§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Ainger.]
§ 6 pm
§ Mr. Kevan Jones (North Durham)I am pleased to have secured this debate, and I thank Mr. Speaker for selecting this subject for debate this evening. It gives the House the opportunity to discuss the position of former surface workers of British Coal who are suffering from respiratory disease as a result of their exposure to coal dust at work. I know that many right hon. and hon. Members who represent coal mining or former coal mining constituencies will have constituents who are affected.
The decision by the Government to sign, in September 1999, a handling agreement to cover compensation claims for dust exposure by coal miners was widely welcomed in many former mining constituencies such as mine of North Durham. The agreement set in place a scheme to compensate coal miners and avoid the expensive and protracted process of taking individual cases through the courts—a process that had been estimated to take between 15 and 20 years. The scheme has had its administrative problems, mainly because of the large numbers of claims, but many former miners are now being compensated for the damage that coal dust did to their health.
According to the latest figures from the Department of Trade and Industry, more than £785 million has been paid out in compensation. In my constituency, just under £9.5 million has been paid out to former miners or their families. However, no amount of compensation can compensate individuals for the effect that coal dust has had on their health—the daily gasping for air—or the tragedy of watching a loved one die the agonising death that dust causes. I give the Government full credit for recognising the wrong done to those men and putting in place the current scheme, which, I must emphasise, has been welcomed in many constituencies.
The majority of those exposed to coal dust were exposed while working underground. The compensation scheme covers those individuals, but it does not cover those who worked above ground and were often exposed daily to high levels of coal dust. They often worked in the processing of the coal or as blacksmiths, whose main job was on the surface, but often—sometimes daily—took them underground.
The 1999 handling agreement resulted from a High Court case in January 1998, which was brought by underground workers who were exposed to coal dust. The High Court found in favour of six out of the eight claimants, but because all the claimants were underground workers, the Court never addressed the position of surface workers exposed to coal dust. When the handling agreement was signed in September 1999, it was accepted that the issue of potential exposure to coal dust on the surface would be resolved. The agreement even included a statement of intent to that effect.
To underline further that commitment, the Department of Trade and Industry placed a minute before Parliament on 10 July 2000, which indicated that it was prepared to accept liability for those workers in 348 dusty jobs on the surface. I have a copy of that minute before me and it is headed "Non-statutory liability to pay compensation to miners for exposure to surface dust". Paragraph 2 explains the liability that the DTI proposes to accept in respect of exposure to surface dust for employees at the surface of British coal mines. Paragraph 5 explains the reasons for accepting liability. It states that
exposure to dust on the surface leads to the same lung disease as dust underground".It continues:
The DTI have investigated the level of dust prevailing in surface jobs in British coal mines, measures which could have been taken to reduce dust and those which were taken.The DTI proposes to accept that British Coal did not fully meet its responsibilities towards certain categories of workers in dusty jobs on the surface".The minute is also clear about what the acceptance of liability means for claimants. Paragraph 8 states that
acceptance of this additional liability will mean that current claimants can extend their claim to cover time spent in dusty jobs on the surface and men who have only worked on the surface will be able to put in a claim".The reference to surface workers is so clear in that the word "only" is in bold type.Anyone reading the minute—which is signed by Ann Taylor, director of the coal health claims unit at the DTI—would probably conclude that surface workers exposed to coal dust could pursue claims for the damage to their health, but that is not the case. On 17 July 2000, the DTI retreated from its earlier clear position, as outlined in the minute. It is now prepared to compensate miners for chronic bronchitis, but not for the more debilitating conditions of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and emphysema. It asserts that, according to the available evidence, levels of coal dust on the surface were low and that if the measurements were accurate, the dose of dust received over a working life would be insufficient to cause loss of lung function causing long-term disability.
That is a very different stance from the one adopted in the minute laid before the House in July 2000. It means that many thousands of surface workers who are suffering the debilitating effects of exposure to coal dust can no longer claim compensation—people such as Mr. Lynn, a constituent of mine in Chester-le-Street, a blacksmith employed by British Coal throughout his working life. Although his main job was on the surface, it took him underground regularly. Mr. Lynn has a medical report stating that he is suffering from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, but he is denied compensation because his is deemed to have been a surface occupation. He walked into my surgery gasping for air. He is clearly suffering the effects of his employment in the coal industry.
Today my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. David), who unfortunately cannot be here tonight, raised with me the case of a 90-year-old widow whose husband died recently. His death certificate states that he died as a result of coal dust on the lungs, but she too has been denied the right to claim compensation, unlike many thousands of miners' widows throughout the country.
