Mr.
Murphy: Yes. Jim Griffiths spoke no English until the age
of five and went on to serve as the first Secretary of State for Wales.
It is no longer fashionable to celebrate post-war political leaders,
but Labour Members pay tribute to the work that he did and we
continue. Mr.
Jeremy Hunt (South-West Surrey) (Con): Mrs.
Thatcher.
Mr.
Murphy: That is the point I was making—it is no
longer fashionable to celebrate them, unless Polly Toynbee has become a
post-war political
leader. Jim Griffiths
was Minister of National Insurance in Attlee’s Government.
Today, workers throughout the country are still benefiting in a very
important way from his determination. It is appropriate, on the 60th
anniversary of the industrial injuries disablement benefit, that we
ensure that that legacy is kept contemporary by acknowledging the
changing nature of industrial injury. I am referring to differences to
do with gender, the changing of industry and the effect that that has
had on industrial
injuries.
Mr.
David: May I acknowledge how warmly the Minister’s
comments are received, certainly by Labour Members? He aptly referred
to Jim Griffiths, the MP for Llanelli and a miners’ leader
before the second world war, who experienced first hand the impact of
industrial disease on the community of which he was part. It is apt and
fitting that the Minister should have referred to him in the way that
he did. If it is introduced, this Bill will be a continuation of the
ethos to which pioneers of the labour movement such as Jim Griffiths
aspired. We warmly welcome the Minister’s
comments. 9.30
am
Mr.
Murphy: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. Perhaps
more poignantly, Jim went on to be the deputy leader of the Labour
party. I do not think that anyone in the Committee is currently seeking
that post, but there is poignancy there—and a lesson, because
Jim ended up being deputy leader in opposition, a sober reminder for us
all. Given all those
wider comments, and the additional tribute that my hon. Friend quite
fairly paid, I ask the Committee to support the
amendment. Amendment
agreed
to. Schedule 6,
as amended, agreed to.
Clause
58“Dependant” Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Danny
Alexander: I want not to tour through Labour party
history, but to join the cross-party consensus on the importance of
this clause, and the previous clause and schedule, to the righting of
an injustice—in the system for a substantial
period—against those unfortunate enough to be victims of
mesothelioma. I
should be grateful if the Minister could clarify whether the clause
will deal with something of particular concern to those campaigning on
this issue. I wish to add to the Minister’s list the work of my
hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Paul Rowen), many of whose
constituents suffer from mesothelioma. I hope that the implications of
this clause are that compensation for the condition will be payable not
only to the workers who were exposed to the particles that cause the
horrendous disease, but to their wives, partners, civil partners and so
forth, who may, for example, have taken in the particles while washing
clothes or doing other household tasks.
Will the Minister clarify
whether the coverage for partners, spouses and so forth will be on the
same basis as that for the workers themselves? What would happen if a
worker had already passed away, but their partner or spouse were
suffering from the condition, which could be attributable to their late
husband, wife or partner in respect of employment as defined under
schedule 6? With
those few remarks and in a spirit of welcoming what the Government seek
to do, I should be grateful if the Minister answered those brief
points.
Mr.
Murphy: The hon. Gentleman fairly draws the
Committee’s attention to the work undertaken by the hon. Member
for Rochdale on this issue, along with many others in that part of the
country. Untypically,
the hon. Gentleman has not fully grasped the specific detail of what we
are seeking to do, although not for any unreasonable purpose—he
is not seeking to misconstrue the clause. I shall make a couple of
comments about his
request. Clause 58
amends the Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) Act 1979,
to which I have already referred, so that civil partners, children of
civil partners, a person who is living with a sufferer as if they were
a civil partner and a person who is living with a sufferer as if they
were husband and wife are included within the meaning of
“dependant”. The clause makes the 1979 Act compatible
with the Civil Partnerships Act 2004, which came into force in December
2005, and was largely unforeseen when the 1979 Act was passed.
[Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley, from
a sedentary position, celebrates the passing of the Civil Partnerships
Act.
Mr.
Ruffley: Don’t we
all.
