HL Deb 22 March 1990 vol 517 cc471-3

8 p.m.

The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 20th February be approved [11th Report from the Joint Committee]

The noble Earl said: My Lords, these regulations are to be made under the Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers' Compensation) Act 1979. Their purpose is to increase, by 8 per cent. the amounts of compensation paid under the Act to those who first satisfy all the eligibility conditions on or after the 1st April 1990. The Government reviews these amounts each year and this year, as in previous years, we believe an increase is right to keep them in line with the value of money.

The Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers' Compensation) Act 1979 was introduced by the last Labour Government, and the aim and purpose of the Act have the full support of this Government.

The Act to which these regulations apply is unique in Government legislation in that it provides compensation to employees who have suffered disease as a result of their employment. It is separate from social security benefits, because it is only available where there is no employer to sue. Sufferers do not have to prove fault in order to qualify for a payment. The Act set up a scheme to help those sufferers of certain prescribed dust-induced diseases who have no opportunity to sue relevant employers to obtain compensation because the employer has gone out of business. The main industries concerned are slate mining, potteries, textiles and asbestos-related industries.

The reason that compensation is provided in this way is because of the length of time taken for the disease to develop and the symptons to become apparent. It can be many years later when the sufferer discovers he has the disease, often long after he or she has left the employment which caused or contributed to the development of the disease.

The Act made provision for payment of such amounts as might be prescribed by regulation. It does not provide for automatic or regular uprating, but the Government have undertaken to Parliament to review the amounts each year. These regulations are the result of this year's review.

The original payment regulations set out a scale of payments related to age and degree of disability (as assessed by medical experts). They came into effect on 1st January 1980. A number of increases have been made since then with the aim of keeping the payments in line with the value of money.

Last year. Parliament approved an increase of 8 per cent. from April, the proposed increase this year is for 8 per cent. from 1st April 1990, and takes account of inflation.

We all recognise that no amount of money compensates individuals and families for their pain, suffering and loss. But the regulations allow us to give practical and material help. The Department of Employment considers each application individually and interprets the conditions of the Act so as to be as fair as the statute will allow in the best interests of those whom the Act was intended to help. However, it has never been the purpose of the Act to provide an alternative to taking action in the courts, and the Department of Employnment has to be satisfied that there is no employer against whom a claim for damages could be made.

It was never the intention of the Act that the state should take over the responsibilities which are properly those of employers.

Since the Act came into force in 1980 almost 5,000 people have made successful claims. Eighty-two per cent. of all claims to date were made in the first year of the scheme, although it is a sad fact that claims are still being received by the employment department. The total cost to date has been £ 28–6 million. Most of these payments are made to those in industries or occupations whch involved contact with asbestos. They reflect the poor conditions which applied in some workplaces a generation or more ago, and the indications are that as we moved into the '60s, '70s and '80s there has been a steady improvement in working conditions. The dangers of asbestos are now well recognised and extensive legislation is now in place which prevents such exposure today.

Your Lordships will readily understand the importance of uprating the amounts of compensation the Government pays to those disabled by these diseases. I commend the regulations to the House and ask for your Lordships' approval. I beg to move.

Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 20th February be approved. [11th Report from the Joint Committee] .— (The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne.)

Lord Carter

My Lords, the House will be grateful to the Minister for the clear way in which he has explained the regulations. Of course we welcome the uprating which is broadly in line with inflation.

The regulations deal with a number of industrial diseases which produce severely disabling symptoms which severely restrict the lives, and indeed reduce the life chances, of those who suffer from them. Although the maximum award for 100 per cent. disability at age 37 or less is £ 41,849, I believe that the average award is only about £ 7,000. That must leave the recipients of awards very dependent on social security benefits. Perhaps the Minister will tell the House the total expenditure and the total number of people who were helped under the scheme last year.

I am not entirely clear on this point. Perhaps the Minister could confirm that awards under the scheme do not prevent claimants pursuing an action for damages against an employer if they can trace one? Conversely, if compensation for damages has been paid by an employer, does it mean that a claimant is unable to receive an award under the scheme?

I conclude by repeating my thanks to the Minister and expressing support from these Benches for the regulations.

The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne

My Lords, the noble Lord raised a question about expenditure this year. Expenditure this year has been about £ 694,000 to 103 sufferers or their dependants.

In reply to the other point raised by the noble Lord, the scheme is designed to help those who have had no chance of bringing a court action. However, the Act does not prevent subsequent court action by the claimant if a relevant employer is later identified. But if claimants already have compensation awarded by a court a claimant cannot come withing the remit of the Act.

Having explained those points, I hope that I have given some assurance to the noble Lord. I commend the regulations.

On Question, Motion agreed to.