to these dusts has had such a catastrophic effect on so many people’s lives, not only in this House but across our country.

I am absolutely delighted that the former Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead, was able to join us today and speak so passionately, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch). I recognise the really important contributions that they both made, as well as the former Member for Wythenshawe and Sale, in bringing in the 2014 diffuse mesothelioma payment scheme. As was so rightly pointed out, that filled the gaps in the schemes we are talking about today, meaning that many, many more people are getting financial support.

I want to add my own tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford—our meso warrior. This really shows the difference that individual Members of Parliament can make in this House by banding together with other colleagues to make such important changes to people’s lives. I take on board her very sensible suggestion that we look at the age of people when they are diagnosed as well as their occupation. We need to be constantly looking for new trends to make sure that we are aware of people working in new or different occupations who had hitherto been thought not to be so directly affected and who might benefit from these schemes. I know that she takes a particular interest in teachers and teaching.

[Tracey Crouch]

I perhaps ought to put it on the record that, because of my passionate speech on Second Reading of the Mesothelioma Bill, when it was quite clear that I wanted to make changes to the legislation, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning), as the Minister at the time, made sure that I was not put on the Bill Committee. Newer Members of the House looking to make a difference in this place should perhaps make a more anodyne contribution on Second Reading and then do their bit in Committee.

[Sarah Newton]

My hon. Friend is a doughty parliamentary campaigner, and she shares a very interesting tip with newer Members of the House.

I am very happy to take away my hon. Friend’s suggestion, which was powerfully backed up by the former Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead, that we should look at the surplus within the scheme, which is funded by a levy on the industry. Those surpluses could well be used for further research. I will take that away and look at it. It was rightly pointed out that we need to be very mindful of future projections about the numbers of people who might be affected to make sure that the scheme has adequate funding to meet any future unanticipated needs. I will look at that again to determine whether there is more that we could do on that.

I want to reassure the House on the two points raised about what more the Health and Safety Executive is doing to raise awareness of the risks of asbestosis, especially in schools. The Department for Education and the HSE have been working for long periods on what more can be done to be raise awareness of the good management of asbestos, whether in hospitals or in schools. The Department for Education has taken a real interest in this. There is now a new assurance scheme that started last March, and funding is made available through the Department for the upgrading of school facilities. We are making a lot of progress in assessing the risk and skilling people up to manage asbestos when they find it and then ultimately replace it. The Health and Safety Executive is always informing all the different workplaces of the risks of asbestos and what can be done to reduce them.

It is absolutely fair to say that the Health and Safety Executive has had to make efficiency savings in its budgets over the past few years. However, in no way, shape or form can one say that that is leading it not to be able to do its job well. When I meet the chief executive and the chairman, as I do regularly, they tell me that they have the resources that they need to keep people safe at work. We have only to look at the evidence of what is happening in workplaces to see that the HSE has been innovative and creative, working in partnership with others. As I said in my opening speech, there are far fewer people acquiring injuries, and having fatal injuries, at work. That is to the great credit of the Health and Safety Executive, as I think a lot of Members across the House have recognised.

Finally, there is the question of the equalisation of the sums that are paid out between the people who are directly affected by the conditions and their loved ones. The same issue is raised each time this debate is held. The Government’s view is that it is most important that the funding is given to the people with the condition who would most benefit from it. Of course, I fully understand that families can be devastated and very badly affected, but there is still the recognition that they are able to get compensation, even if it is not at the same level. When we have to make decisions about how we use our precious resources—the taxpayers’ money that is available—it is only right that we target that money by giving it to the people to whom it can make the biggest difference.

We have had a really excellent debate in which we have managed to raise a lot of issues around the health service, education, the Health and Safety Executive, and research. I am very grateful for Members’ contributions and for the support across the House for these very important schemes that are having a very positive impact on people’s lives. I look forward to working with Members who have asked to meet me on how we can work even more closely together and make an even more positive contribution.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the draft Mesothelioma Lump Sum Payments (Conditions and Amounts) (Amendment) Regulations 2019, which were laid before this House on 15 January, be approved.

Resolved,

That the draft Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) (Payment of Claims) (Amendment) Regulations 2019, which were laid before this House on 15 January, be approved.—(Sarah Newton.)

Diffuse Mesothelioma Payment Scheme

Tracey Crouch Excerpts

Wednesday 11th February 2015 Westminster Hall

[Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Owen. Despite his cruel reminder of last night’s football result, I congratulate the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram) on securing this timely debate.

This is a matter of great importance to me. I have campaigned on it for a decade, both before and after my election as an MP. Naturally, my interest as an MP stems from the fact that the Medway towns are a mesothelioma hot spot, with 6.5 in every 100,000 people across the area getting meso, compared with the national average of 2.5 in every 100,000. The area’s history of shipbuilding and heavy industry contributes to that exposure and diagnosis rate, so it is an issue that the people of Chatham and beyond are acutely aware of.

Much progress has been made on mesothelioma, but I want to start by congratulating the noble Lord Freud, via his and my Commons ministerial colleague here today, on yesterday’s announcement about increasing compensation under the Diffuse Mesothelioma Payment Scheme to 100% of average civil damages to those who are unable to trace their insurer. If it had not been considered unparliamentary or just a bit weird, I would have hunted him down in the other House to give him a big hug. Instead, I will do the entirely British thing of just saying, through the medium of Hansard, well done.

It is also appropriate to congratulate the noble Lord Alton, who has been an absolute champion on this issue in the other House. His tireless campaigning on meso issues has been a source of great hope to many victims and campaigners. He has been an inspiration to those of us in this House who have often been wearied by procedural hurdles. Like the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton, I pay tribute to the asbestos campaign groups, which not only lobby us on this issue but hold the hands of the victims once they are diagnosed.

Although the Minister was not in the Department at the time, he will be aware that, during the passage of the Mesothelioma Act 2014, I pushed for 100% compensation for victims of this fatal disease. Parliament settled for a compromise deal of 80%, albeit after a lot of pressure from campaigners in all parts of the Commons and Lords. That compromise was agreed after levels were raised from 70% to 75% and then to 80%, on the understanding that insurance companies would not participate in the scheme at all if the levy were to cost them more than 3% gross written premiums, which they in turn would be forced to pass on to an already difficult employers’ liability market.

I think “reluctant acceptance all sides” is an appropriate phrase; none the less, many felt that the outcome remained unfair. The fact there were far fewer claims than predicted, representing a total of just 2.2% GWP, was surprising, but perhaps not unexpected, given the number of times that the calculations and the costs were altered during the consultation and the passage of the legislation. It was a pleasure, therefore, to meet with Lord Freud immediately after Christmas to discuss the shortfall. I am delighted that, through his inevitably tough negotiations with the sector, he has managed to pull off a deal that means that, as of yesterday, anyone diagnosed with mesothelioma will get 100% compensation.