Mr.
Murphy: We all do, as I was about to say.
This important proposal corrects
an anomaly in the 1979 Act in which provision for Scottish reputed
spouses—a man and a woman living together as husband and
wife—was omitted in error. If these changes are not made, there
is a risk of challenge to the 1979 Act because of discrimination on the
grounds of sexual orientation. Whether there is such a challenge or
not, the Government wish to bring the Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers'
Compensation) Act up to date to fit in with the wider civil rights and
equality legislation that came into force last
year. The hon. Member
for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey mentioned the work of his
hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale, who works closely with my hon.
Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Jim Dobbin). They are
parliamentary neighbours and both work hard on this issue.
The hon. Member for Inverness,
Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey mentioned the case of someone who
contracts mesothelioma from a particle from a piece of clothing in a
household environment. For example, a wife—it is almost always a
wife, but I am not trying to make a gender-specific point—may
have contracted the disease by inhaling a particle from clothing as she
washed it or hang it out to dry. Clause 58 does not capture that but we
are looking at the issue in the context of a wider review of how we
treat mesothelioma generally, although that is not the purpose of the
clause. However, it is part of the considerations at the mesothelioma
summit and the work being carried out by the Industrial Injuries
Advisory Council. The clause does not, in itself, give legal effect in
respect of the specific concerns that the hon. Gentleman
raised.
Kali
Mountford (Colne Valley) (Lab): I am grateful to my hon.
Friend for his remarks. I referred to exactly the issues that he raises
in my maiden speech, and we have moved on some distance since then.
Sadly, we have now lost the constituents to whom I referred then and
still time moves on. He acknowledged how speedy we must be in resolving
these matters, but I hope that he also realises that people need
resolution now. I accept what he says about the March time scale, but
the matter must be settled before more people are
lost.
Mr.
Murphy: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, which is why
the Secretary of State announced interim measures in July and a
longer-term review, the consultation on which closed a week ago. Last
week, with my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone,
I met the entirely reputable and determined solicitors Thompsons, who
made similar points. I acknowledge that even the time scale of March
next year does not meet our collective impatience for an immediate
resolution of the issue, but we are determined to get it right, for all
our constituents who have lived with the disease or who, unbeknown to
them, have the disease gestating within
them.
Danny
Alexander: I echo from the Opposition Benches the point
made by the hon. Member for Colne Valley. It is critical that the
matter is dealt with as quickly as possible. Will the Minister give us
any indication of the time scales? Does he envisage
legislation going through this Session in which it will be appropriate
to include additional powers that are needed to address the point that
he raises? In that way, the legislation can be got through this Session
and we will not need another Queen’s Speech before moving the
matter forward in the way referred to by the hon.
Lady.
Mr.
Murphy: We are determined to find a speedy remedy to this
issue in any way possible. That is why we amended the Compensation Bill
in the light of the Barker case, to right what we thought was a wrong
judgment. We cannot pre-empt—the hon. Gentleman will accept that
this is a fair comment—the outcome of the consultation that we
have had from July to November, but if the outcome is that legislation
would be needed, we will try to implement that speedily. There are,
however, other things that we can do with the insurance industry and
others to see whether a voluntary code would work.
My final point is that
sufferers and relatives of those who have died from mesothelioma and
related illnesses are right to be utterly impatient. At some point,
they would lose faith in a voluntary code and a set of voluntary
operations if we did not make such provisions work, so we are
determined to make them work. Those comments are not intended to
pre-empt in any way the outcome of the consultation and the
deliberations ahead of the summit next
March. Question put
and agreed to.
Clause 58 ordered to stand
part of the
Bill. Clauses
59 and 60 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
61Minor
and consequestial amendments relating to Part
4 Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Danny
Alexander: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise one
or two points that fit appropriately under this clause. Schedule 7
makes minor amendments and amendments consequential to part 4. I would
like to use this opportunity, under your guidance, Mr. Hood,
to raise a related point, which is a matter that should have been
considered under this part and may well be considered in more detail in
another place, assuming that the Bill reaches that stage.