The DTI has made some concessions to surface workers, but only if they can prove that they worked for a minimum of five years underground as part of their 349 employment after 1954. I understand that the concession was made on the basis that if a man already suffered from some disability owing to his underground exposure, work on the surface might increase that disability. I consider that illogical. A surface worker could easily have accumulated far more exposure to dust over, say, 30 years than a man who had worked underground for five years and then worked on the surface for 15.
If it is accepted that surface dust contributes to the cause of disabling chronic obstructive pulmonary disease when combined with underground dust, why should it not be accepted that the same surface dust alone contributes to it? There is evidence—and I have talked to many who have worked in the coal industry, including my father—that many surface jobs, especially those involved in the preparation plants and in the washing of coal, exposed workers to dust levels that were far higher than those experienced by workers underground.
The claimants' solicitors group has also produced some evidence from an environmental study carried out in 1956 that indicates that dust levels at the surface of some collieries were higher than the levels recorded underground. Like Mr. Lynn, many surface workers have medical evidence to confirm that they are suffering from COPD. Despite that, however, the DTI has now issued a blanket denial of liability in respect of purely surface workers, and in respect of those with less than five years underground post-1954.
It is now four years since the handling agreement was put in place and three years since the DTI put a minute before Parliament accepting liability for the dust exposure of surface workers. In that time, surface workers have continued to suffer, and to die. Often, they live next door to other former employees of British Coal who have been rightly compensated for their disability, and they find it hard to understand why they cannot be treated in the same way.
Four years on, the issue of compensation for surface workers needs to be addressed urgently by the Government. Failure to do so will mean that the cases will be put before the courts, and that will be both expensive and time consuming. People continue to die and fail to understand why they cannot be treated in the same way as other British Coal employees. In addition, the good will built up in the constituencies involved—and I remind my hon. Friend the Minister that they are overwhelmingly Labour constituencies—will be lost.
In closing, I urge the Minister to do his utmost to resolve this issue, to avoid expensive litigation, and to compensate men who, through no fault of their own, have had their health ruined because of the negligence of others.
§ The Minister for Energy, E-Commerce and Postal Services (Stephen Timms)First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) on securing the debate and bringing this matter before the House. It concerns many hon. Members, especially those with constituencies in the coalfield areas, and I entirely understand the concerns that have been 350 expressed and the strength of those concerns. I am pleased to have this opportunity to update the House on the progress that my hon. Friend has acknowledged is being made in respect of meeting the health liabilities of British Coal.
This debate is the first opportunity that I have had to address the House on this issue, and it allows me to remind hon. Members that this Government assumed not only a legal but a moral commitment to make sure that former miners, and their families, receive the compensation to which they are entitled, and as speedily as possible.
More than 450,000 claims have been registered under both the respiratory and vibration white finger schemes. That amounts to the largest personal injury scheme ever in this country, and possibly the largest ever in the world. We are still receiving more than 4,000 new claims a week under the respiratory disease scheme, and it is impossible at the moment to say when all the claims will be settled. However, I can say that my Department and our contractors are committed to ensuring that our obligations are met in full.
My hon. Friend referred to the fact that the respiratory disease liability stems from a High Court judgment handed down by Sir Michael Turner in January 1998. That judgment found British Coal liable for causing a number of respiratory diseases, including chronic bronchitis and emphysema, in miners who worked underground after 1954.
The judgment did not cover those miners who had worked solely on the surface. However, as part of the ongoing negotiations between the Department and solicitors, we looked at the possibilities of assessing surface-only claims through the scheme. My hon. Friend referred to the minute that the Department placed before Parliament in July 2000, which proposed to accept some liability in relation to surface dust, although—as my hon. Friend will see from the minute—the precise extent of that liability, and the detailed arrangements for the payment of any compensation to this group, would have to be negotiated between the parties.
As a result of those negotiations, the Department offered to process claims for miners who had so-called mixed employment—those who had worked underground and in dusty jobs on the surface. The claimants' solicitors accepted that offer and those mixed workers have been able to have medical assessments and receive offers in the same way as underground workers since then.
My hon. Friend asked in particular about the case of a blacksmith. Where claimants worked in such jobs—spending part of their week above ground and part underground—the Department is putting evidence to an expert panel, the dust reference panel, which is establishing the amount of time spent underground in any given week. Compensation is being paid for that underground exposure. Blacksmiths are shortly to be referred to that panel.