The Minister may think it is cheeky to ask for more, given how much progress has been made, but a few questions need to be asked. Around 200 people were compensated under the original scheme, at the rate of 80%. Are there plans to reconsider and uprate their payouts? Although I appreciate that there may be issues about retrospective payments, it would be reassuring to know whether the Department is undertaking any further consideration regarding those claimants. Yesterday’s statement also alluded to additional safeguards that have been requested by the insurance industry and agreed by the Minister. Although I fully accept that the 100% compensation scheme would not have been agreed without some form of negotiation, it would be helpful for the House to be made aware of what those administrative safeguards are and whether they require changes to either the primary or the secondary legislation.

I want to mention research, an issue that was much debated during the passage of the legislation for this scheme. The late Paul Goggins was a champion of ensuring more medical research into mesothelioma, for both treating and curing the cancer. The Minister will be aware that Paul sadly passed away between the Committee and Report stages of passing the Mesothelioma Act; I moved his amendments on the Floor of the House for him. It is an honour to continue to fight for more funding for research in his name.

Emotion aside, the facts are simple. Mesothelioma is an invasive type of lung cancer for which there is no cure. Victims often experience painful, debilitating symptoms, and most will die within 12 months of diagnosis. Someone dies from meso every five hours in the UK. It is estimated that 2% of men born in the ’50s will get the disease; yet research into this cancer is lagging way behind. As an illustration, I was given a table of the number of research papers into meso. In 2012, when 2,431 people died from mesothelioma, just 44 papers were published on it, compared with 2,828 papers on oral cancer and 1,160 on cancer of the uterus—both of which, thankfully, have nearly 1,000 fewer deaths per year.

Great work is being done out there, but it is starved of money. I visited the Medway campus of the university of Greenwich, where Professor Adrian Dobbs is leading the research into meso, including looking at the recent discovery of the compound JBIR-23, which is the first ever natural product to show activity against tumour cells. That work is being funded by the June Hancock Mesothelioma Research Fund, but with much more to do to refine the biological activity—from the scale of an oil tanker to a saloon car and down to the scale of a grain of sugar—significant funding needs to be found.

Insurers have contributed to wider research funding programmes with the British Lung Foundation. I was delighted to see that my old company, Aviva, has joined forces with Zurich to donate a combined £1 million over two years to the BLF’s meso programme. However, it is not fair that only those two companies are funding the research; frankly, others should be ashamed of themselves for not also contributing. It is also disappointing that the funding is time limited, and there is no guarantee that it will continue after the two years.

Finally, I want briefly to mention the issue of teachers dying of mesothelioma, which was also discussed during the passage of the Mesothelioma Act. Today, 75% of the 33,600 schools in Britain still contain asbestos. There is some variation in the statistics—which is why I may have confused matters further with a possibly incorrect recollection of the figures in the Chamber on Monday—but the often-cited stat is that in the past 10 years, 140 school teachers have died of meso. In the United States, for every one teacher who has passed from mesothelioma, nine children will follow.

Quite simply, we have a problem with asbestos in schools, which is why those who are diagnosed with the disease are not limited to the industrial professions. Just one fibre of asbestos can cause the cancer, and fibres can be transferred simply by putting a drawing pin in a wall. Local education authorities have insurance, which is why the scheme was deemed not appropriate in general terms for teachers; nevertheless, as politicians who will inevitably have schools in our constituencies that are riddled with asbestos, we need to be mindful of the potential problems. We need to introduce regulations similar to those in Australia and the US to remove asbestos in schools. I hope that, post 7 May, the Government will consider this matter extremely carefully.

Time is short and I know that other hon. Members wish to speak. Let me end by saying that the victims of the disease will now get the full compensation that they deserve. There are still issues to resolve, such as those I have raised, as well as others, which I have not had time to go into, that are equally important, such as secondary exposure. There are many people who will today hear that they have mesothelioma. That news will, in a short time, take them away from their family and loved ones; but at least now, if they are unable to trace their insurer, they can have financial peace of mind. It can only be the good thing and right that we have finally achieved that.

Social Security (Statutory Instruments)

Tracey Crouch Excerpts

Monday 9th February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)]

I apologise for missing the beginning of the Minister’s speech, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am grateful to you for allowing me to say a few words on this incredibly important matter.

I represent Chatham, where the former dockyard was involved in ship lagging for many years—centuries in fact—so the issue of mesothelioma is very dear to my heart and to those of my constituents. Chatham is one of the UK hot spots for mesothelioma, and for that reason I have been very passionate about the issue for many years, including before I entered the House.

Today’s announcement of the uprating of benefits for mesothelioma claims is obviously very welcome. It is fair to say that the Government have made great progress on compensating those who could not trace their insurer in the past. I know that that scheme is different from the one we are discussing now, but compensation and benefits for mesothelioma quite often get mixed up into one big pot, and people sometimes find it very difficult to navigate their way around the various schemes available. I appreciate the fact that the Government have made great progress in ensuring that people not subject to this scheme can find a way to get the compensation they are owed if they cannot trace their insurer, although some people who claimed benefits for mesothelioma but were then successful in the Government’s other scheme have lost 100% of the compensation to receive only 80% in return.

I want to touch on the points made by the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) about research and other establishments. The research still has some way to go, and people are not necessarily coming forward to take advantage of existing research bursaries. I recently visited the university of Greenwich, which has a base on the Medway campus. It is doing great work on trying to identify ways to break the link in the chemical structures that form mesothelioma. As well as having a fantastic re-acquaintance with the chemistry I learned at school and learning what double bonding was, I was told of some interesting research that it had done into the number of research papers on mesothelioma. It found that in one year, there had been only 15 papers across the entire world, compared with thousands and thousands on other cancers. We clearly have a long way to go.

Traditionally, asbestos conditions, particularly mesothelioma, have been linked with industrial employment. We are now seeing an increase in the number of people from other sectors, particularly the teaching profession, who are becoming the victims of mesothelioma. Something like 122 former teachers died of mesothelioma last year.

It is important that people who are getting this incredibly painful cancer, and who will die very quickly as a consequence, are getting the money that they deserve. Although we have had long discussions about dependants—I note that the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston raised this matter in her speech—there is still a long way to go before we give mesothelioma victims adequate compensation and the benefits that they deserve.

I welcome the uprating today. It is an incredibly important step forward. I am pleased that there will be no Division, because this is a sensible thing to do for those who get this horrible disease. There is so much more that we need to continue to discuss in this Chamber and elsewhere to ensure that people who get this horrible cancer, who will die quickly and painfully, are given the right amount of money and the compensation that they deserve, and to ensure that this Government and future Governments continue to support research into this incredibly important area.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tracey Crouch Excerpts

Monday 23rd June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Esther McVey]

It is quite incredible that the hon. Gentleman should ask that question, considering that youth unemployment shot up by 45% under the Labour Government, and that we have managed to get more young people into work. As I have said, youth unemployment has fallen for nine consecutive months; it is 100,000 fewer than at the general election. He would be better off reading about what we have done, if he wants to know how to get young people into work.

[Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)]

Will the Minister provide the House with an update on the implementation and delivery of the mesothelioma compensation payment scheme?

[Mike Penning]

I am really proud that the coalition Government have introduced this new scheme. It is now fully funded and it is rolling out on time. Payments will be made on time to the people who need those funds so much, through no fault of their own, and we are all very proud of that.

Payment Scheme (Mesothelioma)

Tracey Crouch Excerpts

Monday 17th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)]

I do not wish to detain the House long. As the Member who tabled the amendment on Report and put it to a vote, I was disappointed when the Government did not listen to the call to raise compensation to 80%. Members will therefore not be surprised to learn that I am delighted that progress has been made and that the Minister and his officials have managed to find savings, through the tendering process, to ensure that those who contract this dreadful and fatal condition receive the compensation they deserve.

It is worth reminding the House that mesothelioma is one of the worst diseases that anyone can contract simply by going to work. There is no reason behind having mesothelioma other than exposure to asbestos. Unfortunately, those who do contract it often die very quickly, leaving their dependants without the financial security that they would have hoped to have provided in any other circumstances.

The Mesothelioma Act 2014 provides compensation to those who are unable to get compensation via the civil claims process. Increasing the compensation level to 80% is the right thing to do. I know there is still disagreement across the House on the level of compensation, but there was consensus on an initial minimum compensation level of 80%. Other hon. Members may wish to increase that to 90% or even 100%. The perfect outcome would be 100%, but that is unachievable, and I believe that 80% is the right figure to settle on at this stage.

Following Report, many people across the country—not just in my constituency—contacted me to ask when the scheme would start and how they would be able to access it. Will the Government ensure that a “How to” guide is published on the website and is readily available for all victims?

[Mike Penning]

It is important that we make the scheme as simple as possible. There will be a direct link on the Department for Work and Pensions website to the administrator’s website. We want to make that as simple as possible so that, as I suggested earlier, in some cases the legal profession will not need to be involved. I urge colleagues and representative bodies to get the information out there. The administrators will do that, and we need to do that in constituencies where mesothelioma has blighted the lives of so many. All hon. Members across the House have websites, and they should use them to promote the scheme.

[Tracey Crouch]

I am grateful to the Minister for that response. It is very important that we make it as simple as possible for people to understand exactly how to access the scheme. As long as they are aware that it is a scheme of last resort, and have gone through the appropriate civil process, we can do what is best to ensure that victims and their families receive compensation quickly and fairly.

There has been good progress, and that is a fitting tribute to the late Paul Goggins. The issue of mesothelioma is wider than just compensation, although that is very important, and I will do my bit to continue to fight on many of the issues on which he made a start, such as better research funding to ensure that we find a cure; that is beyond the remit of the Minister’s Department. I recognise that the Minister has done an incredible job. He has not just listened to Members in all parts of the House, but ensured that the level was increased, and that those in the insurance industry settled for that. I will not say that they have welcomed that, or are happy with it, but they have settled for it, and they have not walked away from the scheme. It will provide valuable financial security for those who contract this dreadful disease.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tracey Crouch Excerpts

Thursday 13th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Grant]

I caution the hon. Lady about believing everything she sees and reads in our newspapers, and I am a little surprised at her question. Nevertheless, I am happy to provide clarification by saying to her what I said to the press: we should be listening to what our women and girls want, and we should be giving it to them. We should not be prescriptive, but we should be listening. As a sportswoman myself, I believe that there is a sport out there for everyone. In addition, I think our sports governing bodies need to work harder and be even more innovative in attracting women. We also need to share best practice so that other sports can learn lessons from sports, such as boxing and netball, that are doing particularly well in attracting women.

[Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)]

Will the Minister join me in congratulating the Kent FA on its highly successful Goals for Girls event held in my constituency last Saturday and Sky Sports on covering it live? Is that not an example of how broadcasters should be showcasing women’s and girls’ sport, encouraging them to participate in all sorts of physical activity?

[Mrs Grant]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, and I know that a considerable amount of football activity takes place in her neck of the woods. While she was attending her event last Saturday, I was attending a girls under-15s international in Maidstone, where England won 8-0. On her point about the media, if we want to see more women in sport and an increased profile of them, we need the media to do more. The BBC and Sky have upped their game since the last Olympics, with individuals such as Barbara Slater doing a lot more.

Mesothelioma Bill [Lords]

Tracey Crouch Excerpts

Tuesday 7th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I thank the Minister and the shadow Minister for their words.

New Clause 2

Research supplement

‘(1) This section makes provision about the research supplement mentioned in section 13.

(2) The research supplement—

(a) must be expressed by regulations under section 13 as a percentage of the amount set for the purpose specified in section 13(1) in accordance with section 13(2) to (5); and

(b) may not exceed 1 per cent of that amount.

(3) Regulations under section 13 must include provision about the application of the research supplement; in particular, the regulations—

(a) must include provision for amounts raised by way of the research supplement to be applied by way of grants or other financial assistance for research into mesothelioma;

(b) must require the scheme administrator to make arrangements for the application of the research supplement;

(c) may allow the scheme administrator to arrange for a body which handles applications for research funding to administer the research supplement on the scheme administrator’s behalf;

(d) may allow receipts by way of research supplement in respect of one period to be held for allocation in a later period, and for investment of receipts pending allocation.

(4) Before making regulations in respect of the research supplement the Secretary of State must consult—

(a) insurers;

(b) medical charities and research foundations; and

(c) other persons or bodies who the Secretary of State thinks are likely to be interested.’.—(Tracey Crouch.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[Mr Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 11, in clause 1, page 1, line 6, at end insert

‘; and for funding research into mesothelioma (through the research supplement under section [Research supplement]).’.

Amendment 12, in clause 13, page 7, line 10, at end insert—

‘( ) The regulations mentioned in subsection (1) must provide for the levy to include a research supplement in accordance with section [Research supplement] (in addition to the amounts set for the purpose specified in subsection (1)).’.

Amendment 13, in clause 13, page 7, line 11, after ‘levy’, insert ‘(not including the research supplement)’.

Amendment 14, in clause 13, page 7, line 16, after ‘levy’, insert ‘(not including the research supplement)’.

Amendment 15, in clause 13, page 7, line 18, after ‘levy’, insert ‘(not including the research supplement)’.

