§ 2.37 p.m.
§ The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government why in making their grant to the Pneumoconiosis Board of supplementary benefits for sufferers from industrial lung disease they excluded provision for those similarly incapacitated by byssinosis and asbestosis.
§ Lord JACQUESMy Lords, as my noble friend Lord Balogh said in reply to a Question asked by the noble Lord on 21st November, the Government have made no such grant. The grant to the National Coal Board, recently approved by the House of Commons, relates to the need to offset the initial effect on their overall financial position resulting from their jointly negotiated pneumoconiosis scheme.
§ Lord HALEMy Lords, is my noble friend aware that the pneumoconiosis scheme includes as industrial diseases other recognised industrial diseases? Having made very special, very important and very praiseworthy provision for miners suffering from lung disease, is my noble friend now saying that he will tell the textile industry and the asbestos industry, "You do not exercise any political power, and your people of seventy can go on dying of lung disease"? Is that really the Statement of Her Majesty's Government in answer to my Question?
§ Lord JACQUESMy Lords, there is a misunderstanding. The scheme to which I referred is the scheme which has been 490 negotiated by the National Coal Board and the unions in the coal industry. The scheme to which my noble friend referred is the National Insurance scheme. They are two quite distinct schemes.
§ Lord RHODESMy Lords, is the Minister aware that some of the people who are suffering from working in old cotton mills have chest complaints just as severe as those who have worked in any other industry in the land, including mining and asbestos?
§ Lord JACQUESMy Lords, perhaps I should make it clear that a sufferer from industrial disease has the possibility of two claims. First of all, under Common Law he has a claim for compensation against his employer. The employer is obliged by law to insure against that risk. The grant that was made to the National Coal Board was made to the Board as an employer. Secondly, the sufferer has a claim for benefit under National Insurance. At the present time, a Commission is sitting on the National Insurance aspect—the Royal Commission on Civil Liability and Compensation for Personal Injury. The Government do not intend to carry out any restructuring of the National Insurance scheme until they have received this Report and have had an opportunity to consider it.
§ Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONEMy Lords, has not the noble Lord unwittingly misled the House? Is it not a fact that the Royal Commission which was set up during the time when I occupied the Woolsack refers to the Common Law claims, and not at all to the insurance claims?
§ Lord JACQUESMy Lords, it is in the light of that Commission's Report that the Government will look at the National Insurance scheme. It may well be that the Commission will recommend collectivisation rather than the Common Law claim.
§ Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONEMy Lords, will not the noble Lord reconsider his answer? Is it not a fact that the insurance question is altogether outside the jurisdiction of the Royal Commission? The Royal Commission has to do with Common Law liability. Therefore, the Government cannot be justified in withholding revision of the insurance schemes for 491 industrial injuries pending the result of the Royal Commission on Civil Liability which deals with Common Law damages.
§ Lord JACQUESMy Lords, until the Government know what the Commission will report on civil liability, they do not intend to restructure the National Insurance scheme. If there is to be a change of law in regard to civil claims, it must take into account the future liability.
§ Lord POPPLEWELLMy Lords, I wonder whether my noble friend realises how disappointing is his reply. It is reminiscent of a reply which was given many years ago in the other place when we were pressing for special treatment for miners suffering from pneumoconiosis. The disease created by asbestos has the same effect upon the lungs as coal dust. I am sorry to say that this kind of reply was given many years ago by our side in the other place. Will my noble friend press the Secretary of State to have another look at asbestosis? Why should sufferers from this disease be treated differently from miners who suffer from the dreadful effect of pneumoconiosis? The effect upon the individual is exactly the same. Surely, therefore, the treatment and benefits should be the same.
§ Lord JACQUESMy Lords, the position of the Government in relation to a nationalised industry is different from their position in relation to a profit-making industry. The grant to the National Coal Board was made to the Board as an employer because of the Government's special responsibility to a nationalised industry. If there was to be any help at all to those in private employment it would have to be made under the National Insurance scheme, and restructuring of that will not take place until the Report of the Royal Commission has been received. In the meantime, as the House well knows, benefits and contributions are reviewed from time to time.
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTONMy Lords, if the Government make any grant to one employer to compensate for pulmonary diseases resulting from the conditions of their work, why is it just that they should refuse to make it to another and simply give the excuse that one is a private employer and the other is a public Board? That seems to me to be a very unjust proceeding, and I hope 492 the Government will have another look at it, particularly in regard to cotton workers.
