The
Committee consisted of the following
Members:
Anderson,
Mr. David
(Blaydon)
(Lab)
Baron,
Mr. John
(Billericay)
(Con)
Barrett,
John
(Edinburgh, West)
(LD)
Blunkett,
Mr. David
(Sheffield, Brightside)
(Lab)
Bottomley,
Peter
(Worthing, West)
(Con)
Chapman,
Ben
(Wirral, South)
(Lab)
Clappison,
Mr. James
(Hertsmere)
(Con)
Heald,
Mr. Oliver
(North-East Hertfordshire)
(Con)
Hepburn,
Mr. Stephen
(Jarrow)
(Lab)
Jones,
Helen
(Warrington, North)
(Lab)
Riordan,
Mrs. Linda
(Halifax)
(Lab/Co-op)
Shaw,
Jonathan
(Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and
Pensions)
Skinner,
Mr. Dennis
(Bolsover)
(Lab)
Smith,
Geraldine
(Morecambe and Lunesdale)
(Lab)
Syms,
Mr. Robert
(Poole)
(Con)
Williams,
Hywel
(Caernarfon) (PC)
Gosia
McBride, Committee Clerk
attended the Committee
Sixth
Delegated Legislation
Committee
Wednesday 4
March
2009
[John
Cummings in the
Chair]
Draft
Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers Compensation) (Payment of Claims)
(Amendment) Regulations
2009
2.34
pm
The
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Jonathan
Shaw): I beg to
move,
That
the Committee has considered the draft Pneumoconiosis etc.
(Workers Compensation) (Payment of Claims) (Amendment)
Regulations
2009.
It
is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr.
Cummings. It is a requirement that I confirm to the Committee that the
provisions are compatible with the European convention on human rights.
I am happy to do
so.
The
regulations will be made under the Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers
Compensation) Act 1979. They will increase the amount of compensation
paid under the 1979 Act by 5 per cent. for those who satisfy the
conditions of entitlement on or after 1 April 2009. Following the
transfer of responsibility for this work to the Department for Work and
Pensions in 2002, we made the commitment to increase the rates of
payment annually. I am happy to honour that commitment
again.
In
previous debates, Ministers have outlined the history and purpose of
the 1979 Act. I will do so briefly for the benefit of anyone who is not
familiar with the scheme. Someone who suffers from a dust-related
industrial disease can sue their employers if the disease was
contracted as a result of working for them. However, diseases covered
by the Act can take a long time to develop and might not be diagnosed
until 20, 40 or even more years after the exposure to dust. By that
time, the employer or employers responsible may no longer exist. It is
not surprising therefore that sufferers and their dependants can suffer
great difficulty in obtaining
compensation.
A
good example is the widespread use of asbestos in shipyards. Many
shipbuilding and ship-repairing companies that traded 20 or more years
ago are no longer in business. That means that people exposed through
their work in shipyards cannot pursue a claim for
damages.
The
Act was introduced in 1979 to help such people and I am pleased that it
has done so. It provides for lump-sum payments to be made to sufferers.
From April 2009, the maximum payment will be just over £74,000
for a person aged 37 or under at diagnosis. That lump sum is received
in addition to any award of industrial injuries disablement benefit. A
person diagnosed with mesothelioma is automatically assessed as 100 per
cent. disabled for industrial injuries benefit. From 2009, that is
equivalent to £143.60 per week. The lump sum is based on a
straightforward calculation that takes into account the age of the
sufferer and the level of their disability. The highest amounts are
paid for those diagnosed at an early age.
Three
conditions must be satisfied before any payment can be made. First, the
sufferer must be entitled to industrial injuries disablement benefit.
Secondly, there must be no relevant employer who can be sued. Thirdly,
no court action can have been brought or compensation received in
respect of the disease that is claimed for under the 1979
Act.
The Act
covers five respiratory diseases, most of which are directly related to
asbestos exposure: mesothelioma, pneumoconiosis, diffuse pleural
thickening, primary carcinoma of the lung following exposure to
asbestos, and byssinosis. However, mesothelioma is the main reason for
a claim being made. About 80 per cent. of the payments are made to
sufferers of that
disease.
The average
payment to sufferers is about £14,800. A lower amount is paid
when a dependant makes the claim after the sufferer has died. The
average payment to dependants is about £5,000. Since the 1979
Act was introduced, payments totalling £256 million have been
made, and payments of just under £26 million have been made in
the last year alone. I am pleased that the scheme continues to perform
an important role. It provides compensation at a critical moment in a
persons
life.