[Tracey Crouch]

New clause 2 and the associated amendments were tabled by the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins), and are supported by me and other hon. Members. It seems an appropriate moment to send my very best wishes to the right hon. Gentleman and his family, and I pray that he recovers soon from his severe illness. He is well respected on both sides of the House and has been a champion for fairer and quicker justice and compensation for victims of asbestos-related diseases. While we do not agree on all aspects of asbestos compensation, the one condition we do share a deep commitment to is that of mesothelioma, and we have worked hard together to find cross-party consensus on aspects of the Bill. Although it is somewhat humbling, it gives me great pleasure to move this new clause and the consequential amendments on the right hon. Gentleman’s behalf.

The right hon. Gentleman spoke on the issue of medical research at length in Committee, and I do not wish to repeat all that he said. However, it is important to remind the House of several key points. The first, and in my view one of the most important points, is that we must remember the sufferers of this dreadful condition in everything we debate today. Mesothelioma is a fatal disease caused only by exposure to asbestos and while its severity can be affected by other factors, it is effectively a disease contracted simply as a consequence of going to work. Doctors who treat meso victims will tell you that it is by far the worst type of lung cancer that anyone can contract, and unfortunately it is likely to cause not only a swift death but an incredibly painful one.

Mesothelioma is not an industrial working-class disease. Although it may be more prevalent among those who have lagged ships or worked in heavy industry, the truth is that anyone exposed to asbestos can become a victim of mesothelioma. We are seeing an increasing number of teachers suffering from this disease and of course there are those who contract it via secondary exposure, such as the wives who washed their husbands’ overalls.

Medical research to help ease the pain and suffering of those who contract mesothelioma is essential, but we must also try and find a cure, not least because we know that the peak of those to be diagnosed is yet to come. Nearly 2,500 people will die from meso this coming year and over the next 25 years some 60,000 might die from the disease, but research into this cancer is shamefully underfunded.

Before entering this House, I was proud to be part of the efforts made by my then employer, the insurance company Aviva, and three other global insurers—AXA, Zurich and RSA—to provide funding of more than £2.5 million to the British Lung Foundation to invest in research projects. It was good to meet many of my former colleagues at a reception held in the House last year to see progress on some of those projects, one of which has been the incredibly important development of a meso-bank. The meso-bank collects tissue and blood samples from sufferers and will provide an opportunity for fundamental and translational research, which will help not only those with the condition in the UK but those in developing countries where the export and use of asbestos has been less controlled—an issue that the right hon. Gentleman also raised in Committee.

Alongside the meso-bank there have been other projects including those being run at the Queen Alexandra hospital in Portsmouth, which is looking at whether specialist palliative care immediately after diagnosis could help relieve the symptoms of mesothelioma, and that at the university of Sheffield which is looking at different treatment packages to relieve pain from this awful disease. Those projects are excellent, top-quality research projects, which would not have been possible without the initial grant from the big four insurers, but unfortunately the funding comes to an end this year, which is somewhat disappointing given that we are about to start the upward trend in those being diagnosed with mesothelioma.

Sadly, meso research funding lags far behind that of other cancers with similar mortality rates. Myeloma and melanoma had £5 million and £5.5 million spent on research respectively, which is about 10 times more than on meso—the irony being that the UK has the highest death rate from mesothelioma in the world.

The amendments would kick-start a long-term secure funding stream for further medical research into mesothelioma by placing a hypothecated levy on all members of the industry, not just the big four. There is concern about whether that would create a precedent for such a levy, but that precedent already exists. We have seen levies placed on the gambling industry, under the Gambling Act 2005, to fund projects related to addiction, and on lotteries, for similar reasons. Levies have also been placed on utility companies. This could be done for the right reasons—to provide essential funding for research projects.

I have read Hansard for the previous discussion on this matter, so I know that the Minister pledged to raise the issue with the industry. My sources tell me that that has now happened, so it would be useful to have an update on the meeting. I believe it was agreed that further discussions with the Association of British Insurers and the British Lung Foundation were to be arranged but that this has yet to happen. I appreciate that with the severe weather over the Christmas period there may have been a delay, but it would be extremely helpful to the House if the Minister could update us on where he thinks this is now going. While I recognise the desire from the Minister for it to remain a voluntary agreement between the industry and research organisations, I would be keen to hear what he intends to do if there is no long-term stable funding agreement, and whether he would commit to introducing secondary legislation to this Bill if that is the case. It would also be helpful if the Minister could commit to the Government overseeing the facilitation of the voluntary scheme. By what date does he hope it will be in force, and can he say in terms how much he would hope the funding to be?

Mesothelioma is undeniably a dreadful condition and research into it is shamefully underfunded. We anticipate more people will be diagnosed over the coming years, from all occupational backgrounds, so it would be helpful to have a strong commitment from the Minister —albeit one recognising that this is not wholly his departmental responsibility—that there will be progress in trying to discover a cure and/or suitable treatment to relieve the horrible suffering from mesothelioma.

In moving the new clause, I hope that I have done justice to the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East on the need for extra funding for research, and I look forward to the Minister’s reply.

[Hon. Members]

Hear, hear!

--- Later in debate ---

I have done everything I was asked to do and had committed to doing in Committee. Much more work is to be done, but I cannot break the deal that has been agreed. I am afraid that this is going to be a repetitive comment from me, as it was in Committee. I see the right hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East (Mr Brown) nodding, because he knows of the constraints I am under, just as the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East always knew. We need the deal to go through, so that we can get the compensation going out as soon as possible. With that, I respectfully ask for the new clause to be withdrawn, although I would fully understand it if we proceeded to a vote.

[Tracey Crouch]

This has been an incredibly hard debate for me to participate in. I do not think I have ever contributed to a debate on mesothelioma in this place without opposite me the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins) discussing the surrounding issues. He is a decent man and he would have heard what the Minister said; he would have understood the lengths to which the Minister has gone to make some progress on the issue. As the Minister says, none of us probably knows for certain what the right hon. Gentleman would have done on this issue right now. Given that I moved the new clause on his behalf, however, it is incumbent on me to say that I think he would have liked to see a more concrete response, although I say that without any disrespect to the progress that the Minister has made. I would therefore like to press new clause 2 to the vote.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Brown]

On that last point, I am more aware than anyone else in this place could be of the forces that would be in favour of the option to do nothing, and I have paid my tribute to the Minister for doing something rather than nothing. He should take pride in the job he has done, and I pay him all credit for it. That £80 million will be the top figure—it will be the highest possible figure that the officials believe they can give the Minister so that he can use it to dissuade the House. I am not entirely convinced by it. He cannot possibly know the real figure, because we will not know that until the cases come forward—it could well be a lot less. I would be willing to take a chance on it and to do justice to the victims. Let us stand the Minister’s argument on its head. He is inviting us to do the victims of this horrible disease—or, more likely, their families and dependants—out of £80 million. I do not want to do that, so I will want to put the proposition to the vote.