For surface-only workers, the position is more complex. It is not the case that the Department has a blanket ban, as my hon. Friend suggested. As long ago as November 2000 the Department offered to allow surface-only workers access to the medical assessment process for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease 351 where there was evidence of substantial exposure to dust. The criterion for entry to the process was evidence of pneumoconiosis—a disease that occurs only as a result of dust exposure and not as a result of smoking. As my hon. Friend will appreciate, there is a need to disentangle the two.
The claimants' solicitors felt unable to accept that offer on the basis that they believed all men in the agreed categories of dusty jobs on the surface—for example, those working in the preparation plants—should have access to the medical assessment process.
We have also offered to discuss compensation for surface-only workers for chronic bronchitis and the temporary exacerbation of asthma. Again, the claimants' solicitors have not to date accepted that offer, although they have asked within the past few weeks to look at it again with officials.
More recently, the Department has offered to consider individual claims for COPD brought forward by the claimants' solicitors on a common law basis, on the basis that some highly susceptible individuals might be more at risk of COPD than the generality of surface workers.
All those steps show that the Department is committed to paying fair compensation to that group of claimants. The step that we are unable to take at present is to put all workers in surface dusty jobs through the main medical assessment process for COPD on a schemed basis. I will explain why that is a difficult step for the Department to take at the moment in the light of the medical evidence that we have received. Notwithstanding that, the compromises that we have made do not amount to the blanket ban that my hon. Friend suggested was in place.
I understand why the solicitors have not felt able to accept any of the offers that we have made to date. They feel that the Department's medical evidence is based on incorrect data. If they could demonstrate that, the medical issues would have to be re-examined in the light of that new information and might well point to a different conclusion. It could then be possible to achieve a comprehensive settlement for surface workers, rather than progressing on a piecemeal basis. I do not want to blame anyone for the delays. We are all in this together. There has been some good co-operation between the parties the claimants' solicitors and the Department. However, those outside the process occasionally fall into the trap of thinking that no progress has been made or that the Government are dragging their feet. I hope that it is becoming clear from my speech that that is not the case.
§ Mr. Jimmy Hood (Clydesdale)I understand that this is the first time that my hon. Friend has spoken at the Dispatch Box on this subject. He is making some interesting points.
I wish to put down a marker and to raise an important issue, which has not had the publicity that it should: the miners who worked for the National Coal Board and private mining companies. As I understand it, the Department is reluctant to settle with miners who are entitled to compensation but who worked partly for the coal board and partly for private mining companies because the private companies' insurers are not prepared to sign up to the scheme. I raise that with my 352 hon. Friend and hope that he will pay it some careful attention and seek a solution. Thousands of miners are suffering great injustices. They are entitled to compensation, but they are denied it because those insurance companies have not signed up.
§ Mr. TimmsI shall certainly look into the important point that my hon. Friend makes, which has been raised with me in the past. The liability on the Government applies to those who worked with British Coal; the scheme relates to British Coal's health liabilities. However, I shall look closely into the extent to which we have made progress in addressing my hon. Friend's point.
In relation to the surface-only workers about whom my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham expressed particular concern, the Department's position is based on advice provided by our medical expert: that the concentrations of respirable dust, as opposed to visible dust, on the surface were not sufficient to cause COPD in the great majority of surface-only workers, even over a working lifetime. It follows that if surface-only workers have COPD, according to our advice it is most likely to have been caused by smoking, as it certainly can be. It is worth remembering that, under the terms of the underground scheme, the effects of smoking 15 cigarettes a day are held to cause damage equivalent to the dust exposure of a face worker, and compensation payments to smokers are discounted accordingly.
§ Mr. Kevan JonesWith great respect, that is nonsense. I used to deal daily with compensation claims in the shipyards, where a certain percentage of the claim was taken off for smokers to take account of damage not caused by dust. The Department's approach seems to make the generalisation that many people are suffering due to exposure to other things, such as tobacco smoke. In many cases—for example, that of Mr. Lynn—the people involved have never smoked a cigarette.
§ Mr. TimmsI think that my hon. Friend may not have quite caught my point. I was making the point that, indeed, under the terms of the underground scheme, the effects of smoking 15 cigarettes a day are held to cause damage equivalent to the dust exposure of a face worker, and compensation payments are discounted accordingly.