As
most hon. Members present will know, mesothelioma is a severe form of
cancer, which is invariably terminal in a short time scale. Although I
am pleased that we are able to provide substantial financial support, I
am aware that our success in doing so is a sad reflection of the rising
number of people affected by asbestos-related diseases. For every
sufferer of the disease, the situation is tragic. Every section of
society is affected. Colleagues will recall the sadness at the death
last year of our friend John MacDougall to mesothelioma. He is
remembered for his campaigning on the rights of miners. I am sure that
we all support his family in their efforts to set up a trust
fund for the sufferers of lung
diseases.
The
scheme has been very successful, but some sufferers of
mesothelioma are not entitled to any payment under the 1979 Act because
they were not exposed to asbestos in the workplace. In their case,
exposure was environmental, or through a relative who worked with
asbestos. We recognised that that was a weakness in the provision of
compensation, and we have acted to remedy the situation. Legislation
that took effect on 1 October 2008 for the first time provides
compensation to people suffering from mesothelioma, whose exposure
did not occur at work, or where the source of exposure cannot
be identified. In both instances, no case can be pursued for civil
compensation, as no employer can be
identified.
My
officials estimated that, in the first year of the scheme, we could
expect about 1,200 claims. In fact, the numbers in the first four
months are slightly lower than we expected, with just fewer than 300
claims being received. In that period, compensation of just over
£4 million was paid. I am also pleased to report that
the claims under the scheme are being processed very
quickly.
Ben
Chapman (Wirral, South) (Lab): Will the Minister confirm
that former workers at Cammell Lairds, the shipyard on the borders of
my constituency, are just the sort of people who might benefit from the
proposals, especially the uprate?
Jonathan
Shaw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing to the
Committees attention his constituents who worked in that
shipyard. He knows that I, representing Chatham, have many constituents
who benefit from the compensation scheme.
The officials
in the new scheme set a six-week target for paying more than 90 per
cent. of claims, but nearly all payments have been made much
sooneron average, within three weeks, for claims made in the
first three months. I am very pleased, therefore, to report the
successful introduction of the scheme.
However, I
would like to highlight again the numbers of people affected by
mesothelioma. I am sure that we are all aware that the number of
mesothelioma deaths in Great Britain has risen substantially over the
past 30 years, and continues to do so. In 1968, only
153 people died of mesothelioma, in contrast with 2006, when
there were more than 2,000 deaths. The number of deaths continues to
rise, and sadly it is now the most common cause of work-related
death.
I
am sure that we all agree that no amount of money will ever compensate
sufferers and their families. However, the regulations help us to
ensure that compensation provided through the original legislation
maintains its value. I commend the uprating and payment scales to the
Committee, and ask for approval of the
regulations.
2.44
pm
Mr.
James Clappison (Hertsmere) (Con): I share the
Ministers sentiments, Mr. Cummings; it is indeed a
great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, in what
I anticipate will be a short Committee sitting. The Conservative party
certainly has no wish to delay or oppose the passage of the
regulations, because, as the Minister said, this is a long-running
payment scheme to compensate workers and their dependants, as a result
of their exposure, and consequent contraction of a debilitating and
tragic condition. As he said, without the scheme, they would find it
very difficult to claim compensation. In fact, I can go one step
further: given the conditions that must be fulfilled, it is fair to say
that they would find it almost impossible to claim compensation from
any other source.
I had several
questions about the scheme and the state of play, which the explanatory
memorandum did not cover, but happily the Minister answered most of
them in his introductory remarks. He told the Committee that, to date,
about £250 million has been paid out, and that £26
million has been paid this year. It would be helpful if he could write
to me and set out the amounts paid in the past five years, because I
think that the last written parliamentary question on the subject was
tabled in 2004. It would be useful to have information on the scheme to
see how it is operating. I understand that there has been a generally
increasing trend in payments over the past few years. In making that
point, I am conscious that, as the Minister said, such cases can take a
very long time to develop following a workers exposure to the
materials in question.
The Minister
also referred to the additional scheme for those who have contracted
mesothelioma as a result of environmental conditions, as opposed to the
long-running scheme, which compensates people who have been exposed to
asbestos at work. Indeed, there is a
well-known case in Armley in Leeds, where many local families were
exposed to airborne asbestos as a result of their proximity to a local
plant.
In
the spirit of bipartisanship, I pay tribute to two Labour Members who
have fought long-running battles for such people. The hon. Member for
Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) has campaigned
for those who have suffered such conditions, as well as for former
minersthey are in a different categorywho have
similarly suffered as a result of their work. Also, the right hon.