[Tracey Crouch]

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East (Mr Brown), to whose contribution I listened with interest. I rise to speak to amendment 1, which stands in my name and that of other hon. Members from all parts of the House. It is an amendment on a variation of the theme: there is not a consensus, particularly among campaigners for fairer compensation for mesothelioma victims, that the current 75% figure is acceptable. Despite the excellent efforts of Lord Freud and the Minister to bring this Bill before the House, I am afraid that there is still some disappointment that the level of compensation does not go far enough. My amendment seeks to increase the level of compensation from 75% to 80%, and not to the higher percentages proposed by others. Although I recognise that 100% would be the most perfect outcome for victims, the truth is that the Bill would probably not be in front of the House today if that were the case and if that were the only option under consideration.

Although an extra 5% compensation does not sound very much, it is the equivalent of an average extra £6,000 to the victim, which is no small sum to someone trying to finalise their financial arrangements before they pass away. To those of us who seek justice on their behalf, that seems a much fairer figure, not least because they will be asked to give back 100% of the industrial disease and social security benefits that they have received as a consequence of getting mesothelioma, and that is estimated to be around £20,000 on average.

Much has already been said on that issue during previous stages of this Bill in both Houses. I will repeat what I said on Second Reading, which is that Lord Freud deserves praise for negotiating with the insurance industry and for raising the original figure for compensation from 70% to 75%. However, sources in the insurance industry told me that Lord Freud himself wanted 80%, and therefore by moving this amendment today, I am merely reiterating the Minister’s previous desire for a better outcome. Then, with the support from colleagues today, he could have a parliamentary mandate to go back to the industry to start renegotiating compensation levels.

The negotiations and their subsequent outcome were based around another figure—that of the cost of the scheme to the insurance industry being no more than 3% of gross written premium. The argument for introducing the arbitrary figure of 3% was to ensure that the insurance industry would not pass on to its own customers the cost of running the scheme. In its more recent impact assessment, the Government surprisingly stated:

“It is possible that insurers will pass the cost of the scheme onto customers via increased premiums. If it did happen the impact on customers would be relatively low, estimated at 2.46% on average per year on EL insurance premiums.”

Given that inflation is currently running higher than the estimated potential increase in employers’ liability premiums as outlined in the impact assessment, I am pretty certain that the premiums will go up regardless of this scheme. That means that the insurance industry will incur no net loss as a consequence, especially as it will still receive the same Government funding incentive to smooth the first four years of the running of the scheme. The argument being put forward about the EL insurance premium rise is a bit of a red herring. The real debate is around the assumptions of the scheme. Under previous assumptions of legal costs, the scheme could have been extended to provide compensation of 80%. We have had that debate before. We had it on Second Reading and throughout the Committee stage, and the right hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East has mentioned it again. Revised figures of costs—assumptions provided to the Department by insurance and personal injury lawyers—mean that 80% compensation would push the levy over a four-year period above the 3% figure, albeit marginally. However, over a 10-year period—the period I too prefer to look at given the longevity of the mesothelioma disease and when it is likely to occur—80% compensation is well below the threshold at 2.61%. Arguments over the precise nature of legal costs aside, albeit ones that were superbly made in Committee by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Stephen Phillips), it seems incredibly unfair that two days before Second Reading in this House, assumptions were changed, and that was wholly for the convenience of the insurance industry. Unfortunately, that means that the victims of the disease will not get the extra compensation they deserve.

I have been warned that if my amendment were to be agreed, the insurance industry would walk away from providing the scheme. I am afraid to say that that is bunkum, and it would be incredibly foolish of the industry to do such a thing. It has highly paid public affairs advisers—I should know as I was one before I entered this House—who will be telling their bosses to read the mood music from the contributions to debates on this Bill in both Houses. There have been calls for the scheme to pay out compensation of 110%, 100% and 90%. There have been calls for the legislation to extend to other asbestos diseases such as pleural plaques and to include those suffering from mesothelioma from secondary sources. There have been references to the profits made by the UK’s £40 billion insurance industry and there have been expressions of disappointment in the long-term failure of the industry to deal with this matter prior to statutory intervention via this Bill.

Do I think the insurance industry will walk away from this Bill leaving tens of thousands of mesothelioma victims without compensation? We are talking about victims who contracted a fatal disease because they did the honourable thing and went to work to provide for their family and who need this scheme because of poor record keeping by the insurance industry and/or their employers. No, I do not think that will happen.

[Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on what she has done and on what she is saying so far today. I hope that she is right, but does she not understand the track record of these insurance companies? They have challenged mesothelioma victims for decades, and I hope that we can stop them today because people are getting fed up with the way they behave.

[Tracey Crouch]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. Decades ago, the insurance industry would have held up its hands and said that, in hindsight, it had treated victims very badly. To be fair to the bigger players in the insurance industry, they have certainly tried, over the past five to 10 years, to improve the system of compensation for victims. They have set up the Employers' Liability Tracing Office and provided funding for research. Some of those bigger insurers have started to play catch-up for the mesothelioma victims. However, I recognise the concerns expressed by the Opposition over pleural plaques. As it happens, I was part of the insurance team that ensured that pleural plaques did not become a legislative issue in this House, and I stand by that decision today. That will remain a difference of opinion that we have on a specific asbestos-related disease. Where we do need consensus is over mesothelioma. It is a fatal condition and one that will kill somebody incredibly quickly and very painfully. I want to make sure that those victims who cannot trace their insurer or employer have access to the scheme and get the highest amount of compensation possible.

[Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. She said that people will be looking at this debate and, with that in mind, I hope that she understands that I also want to support her amendment this afternoon. However, the impact of the £6,000 she mentioned—the additional 5%—on the people in my constituency who have been affected, or know someone who has been affected, by this, cannot be underestimated. I entirely concur with what she said on the figure, and I hope that the Minister will listen and consider how the £6,000 will impact on the people in our areas.

[Tracey Crouch]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that issue. The people we represent share a similar profile and we both have former dockers in our constituencies who will contract mesothelioma in the future, so I am very grateful for his support. I know that the current and future victims will be grateful to him.

[Mr Sheerman]

I know that the point about traditional employment and so on has been reiterated many times, but my dear brother, Robert—Rob—who died of this disease, worked in the research centre at Sunbury-on-Thames for British Petroleum, one of the leading science and technology companies in the country. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East (Mr Brown) said, those people knew about the disease very early on. Does the hon. Lady agree that the insurance industry too often hides behind the trade association, the Association of British Insurers? We cannot get through to the real insurers as that very combative trade association gives them cover.

[Tracey Crouch]

I am interested in the hon. Gentleman’s first point about occupations. We must be very clear that this situation is not confined to the traditional working class, although it is more likely to be prominent as they were more exposed to asbestos than anybody else. Anyone who has been exposed to asbestos is in danger of contracting mesothelioma.