My point relates to the remit
of the Social Security Advisory Committee, and hon. Members will be
aware that that is not dealt with under schedule 7. Under the Tax
Credits Act 2002, all functions in respect of child benefit and
guardian’s allowance were transferred to what is now called Her
Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, though they remain social
security benefits, as entitlement to them arises under the Social
Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992, which is amended by
schedule 7. I wish to put on record my point about the importance of
amending the Bill to extend the remit of the Social Security Advisory
Committee to cover guardian’s allowance and child
benefit. As the Committee will know, that was the case before the
administrative functions in respect of those benefits were transferred
to Her Majesty’s Revenue and
Customs. 9.45 am
Hon. Members will be aware of
the important work done on this Bill by the Social Security Advisory
Committee, and those with more experience in the House than I will no
doubt be aware of its important work on many other pieces of
legislation. However, it seems a little odd—to put it
minimally—that its remit has not been extended to guardians
allowance and child benefit as a consequence, albeit it perhaps an
unforeseen one, of the Tax Credits Act
2002. The Work and
Pensions Committee has recommended that the Social Security Advisory
Committee has its statutory remit extended to legislation that arises
under the Tax Credits Act. I shall not go into great detail at the
moment, Mr. Hood, as I do not wish to try your patience at
this late stage in our proceedings. However, I hope that having brought
this to the Under-Secretary’s attention, she will look again at
the matter and, perhaps, bring forward, or get her hon. Friend the
Minister of State to bring forward, further comment or consideration
when the Bill is considered in another
place.
Mrs.
McGuire: It is interesting to be asked about a schedule
that is not actually in the Bill, but perhaps I should clarify for the
Committee that those are matters for the Treasury. However, there are
informal arrangements between Her Majesty’s Treasury and SSAC
whereby the latter considers guardians allowance and child benefit.
That was discussed at length during consideration of the Tax Credits
Act. I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is aware that that
discussion took place. Obviously, we will reflect further on his point,
although there have been significant discussions already.
Question put and agreed
to. Clause 61
ordered to stand part of the
Bill. Schedule
7 agreed
to. Clauses 62
to 64 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
65Repeals Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Danny
Alexander: As the Committee will know, clause 65 gives
effect to schedule 8, which repeals existing legislation relating to
key parts of the Bill, not least part 1. It might seem like some time
ago that we discussed it, but the matters that I wish to bring to the
Committee’s attention relate back to changes consequential on
part 1. The items repealed under schedule 8 include parts of existing
legislation relating to rates, structures and the entitlement tests for
incapacity benefit and income support. I hope, therefore, to draw a few
things to the Committee’s attention—I think that the
Under-Secretary will be responding to these points, for which I am very
grateful, although, of course, I do not wish to undervalue the Minister
of State’s extensive contributions to
proceedings. Given
that the clause gives effect to schedule 8, which repeals much of the
existing structure, we have an opportunity to gain a little more
clarification on some important points to claimants about the existing
structure that will be removed and the new structure that will replace
it. I hope that I have your leave, Mr. Hood, to proceed with
this point. Little
information is given in the Bill about the employment and support
allowance structure, except for the broad shape of the components. As
we know the employment and support allowance is expected to be above
the current incapacity benefit long-term rate. It is currently
£78.50 per week. The support component is expected to be higher
than the work-related components. That raises some questions, and if we
are talking about repealing clear and detailed legislation, we need a
similarly clear and detailed understanding of the
consequences. What is
the relationship between the means-tested and the contributory strands?
What underpins the difference in the payments rates of the support
component and the work-related activity components? How many existing
claimants will receive more in incapacity benefit and income support
than their employment and support allowance entitlement? We have
debated some of these questions before, but we have not yet had
sufficiently clear answers. The Under-Secretary may not necessarily be
expecting to go back over some of this ground. On that basis and on the
grounds of fairness and reasonableness, which Labour Members know are
two of my favourite
characteristics— John
Robertson (Glasgow, North-West) (Lab): And the
weather.
| 