§ Lord JACQUESMy Lords, I would point out that employers are obliged to insure against this liability and therefore there is a claim against the insurer. In the case of the National Coal Board there are special circumstances in the sense that this is an industry in which there is a very high incidence of this kind of disease.
§ Lord JACQUESMy Lords, there was a backlog of 39,000 potential cases; a scheme was agreed in the industry which in the opinion of the employer would save a great deal of public money, and for that reason the Government backed it.
§ Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONEMy Lords, I am sorry to be persistent about this, but is not the noble Lord really suffering from an illusion? Is it not the case that an employer is not bound to insure against this particular liability because an employer, whether private or public, is only under a liability to pay damages if he has been at fault? What the noble Lord, Lord Hale, is pressing the Government to do is to extend the benefits of absolute liability beyond the limits of the scheme which the Government have sponsored. Of course the liability of an employer may be changed by the result of the Royal Commission if they move over to a no-fault liability system. But is it not the fact that the noble Lord's answers have now, twice or three times, completely mis-stated the present legal position?
§ Lord SLATERMy Lords, is my noble friend aware that, while I am in sympathy with the Question as it has been tabled by my noble friend Lord Hale, it must not be overlooked that the NUM have been pressing the National Coal Board for a considerable period of time for better consideration in regard to the pneumoconiosis cases that have occurred in the mining industry, which carries a higher incidence rate than any other type of industry, irrespective of what my noble friends on the Privy Council Benches may say to the contrary? The 493 decision that has been arrived at by the Government in regard to these unfortunate people from the mining industry has only met a call for benefit that ought to have been granted years ago to all the people in that industry.
§ Lord JACQUESMy Lords, I should like to say two things in reply to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham. I think he would admit that there has been a duty to insure as from the 1969 Act. For my part I admit that there is a no-fault issue and that is being considered by the Royal Commission.
§ Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONEMy Lords, will not the noble Lord consult with the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack as to some of his answers because I really believe that they were to some extent misleading?
§ The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord Shepherd)My Lords, while clearly this is a matter that will need to be looked at, that is certainly no reflection on my noble friend Lord Jacques. Perhaps I may be allowed to say to the noble and learned Lord that I thought he was a little unfair to question the answers that my noble friend has given in all good faith. The noble Lord does not need to screw up his face when I make that particular reference.
§ Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONEMy Lords, may I—
§ Lord SHEPHERDMy Lords, if the noble and learned Lord will let me finish, this is clearly a matter that ought to be looked into and I will undertake to to that with my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. I hope the matter can be raised on another occasion, when a considered reply will be given.
§ Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONEMy Lords, of course I will yield to the noble Leader as to raising this matter further on another occasion, but if he will forgive me for saying so, he really should not get so heated. I acknowledged from the first that the answers, even if inaccurate, were delivered in perfectly good faith; but it seems to me to be a matter of importance that they should not even be inaccurate, and I hope that on consideration the noble Lord will realise that his 494 rather heated interjection was not quite justified.
§ Lord SHEPHERDMy Lords, if anybody gets heated in your Lordships' House I leave it to your Lordships to judge whether it is the noble and learned Lord or myself. However, in the light of my undertaking that this matter, which gives serious concern to all quarters of your Lordships' House, will be looked at, we can then arrange for the matter to be raised and for a considered Answer to be given.
Baroness VICKERSMy Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble Lord a rather different question on the same subject? A great many men in the Royal Dockyards suffer from asbestosis, and I should like to know whether they will be included in this review.
§ Lord JACQUESMy Lords, I would say that if the Government receive repre-tations from the appropriate quarter in regard to any of the nationalised industries, they would give to them the same kind of consideration as was given to the coal industry.
§ Lord HALEMy Lords, is the noble Lord aware that it was he who introduced the question of the Pearson Commission, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, who very accurately stated the position in law in relation to the Pearson Commission? Is the noble Lord further aware that, even if this very distinguished Royal Commission has been asked to look at the question of actions in tort, as I understand was stated in another place last Friday, to anyone with any knowledge of this industry it really is quite ludicrous to say that even this distinguished Commission can provide some machinery to enable a dying man of 72, supported by his union, to bring an action for tort in respect of medical conditions which were not even known at the inception of the scheduling of industrial diseases, against mills which went bankrupt many years ago?
§ Lord JACQUESMy Lords, I said that the Government preferred to look at any restructuring of the National Insurance scheme after they had received the Report of the Royal Commission. Clearly, the Report of that Commission could have some bearing on what should be provided for in the National Insurance scheme.