On the hon. Gentleman’s second point, he must recognise that there are 150 players in the insurance industry and it is only fair that they should have a trade association that represents them. When I recently looked through the ministerial meeting list, I noticed that although the ABI was meeting Ministers, it did so with the top four insurers by its side. There are representatives in such meetings of the individual insurers as well as the trade association.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tracey Crouch]

I am pleased that we have reached Third Reading of this Bill. It is a welcome Bill, but I remain disappointed that it is not as good as it could and should have been if we were to provide fair and reasonable justice to the victims of mesothelioma. I recognise the constraints that the Minister was under as a consequence of the negotiations that were made before the Bill entered this Chamber. Although it is a good day for the victims of mesothelioma, it could have been a great day for them had some of the amendments that were tabled on Report been listened to.

[Mike Penning]

Let me place it on the record—I think I did this earlier—that my hon. Friend could not have done more for her constituents during the progression of this Bill through the House. I paid tribute to her earlier on, and I do so again now.

[Tracey Crouch]

I am grateful to the Minister for his comments. My constituency has high levels of mesothelioma because of its dockyard history and the heavy industries that surround the Medway towns. Earlier, the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) expressed concern that I might be poacher turned gamekeeper as a consequence of my time in the insurance industry before coming to this place and trying to secure better compensation for mesothelioma victims. My bosses from my previous life know that I was strong campaigner for mesothelioma victims. Indeed I was proud of the efforts that I took during my time in the insurance industry to try to improve access to compensation. It just so happens that I was also elected to a constituency that has high levels of mesothelioma.

I am pleased that we had a debate today, but, as I have said, I remain slightly disappointed that nothing has happened to the Bill since it received its Second Reading. I see that as a failure in the way that Parliament works. Although I pay tribute to the Minister’s officials, who have worked incredibly hard and been generous with their time, it is a shame that the Bill that was prepared before our debate in Parliament is exactly the same now despite the fact that there is a strong will on both sides of the House to improve the legislation.

Let me pay tribute, as I did on Second Reading, to Lord Freud. He had a difficult time in getting the insurance industry to the table. I notice from the list of meetings that he met with the industry many times. Although he has had fewer meetings with the asbestos working group, it has had access to civil servants. He has done a good job, and would, I think, share the Minister’s view that this is not a perfect Bill. In a perfect world, he would have liked much better legislation.

None the less, both Ministers, my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning) and Lord Freud, are quite right when they say that this legislation would not have happened had it not been for this Government, and I welcome that. I remember the negotiations that took place with the previous Government and it is quite right for the Ministers to say that they are proud of where they have got to. Mesothelioma victims will be better off as they will have access to some compensation but, as I have said, I still think that the Bill is flawed.

I also want to pay tribute to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Stephen Phillips), who did a fantastic job in Committee in raising many of the issues I would have liked to have raised personally. He brought to the debate understanding of the issues of mesothelioma and the concerns of the victims. Having met victims, he understands how awful the disease is, that it is a fatal disease that can be contracted only through exposure to asbestos and that victims will, unfortunately, die an incredibly painful death. He did a fantastic job of bringing forward many of the points I would have liked to have made.

I also want again to pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins). He and I have worked on this issue for many months and years and it seems strange to stand up in this Chamber and discuss mesothelioma without his being in the House. I hope that he recognises that those of us who have tabled amendments and spoken in the debate have done so partly on his behalf. He has been a sound campaigner on the issue for many years. He is a decent man and all he wants to do is to try to improve the compensation for victims of this dreadful disease.

I look forward to the publication of the regulations and welcome the fact that there will be a review of the legislation. Like the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), I rather innocently and possibly even naively believe that we should be making legislation that does not need to be reviewed in four years’ time and that it could be better scrutinised and considered in this place and in the other place before it passes into law. We are where we are, however, so I congratulate the Minister on getting the Bill through the House on time. I am pleased that many victims will secure some sort of compensation for a disease that they got simply by going to work.

Mesothelioma Bill [Lords]

Tracey Crouch Excerpts

Monday 2nd December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to speak on this issue, on which I have a great deal of knowledge from working in the insurance industry for five years before I became a Member of Parliament and from representing a constituency with very high levels of mesothelioma. Britain has the highest rate of mesothelioma in the world and sadly that rate is rising. In the past five years, the south-east of England has had the highest rates of deaths from mesothelioma compared with anywhere else in the UK. Medway, with its heavy industry and dockyard history, is a particular hot spot.

Mesothelioma is a horrific disease that is contracted exclusively by exposure to asbestos. Those who are diagnosed are often dead within a year. For many years, lawyers and insurers have taken their time to settle claims through civil procedures, leaving great financial uncertainty for sufferers and their families. A great deal has been done to speed up civil claims for victims and tribute ought to be paid to the work of Senior Master Whitaker for making that happen. However, there remains a small yet significant group of people who contracted mesothelioma but could not be compensated either because of poor record keeping by their employer or their employer’s insurer, or because neither existed any more.

The Bill will help to rectify that and is therefore welcome, but it still contains shortcomings that, if Ministers, insurers and lawyers were open-minded, could be rectified at little extra cost to them. Before going into detail, I congratulate Lord Freud on his sterling efforts to introduce the Bill. From my own experience of working in the insurance industry and alongside lawyers, I know that the negotiations would have been very difficult. He deserved the praise he received from peers on both sides of the House as the Bill progressed through the other place, but it still lacks fair compensation for victims of this dreadful disease.

In my preliminary discussions with interested parties, there was consensus on one point: the Bill will give sufferers something. That is true and something might be better than nothing, but the Bill puts the something squarely in the pockets of the insurers and lawyers, and not as much as there should be in the hands of the victim. The victim is the one who turned up to work and was exposed to asbestos. The victim is the one who happened to work for a company that kept shoddy records. The victim is the one who will die through no fault of his own. The Bill has room for improvement, based on further compromise.

Their lordships debated the Bill on a set of assumptions that have been revised since it has progressed to this place. The goalposts have moved. It is a shame that what should be a simple piece of legislation has become so mired in suspicion and confusion regarding what is and is not included in the levy. When the Bill was discussed in the Lords, Lord Freud made it clear that the levy could not be more than 3% gross written premium. That was to ensure that insurers financing the scheme would not incur additional costs that would be passed on to their existing customers. At that point, the levy agreed with the insurance industry was 75% and equated to, as illustrated in the Department for Work and Pensions’ own analysis in support of the Bill, 2.79% GWP in the first four years of the scheme and 2.27% GWP in the first 10 years of the scheme.