Member for Leeds, West (John Battle) has led a long campaign to obtain
compensation for those who have been exposed environmentally to
asbestos and contracted tragic
conditions.
The
Minister also told us that, as a result of the schemes, an average
payment of £14,800 has been made, as well as £5,000 to
each dependant. We must set those sums against the fact that, as the
Minister says, the conditions are tragic, debilitating and cause a
great deal of suffering. But at least we know that, due to the
regulations and their uprating according to a pre-arranged formula, the
suffering workers and dependants are at least receiving some
compensation.
2.47
pm
John
Barrett (Edinburgh, West) (LD): I, too, will not delay the
Committee. We are pleased to support the uprating, and I thank the
Minister for informing us in his brief but detailed introductory
remarks that £256 million has been paid since the Act
was introduced. The issue was certainly brought home to many hon.
Members at John MacDougalls funeral last year; he was a friend
as well as a parliamentary
colleague.
We
appreciate the Acts good work, but finance can never compensate
for ill health. It can, however, go some way towards easing the
suffering of those who discover, sometimes after many years, that they
have a condition as a result of working with asbestos or other airborne
contaminants.
The
hon. Member for Caernarfon will talk about the provisions
impact on the Welsh slate mines. The Liberal Democrats support the
uprating of this good
scheme.
2.48
pm
Hywel
Williams (Caernarfon) (PC): May I apologise for my late
arrival? I was told that there might be a second vote in the
House.
I
am glad to be able to pay tribute to the people who run the scheme,
which has been of great use to constituents of mine who suffer from
slate dust and had no one to sue because companies had long gone out of
business. The scheme also, of course, makes help available to
dependants, which is much appreciated. It was originally introduced in
1979 after a long campaign by the Transport and General Workers Union,
supported by my predecessor Mr. Dafydd Wigley, and the then
TGWU organiser in Caernarfon, Mr. Tom
Jones.
The
scheme is also much appreciated by other workers: jute workers in
Dundee, for example, sometimes suffer from dust-related conditions. It
is a very good scheme, and I am glad that it has been uprated, although
there is no particular legal requirement that it must be. I must point
out, however, that other diseases are related to dust-exposure in slate
quarries; for example, there has
been a campaign about chronic bronchitis for some years. The Minister is
not in a position to comment on that at present, but it is worth
mentioning because people suffer from other conditions related to
exposure to slate dust, and they currently get no compensation.
However, I have been informed that coal workers can receive
compensation.
2.50
pm
Mr.
Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab): I wish to speak in this
debate simply because mesothelioma is back in the news in a big way. I
was on the Committee that discussed it last year. I know that the
Chairman might help me by allowing me to expand a
little.
Mesothelioma
is on the agenda because, in October 2007, we had a body blow when the
Law Lords decided that people with pleural plaques would no longer get
compensation. I use this opportunity, when everybody is concerned about
mesothelioma and asbestosis victims, to say that we cannot afford to
let this matter fall off the agenda. We have to deal with it; the Law
Lords were wrong. Their decision came out of the bluenobody
expected itand the result is that a lot of those who get
pleural plaques before they get mesothelioma will generally suffer the
same death. That is why the issue is
important.
The
only other thing that I want to say, which I have mentioned in
Committee on numerous occasions, is that this scheme, which was
introduced in around 1974 and expanded for the slate quarrymen in 1979,
was important because it had a collective basis. Mr.
Cummings, you will know only too well just how important that is in the
current context. I say that because the hon. Member for Caernarfon
referred to chronic bronchitis and emphysema. We are not allowed to
talk about those diseases at great length, but he did mention them. I
want to draw Members attention to how, with the pneumoconiosis
block settlement in 1974, which was subsequently improved upon in 1979
and again later for mesothelioma, no lawyers were needed. In contrast,
Justice Turner, to his constant shame, decided in 1998 not to use the
pneumoconiosis settlement type, but to go for every individual having
their own lawyer. When we hear those extraordinary and extravagant
stories about the lawyers making money, we can feel content that today
we are passing, for the umpteenth time, an increase of 5 per cent. in
the awards, and that people with any of these five diseases do not have
to potter off to a lawyer who will charge them for this, that and the
other. We have all heard the stories, and the sad thing that people
should understand is that the 1998 decision was made by a
lordnot one of those who decided to get rid of pleural plaques,
but Justice Turner. He caused the trouble by insisting that a
collective decision could not be taken on mesothelioma, whereas it
could on pneumoconiosis. I make this appeal because there are people in
the room who ought to understand that we cannot afford to travel down
that road
again.
