Pneumoconiosis, Byssinosis and Miscellaneous Diseases Benefit (Amendment) Scheme 1985 (Hansard, 18 March 1985)

§ Lord Glenarthur
My Lords, I beg to move that the Pneumoconiosis, Byssinosis and Miscellaneous Diseases Benefit (Amendment) Scheme 1985 be agreed to.
The purpose of this amendment is to make changes to the principal scheme, the Pneumoconiosis, Byssinosis and Miscellaneous Diseases Benefit Scheme 1983, by the addition of a further disease for which benefit may be paid. This disease is lung cancer, when accompanied by asbestosis or bilateral diffuse pleural thickening.
The principal scheme provides for benefit to be paid out of the National Insurance Fund for disablement or death caused by certain diseases, if they result from employment before 5th July 1948 and neither workmen's compensation nor benefit under the industrial injuries scheme is payable.
On 1st April 1985 lung cancer, when accompanied by asbestosis or bilateral diffuse pleural thickening, will be added to the list of prescribed industrial diseases for which benefit can be paid under the 356 industrial injuries scheme. Section 5 of the Industrial Injuries and Diseases (Old Cases) Act 1975 provides for any disease which is a malignant or potentially malignant neoplasm, and which is prescribed under the industrial injuries scheme, to be included in the principal scheme. Lung cancer, when accompanied by asbestosis or by bilateral diffuse pleural thickening, is such a disease and is therefore being included in the principal scheme.
We are also taking the opportunity in Article 5 of the amendment scheme to revoke Article 6(1)(a) of the principal scheme. This article provided for the payment of a child dependency allowance where the beneficiary was in receipt of an allowance for total disablement under the scheme, but not unemployability supplement. The child dependancy allowance of 15p weekly payable was the same as that payable to someone in receipt of sickness benefit under the social security scheme. This allowance was abolished in November 1984 and, as a result, Article 6(1)(a) of the principal scheme became redundant and is now being revoked. My Lords, I commend this order and I beg to move.

§ Baroness Jeger
My Lords, I am sure that we all welcome any extension of assistance to people suffering from industrial disease. However, I should like to ask the Minister one or two questions. The amendment scheme before us today has to be cross-referenced with the principal scheme. I noticed that Schedule 4 to the principal scheme is to be amended so as to provide that benefit will apply where death is after 1st April 1985. It seems to me that where people have not only lung cancer but also suffer from other distressing diseases, surely they should warrant the kind of assistance which will be given to people who manage to live until after 1st April 1985. I am sure that that would be the wish of all noble Lords. I am very sorry if I have misread anything, but I have looked very carefully at Schedule 4 to the principal scheme and at the amendment of Schedule 4 which is before us today.
I should have thought that where there has been a definite diagnosis there could be some generosity to people who might well be nearing the end of their lives. I should have thought that it would be more realistic to accept that definite diagnosis of lung cancer plus the other illnesses should be sufficient to ensure sympathetic consideration.
I wonder how we are proposing to help widows and dependants of people whose cases will now be brought within the scheme. I notice that in the principal scheme the allowance for widows and children was fixed in 1983 at £300. That is in Paragraph 9 on page 10 of Statutory Instrument 136. I wonder whether the Government are considering uprating that amount, even if only to keep pace with inflation, as has happened in some other aspects of the social security system. I also wonder what steps the Minister is taking to make this change known perhaps to the employers and through trade unions, so that any people who may be unaware of the changes will get to know their rights.
357 While I welcome any extension of the scheme, my main problem is my regret about the rather brutal date that has been written into this proposal. It seems to me that there is nothing sacrosanct about 1st April 1985. I should have preferred, as I think would have my noble friends, that it should be from the date of diagnosis and from the date of the onset of the disease that people in their last months should receive assistance. I very much regret that that is apparently not to be so. I only hope that I am wrong, but I shall wait with attention to hear what the Minister has to say.

§ Lord Davies of Leek
My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord the Minister would like to answer the noble Baroness first.

§ Baroness Jeger
My Lords, perhaps my noble friend would care to speak at this stage.

§ Lord Davies of Leek
My Lords, when I was Under-Secretary in another place, I moved a Bill dealing with pneumoconiosis. In the case of asbestosis, we found that not only a docker working in asbestos suffered lung trouble, but so did his wife. That was because when his wife laundered his trousers after he had been working on ships there was asbestos dust in the turnups. She herself suffered and ultimately died. We had cases like that. I cannot find anywhere in our legislation any cover for wives of people working in asbestos who may themselves suffer from asbestosis through laundering the clothes of their husbands. I shall leave it at that in order not to delay the House, but I have I think made the point.

§ Lord Glenarthur
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, and to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, for their comments. To answer the noble Baroness's prime point and what she described as the rather brutal date, it is not intended to be brutal in any way. The fact is that we are not making this legislation retrospective. There are huge difficulties in making legislation retrospective. The noble Baroness will be aware of the comments that are generally received in this House when we make legislation retrospective. It is not something that people like.
We are dealing with a disease that does, I know, take many years to develop. The other diseases covered by the prime scheme to which reference has been made are very slowly developing malignant diseases. When new things come to light, as in this case, it is not always possible to make them retrospective.
As to widows and dependants, so far as I am aware—I hope that I have it right; if not, I apologise in advance and I shall get it right when I can find out the details—the increases are linked to the various Social Security Acts. Any increases in social security benefits will be reflected in the prime scheme. That is what normally happens. I have no reason to believe that it is not the case in this instance. I imagine that there will be no great difficulty in making the scheme known. Those associated with this problem are only too aware of the need to make claims where claims can be made.
358 I shall note the noble Baroness's remarks. If there is anything particular that should be done here that is not normally done, I shall take steps to put that in hand. I believe that the amendment to the scheme will be promulgated in the usual way.
The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, asked particularly about dependants and their connection with asbestosis should they be involved in handling the clothing and such like of the prime beneficiary. I should like to study the noble Lord's remarks. My understanding is that no payment is made at the moment for wives or dependants. There can he a one-off payment on the death of a contractor of the disease itself. I do not think that the payments can be made to someone who handles the laundry or anything like that. However, I take the point that the noble Lord made.

§ Baroness Jeger
My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, is he telling the House that a man has to die after 1st April 1985 before he can benefit from this scheme? And how does he benefit from it if he is dead? Is the only benefit to be that of the £300 plus whatever increment there might be to his widow and family? It would be a good thing if this matter could be looked at again. I cannot withdraw my regret about this aspect of the scheme.

§ Lord Glenarthur
My Lords, the allowance, as I understand it, will he paid to the person who suffers from the disease, not when he dies. The fact is that the legislation cannot be made retrospective earlier than 1st April. This is the normal practice in these cases. I see no reason for making it different in this case.

§ Baroness Jeger
My Lords, I am sorry to come back, but this is a question of Schedule 4 of the principal scheme which states dates after which death from diseases must have occurred. The amendment before us today provides that 1st April 1985 shall apply for the matter we are discussing. As for retrospection, surely in the case of war injuries and certain industrial injuries, we do look back a bit?

§ Lord Glenarthur
My Lords, I do not think that we look hack quite as far as the noble Baroness would want because of the difficulties involved. The noble Baroness is right in saying that if someone dies before 1st April they will not have been able to claim because the allowance will not have come into effect until 1st April.