Since the debate in the Lords, the assumptions relating to legal costs have changed. Their lordships debated a fixed legal fee of £2,000, but we are now debating a fee of £7,000. In truth, there is total confusion about who will pay the fee. As the Association of British Insurers understands it, it will be paid by claimants out of their compensation which the Government will uplift accordingly. Not only is it unclear what precisely the fee is for, but what the other 25% is paying to administer. It would be helpful if the Government clarified who pays the legal fees. Is it the claimants out of their compensation or the insurance companies out of the administration fee? If it is the claimants, we need to be absolutely clear that when they are awarded £57,000 of compensation, £7,000 of legal fees will have to be deducted from that award.

Lawyers, insurers and the Government are, unsurprisingly, at loggerheads on the fixed fee, presumably because if it is acceptable for this scheme, why could it not be applied to civil claims? Where would it fit into the LASPO review that the Ministry of Justice is expected to complete and report on next year? At the heart of the Bill is supposed to be the fact that the victim is coming into the scheme at last resort. A lot of what is required will have already been done, so lawyers in a civil claim might not be as necessary as they would be in this scheme. Senior Master Whitaker has helped a great deal and the Department is clear that in some circumstances a medical report would be enough. The underlying point, however, is that because of the revised estimates, about which I remain sceptical, there is no room to raise the compensation limit from 75% to 80%—a much fairer level of financial recompense for victims of the disease. In his introduction, the Minister said that 75% is not the important figure and that the 3% levy is. With the greatest respect to the Minister, it is the level of compensation that is important to the victim, not what the level of GWP is to the insurance industry.

[Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con)]

My hon. Friend mentioned that Medway is a hot spot for the disease. There have been 42 deaths in my constituency in the past five years—a greater number even than in her constituency, and about three times the national average. She mentioned the 3% and 75% figures. Is it not the case that the changes to which she referred will affect the sums relating to the 3% cap? If that is so, will it not be open to Ministers to show some compromise or movement in the direction that she is so ably arguing for?

[Tracey Crouch]

My hon. Friend is right that our constituencies are particularly affected and I am delighted to see him in his place to debate this important issue. He makes an important point. The Government have set a cap of 3% and there is no room for manoeuvre unless they are willing to stand up to the insurance industry and say that there is a firm view on both sides of the House that the 75% they have currently negotiated is not good enough. They need to agree on another figure. I believe that 80% would be appropriate as a good compromise between the 90% being called for by the lawyers—they cite the Financial Services Compensation Scheme as a useful comparator—and the 70% the insurers were originally willing to accept. Furthermore, with the previous assumptions under which their lordships debated the Bill, 80% would have been 2.98% GWP over the first four years and 2.42% over 10 years. Now, with the 3% cap, under the new legal costs associated with the scheme, there is no room for manoeuvre. I find that disappointing, unless the Minister is willing to stand up to the insurance industry and discuss this.

[Mr Anderson]

The hon. Lady is making a compelling case. Does she agree that, as the Minister said, the employers were 100% to blame, that the insurance companies have had 100% contributions for many years, that the Government are asking for 100% clawback on DWP benefits and that, sadly, 100% of the victims are dead? Is there not a clear moral case for this House to accept nothing less than 100% compensation for the people who have died?

[Tracey Crouch]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I was persuaded by the 100% argument, but having read the House of Lords debate, I now think that 100% would not be right. There is room for compromise on the percentage and we need to ensure that we put the victim at the heart of the compensation scheme—not the insurers and lawyers who may ultimately benefit from it.

I am also concerned about the lack of clarity on assumptions relating to the age of people diagnosed with mesothelioma. Some think that those accessing the scheme will be younger than the current age group of claimants going through civil schemes, whereas the Department has assumed that there will be an older age group. I tend to believe that, as employers’ liability insurance has been compulsory since 1972, and given this disease’s latency, those unlikely to be able to trace their insurer, making them eligible for this scheme, would surely be older and the younger workers would be fewer. Again, there is room for negotiation with the insurance industry over the compensation levy.

I understand that the industry is worried about a cohort of younger people who might access the scheme because of exposure in schools and other areas with a less obvious asbestos risk. I am afraid that that is bunkum, because not only would schools have some form of liability insurance, but it would be possible to access compensation via civil procedures. For me, the current 25% running cost of the scheme is far too high, and I genuinely think that this is a poor outcome for the sufferer and a good outcome for the industry, which, as the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson) said, has behaved poorly over many decades in this area.

[Mike Penning]

I am conscious that during the course of the debate I may be able to alleviate some concerns across the House about how the scheme is proceeding. Earlier in her comments, my hon. Friend asked whether the legal fees would be in addition or inclusive. They are clearly in addition to any payments that the person receives from the scheme.

[Tracey Crouch]

We will have an interesting discussion about that in Committee. The representations I have received are contrary to what the Minister says, suggesting that the fees would still come from the claimant, albeit that the Government will uplift the amount of compensation payable in the first place. A victim might get £57,000, for example, but would then have to pay the £7,000 fee out of it—unless the legal fee comes in lower than that, in which case they get to keep the difference.

[Mike Penning]

Let me clarify once and for all that the legal fee of £7,000 is outside the payment. If people do not spend £7,000, they keep the difference. It is outside, not part of, the compensation.

[Tracey Crouch]

As I say, we will have an interesting debate in Committee. Is the Minister saying that the insurance industry will pick up the legal fee? Where is this magic legal fee coming from? Who is paying for it? If it is not the claimant, it must surely be in the 25% administration costs. Officials have said that it is not within those costs, so we are going to have an interesting debate about where this £7,000 is coming from and, indeed, what it actually equates to.

[Stephen Phillips (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

The Bill went through the other place on the basis that the legal fees would be £2,000, yet we are now told that they are £7,000. The Minister needs to respond to my hon. Friend’s earlier point that one could move to an 80% level of compensation and accommodate it if the legal fees were indeed £2,000 within the 80% of gross written premium. One could not do it otherwise. It could not be accommodated if the legal fees were £7,000. There is room for manoeuvre if the assumption on which the other place proceeded—namely that the legal fees would be £2,000—is correct, but the Minister needs to be clear in the concluding speech about where this £7,000 figure has come from.

[Tracey Crouch]

I am grateful for my hon. and learned Friend’s intervention. The irony is that, when the Bill first started in the House of Lords, the figure of £7,000 was debated, but the assumption was subsequently revised down to £2,000 and then back up to £7,000. Under the original £7,000 assumption, however, the DWP calculations were exactly the same as they were when £2,000 was being discussed. Unfortunately, it is completely unclear to anyone who has paid any attention to this Bill precisely who is paying for this, what it includes and how the victim can still be put at the heart of it all.