The Department's medical advice is based on the only dust figures for the surface currently available to the parties and on assumptions relating to loss of lung function that have been accepted by the judge. The differences between the Department and the claimants' solicitors relate to the medical evidence and the consequences that flow from that. We agree with the claimants' solicitors in wanting fair compensation for that cohort of claimants. It is not the case that we want to resist a well-founded claim, but medical evidence is needed to substantiate the case and the problem is that, at present, there is none.
We want to co-operate with everybody involved to reach a fair settlement. We are not resisting a fair settlement if evidence can be found to justify the points that have been made.
§ Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)My hon. Friend has suggested that the door has been opened and that he will 353 look at the blacksmiths' case, the insurance case, the private mines and some of the other cases. Is he aware that those of us who worked on the screes removing the dirt from the coal were exposed to more dust than about 80 per cent. of the miners underground? He can take it from me-I did 21 years. Some of my friends refused to work on the screes because it was a lousier job than working underground. While he is in this benevolent mood, will he look into that? Will he make sure that things are dealt with before the cut-off date next year? I am worried that if the cut-off date is reached some of the other changes might never take place.
§ Mr. TimmsI am aware of the point that my hon. Friend makes, and I say again that there needs to be medical evidence to allow us to go beyond what we have done so far and such evidence has not been forthcoming at the moment.
The Department was pleased to co-operate with a proposal from the claimants' solicitors to study data on pneumoconiosis among surface-only workers and to put a group of surface-only workers through the medical assessment process. My predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, announced that to Parliament on 30 March 2001. Data on that disease are significant because, unlike COPD, the disease can only be caused and worsened by dust. If we could establish high levels of that disease among surface-only workers, it could point to higher dust levels on the surface than our evidence to date has shown. If that were shown to be the case, our medical advice would no longer stand because it would be based on unsound evidence. But the study did not produce any evidence that required us to reconsider our medical evidence and, as a result, the position has not changed. We wrote to the claimants' solicitors in February to inform them of that.
More recently, the solicitors chose to raise the matter with Sir Michael Turner at the High Court in July. They applied for an order requiring the Department to disclose all documentation relevant to surface dust by the end of August, to be followed by mediation to determine the issues still between the parties. They asked that, if the mediation were unsuccessful, the judge should give directions for litigation of the issues in the framework of the existing coal health respiratory disease litigation. The judge did not grant the order, but he requested instead that the solicitors identify a number of lead cases and that they investigate their dust exposure and medical circumstances and put them forward at the next court hearing for the Department to consider. It is hoped that that will give the Department sufficient information to decide whether there are points between the parties that can be resolved by mediation.
354 At a meeting of the coal health ministerial monitoring group last month, the solicitors made it clear that they were having difficulty identifying lead cases and asked the Department to assist by opening its archives to them in advance of identifying the cases. We were entirely happy to co-operate with that request. We have granted access to British Coal's archives to allow a search for surface dust records. We are next due to appear before Sir Michael on 10 November to report on progress made.
I wish to say to my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham and others in the Chamber and elsewhere who have followed this matter very closely that we have done everything possible—through the offers we made to compensate some cohorts of surface-only workers, through the joint surface dust study and through the opening of British Coal's archives to the solicitors—to give those in the group an opportunity to establish their case. But my hon. Friend will recognise that the Government also have a responsibility to the taxpayer, who is funding compensation, to ensure that compensation is paid only where the Department is genuinely liable, and I make no apology for our adopting a robust approach. If the claimants' solicitors can establish their case—we have been genuinely as helpful as we can in assisting their efforts to do so—we will ensure that payment is made to that cohort of men as soon as possible, but we cannot pay compensation on the basis of the existing medical evidence; the medical case is simply not there.
I should like to say a little about more general progress. This is a huge responsibility, and from the outset the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Nigel Griffiths) and I have set about meeting all the parties involved in the process to ensure that we are doing everything that we can to make progress. We have held useful meetings with the solicitors representing the claimants, mining union representatives, coalfield campaigners and the Department's own contractors under the auspices of the Department's ministerial monitoring group, and progress continues to be good.
Under the two schemes, a total of £13.7 million has been paid out in both interim and full and final settlements to those in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham. Of course, more needs to be done, and we will continue to be as helpful as we can in establishing claims if the medical evidence is forthcoming, and it occurs to me that perhaps my hon. Friend will have suggestions to make to the claimants' solicitors to assist them in identifying individuals who may be able to help, through their own experience, to establish a case.
The motion having been made at Six o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at half-past Six o'clock.