The
people who adjudicate in the courts should understand just what kind of
misery they have caused. They have lined the pockets of the lawyers in
the process, with almost Fred Goodwin amounts. These recipients will
not get anything like those amounts and that is not in question either,
because every single one of us will nod the regulations through. Sadly,
some of the
lawyers have received considerably more than Freddy Goodwin has because
of the tin-pot way in which Justice Turner made the decision on chronic
bronchitis, emphysema and vibration white finger in
1998.
2.54
pm
Peter
Bottomley (Worthing, West) (Con): If the Minister is
considering writing to people on some of the points that do not relate
directly to the increase, it would help to know what happens to those
who were involved in shipbuilding in Northern Ireland. It is clear that
the uprating applies to Great Britain. Are similar arrangements being
made through the Northern Ireland process?
The Minister
might also let us know what the Government intend to do to cope with
the Law Lords decision referred to by the hon. Member for Bolsover. He
was quite clear that they were not saying that people were not
deserving, but that the legislation was not written in a way which
could necessarily include them. It would be useful to know how the
Government intend to respond to that.
I shall throw
in two final points. First, when did we start having one order to cover
the five diseases? I seem to remember that, 25 years ago, when I was
the relevant Minister, I introduced more than one order to get the
upratings. I am glad that we have only one order, but it would be
interesting to know more about that change. However, that is a matter
for a written response rather than an oral one now from the Minister.
Secondly, if the Minister knows who is responsible, who will respond to
the Archer report on the haemophiliac victims of the national health
service blood transfusion
scandal?
2.56
pm
Jonathan
Shaw: May I begin by thanking the hon. Member for
Hertsmere who speaks for the Opposition? I am pleased that I was able
to provide him with detail in my introductory remarks. It is always
comforting when contributions from Opposition Members confirm what a
Minister has said. That was helpful. Our constituents will be pleased
that there is consensus on this
matter.
The
hon. Member for Edinburgh, West referred to John MacDougall, and I
thank him for those kind comments. The hon. Member for Caernarfon
mentioned slate miners in his constituency, and my hon. Friend the
Member for Wirral, South referred to his constituents, as did my hon.
Friend the Member for Bolsover. As I said earlier, Chatham is one of
the hottest spots for mesothelioma anywhere in the country. I do not
stand here just as the Minister, but also as a constituency Member of
Parliament and I am pleased about the
uprating.
I
will have to write to hon. Members to answer some of the points they
raised. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover asked about pleural
plaques. He will know that our right hon. Friend the Justice Secretary
received the report on pleural plaques in October. The Government
received a considerable number of submissions and he is considering
them carefully. We expect a response on that issue very soon.
Obviously, my hon. Friend made his views clear about Justice Turner in
his usual gentle
way.
I
was asked about Northern Ireland by the right hon.
Member
Peter
Bottomley: Not right
honourable.
Jonathan
Shaw: Did they not do
that?
Jonathan
Shaw: I thought the hon. Gentleman was a Cabinet Minister.
Did he never make it?
Peter
Bottomley: That was my
wife.
Jonathan
Shaw: There we
are.
The
shipbuilding industry in Northern Ireland has its own scheme, which
mirrors this one. Our officials liaise closely with officials in
Northern Ireland. I have no reason to believe that that scheme is not
operating in the same satisfactory way as this scheme. I will
investigate the haemophilia question and write to the hon.
Gentleman.
I hope that I
have covered all the pointsas I have said, I will write to hon.
Members. I can confirm that the Government are determined to ensure
that risks to health are properly addressed so that future generations
do not suffer. Hon. Members mentioned that we are seeing an increase in
the amount of
compensation.
Peter
Bottomley: I also intended to ask the
Ministerperhaps I can get a response via
correspondencewhether the Government have estimates of how the
profile is likely to rise before it falls. Could they be shared with
hon.
Members?
Jonathan
Shaw: We are currently looking at the profile because
there have been some changes in it. That is why I did not refer to it
in my remarks. The anticipated profile has not been borne outit
has been extended somewhat. We can be sure that the amount of money
paid out will continue to rise before it reaches the peak. We have
commissioned a piece of work to update the projections and I know hon.
Members will want to be aware of that information on behalf of their
constituents. I hope that I have satisfied the Committee with those
replies.
Question
put and agreed to.
3.1
pm
Committee
rose.