On one particular point, I pay tribute to the insurance industry. It improved over the years in its financing of research into mesothelioma. This began when I was working at Aviva—I am not talking all the credit for it, but it did—as an attempt to stop the last Government from following the lead of Scotland and legislating too harshly on other asbestos diseases such as pleural plaques. As it happens, I supported the last Government’s resistance to following Scotland and was pleased that the top four insurers contributed to research funding into mesothelioma instead. That said, the funding runs out next year, and there has currently been no voluntary commitment—not just from the top four, but from all EL insurers—to contribute further money into research. I think that is a dreadful shame, which will have a major impact on future treatments to alleviate suffering at a time when we expect meso-diagnosis to spike. I share the views of the British Lung Foundation—supported, I believe, by the Association of British Insurers—about building the continuation of funding directly into the Bill. It is sad that a £4 billion EL industry cannot make a voluntary offering, spread equally across all insurers. If that is so, we parliamentarians now have a statutory opportunity to force them to do so.

[Mr Anderson]

The hon. Lady is generous in giving way. Is she aware that when the pleural plaques legislation went through the other place and the Law Lords decided that it would no longer be compensated, KPMG estimated that the insurance companies had a £1.4 billion windfall, so surely a little bit of that could go into the research that she is talking about?

--- Later in debate ---

[Tracey Crouch]

I do, indeed, remember that. I remember having long conversations about pleural plaques with the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr Hepburn), who has been a long-time campaigner on the issue. As it happens, I disagreed with the idea of compensating pleural plaques. Everybody involved with this Bill well knows that I am passionate about mesothelioma—a disease from which people will die, and quickly—but I have never thought of extending the provisions to other diseases. I supported what the industry did on pleural plaques, but I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point.

Let me quickly turn to the issue of benefit recovery. While I agree that this scheme should follow civil procedures and recover benefits from those who have received payments until their compensation has been paid, I think it incredibly unfair that a claimant who is getting the equivalent of 75% compensation to that from a civil claim must repay 100% of his benefits. To return to the main point of the Bill, the claimant is accessing the scheme because of poor practices by employers and insurers after having been negligently exposed to asbestos. I feel that the victim is the one who will lose out here, so I hope we get an opportunity to look carefully at the recovery issue in Committee.

Finally, let me briefly mention secondary exposure. I understand why diagnosis of mesothelioma caused by secondary exposure from asbestos is excluded from this Bill, but this is an area that I genuinely hope the Department is looking at pursuing. The numbers are small, but I would hazard a pretty good guess that most victims of secondary exposure will be women, who are sufferers of this dreadful cancer purely because they did their wifely duty and washed their husband’s overalls. These women deserve to be compensated, too. They receive payment under the Child Maintenance and Other Payments Act 2008, so it is an accepted cause of suffering, but a proper compensation scheme should be considered for the future.

While I worked in the industry, I campaigned hard for better, faster justice for those who would die from mesothelioma. I may have been an irritant in the industry, but I was passionate that, after decades of poor behaviour, something had to change. Improvements were made and I was proud to be a part of those small, but important developments. However, in the middle of a constant stand-off between insurers and lawyers remains a person who will die a most horrible death, and at present this Bill, while welcome in principle, still puts too much in the pockets of other interested parties. I hope that Ministers both in this place and the other place will remain open-minded and listen to the concerns of colleagues on both sides and ultimately be willing to go back to the insurers and lawyers and fight just a little harder for the victims of mesothelioma. To my mind, it is the very least that they deserve.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Buckland]

I am certainly not going to insult my hon. Friend, but what I will say is that payments after death are governed by the 1976 Act and payments before death fall under common law, so different rules and regimes apply. As I have said, in Scotland there has been some move to try to align certain aspects—but not by any means all aspects—of the rights of dependants, relating to mesothelioma in particular.

There are practical alternatives, and in her excellent speech my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) made a point that deserves re-emphasis. The work of the senior master of the Queen’s bench division, Master Whitaker, should be singled out for particular praise because he and his colleagues have developed specialist lists that, in effect, create a fast-track procedure for the efficient resolution of liability issues. The fast-track procedure allows for summary judgment to be passed where sufficient evidence has been demonstrated by claimants about exposure to asbestos in breach of duty and where defendants then have to show cause—reversing the burden, as it were—on evidence why that liability should not be proved. With the resolution of liability, interim payments can be made to claimants and their families to meet the claimants’ needs during life, but that interim payment does not bring resolution or quantum to a close. That can be achieved by a stay of the claim until after death, to allow the full quantum—the final value—of that claim to be properly assessed.

It is important that we make these points because if we are truly to address the needs of victims and their families, we have to understand what they need, rather than just make glib assumptions about brevity and the need to tie things up before the tragic event of the death of a victim.

We know that over the next 30 years mesothelioma will claim about 60,000 lives, and that means about 2,500 people will be dying every year from this aggressive cancer. This particular scheme deals with last-resort claims where there is no other alternative. Already we have seen welcome changes by the Government in the other place, by conceding the 70% levy and raising it to 75%, on figures that at the time in question still represented under 3% of the gross written premium for employer liability insurance. I know that these figures have been updated, but when this Bill reaches Committee more particularity must be given as to the basis for those updated figures, because it is crucial if we are to have a meaningful continuing negotiation with the insurance industry—which I think we should—that we know precisely what we are dealing with.

I know my hon. Friend the Minister cannot commit himself and the Government to particular figures today, but I urge him—and I know he will listen—to keep those figures open and to look to see if we can get a greater proportion, and whether we can achieve 80% as my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford suggested. The more we get, the more justice we will deliver for the victims and their families.

[Tracey Crouch]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the insurance industry is unlikely to walk away from this scheme because of a very small uplift to 80%, given that it already has an incredibly bad reputation, thanks to the way it has dealt with mesothelioma victims? The notion that, all of a sudden, the entire scheme is going to fall apart because of a small, continuous uplift to 80%, and that the insurance industry is just going to walk away, is absolute nonsense.

[Mr Buckland]

I agree with my hon. Friend. I do not believe that the industry, which has rightly been criticised for lack of action and lack of resolution, would dare risk further opprobrium by appearing to be even more unreasonable at the end of what has already been a lengthy—some would say over-prolonged—negotiation process.

My hon. Friend made an interesting point about the industry’s argument regarding the likely age of claimants. Her point has real merit and force, because as she rightly says, given the changes in the law—the Employers’ Liability (Compulsory Insurance) Act 1969 and the introduction of compulsory employers’ liability some 41 years ago—the issue of traceability of insurers surely belongs to a period before the introduction of such legislation. That must mean that the cohort of claimants who would be eligible under this scheme will be older, rather than younger. I fail to see any clear basis for the assertion that we will be dealing with a younger group of claimants. It is important that we as legislators, both here and in Committee, seek to challenge and probe at every stage glib assertions made on behalf of an industry that, although it is now coming to the table, should have done so some years ago.

I welcome the Bill and all measures that create a degree of justice for those who, as a result of unfortunate accident, are unable to trace employers or insurers. But at the very least, when we make such legislation, it is our duty to ensure that we drive the best possible deal for our constituents and that they get in fullest possible measure the justice they so clearly deserve.