HL Deb 18 October 2001 vol 627 cc746-8

5.42 p.m.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 19th July be approved [5th Report from the Joint Committee].

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the draft Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers.' Compensation) (Payment of Claims) (Amendment) Regulations 2001 were laid before the House on 17th July 2001. These regulations are being made under the Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers' Compensation) Act 1979. The purpose of the regulations is to increase by 3.8 per cent the amounts of compensation paid under the Act to those who first satisfy all the conditions of entitlement on or after 1st December 2001.

The 1979 Act provides for lump sum payments to be made to sufferers from certain dust related diseases, or, when the sufferers have died, to their dependants, where there is no realistic chance of success through the courts. Payments under the Act are additional to any industrial injuries disablement benefit awarded by the Benefits Agency.

We do all we can to administer the compensation scheme in a sympathetic way. Although rules have to be kept, we recognise that each case is an individual tragedy and are as generous as the legislation can allow. The Government have given an undertaking to Parliament to review the amounts payable under the scheme regularly to maintain their value. These regulations aim to fulfil that commitment.

Noble Lords will recognise that no amount of money will ever begin to compensate individuals and families for their suffering and loss. However, these regulations will allow us to maintain the value of the compensation, which does provide some practical and material help. I commend these draft regulations to the House. I beg to move.

Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 19th July be approved [5th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)

Viscount Astor

My Lords, I have a number of brief questions for the noble and learned Lord. Can he tell the House how many awards have been made under this scheme in the past financial year and how many people have applied in the current year and are waiting for adjudication? I understand that in the past there has been delay between applying and being granted an award. Does the Minister believe that in the future the number of applications will increase or decrease?

It is surprising to see that the maximum payment to a disabled person, who is 37 years or under, is £58,000, and the maximum payment to his or her dependant, who is 37 years or under, is £26,000. Those are incredibly small sums compared with the sums that are awarded in the courts under various compensation schemes. As the Minister is a lawyer perhaps he would care to comment on that. In relation to awards made to police officers and other such people, the figures that I have mentioned, for a very nasty disease which makes life absolutely miserable, are not large. I am not sure how the Government justify that.

The Minister has said that the Government will review the awards regularly and retain their value. I note that they were last reviewed in 1988, some 12 years ago, and we now see an increase of 3.8 per cent. That is substantially below the rate of inflation through those years. I realise that for some of those 12 years we were in power, and we did not increase them, but that does not explain why the present Government, having won two general elections, have not done something about this. If this matter is to be reviewed regularly in the future, can the Minister say whether we shall have to wait another 12 years before the next review?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount for those questions. Since the scheme was introduced—from 1980 to 31st March 2001—there have been 13,599 claims; the number of payments made to date is 9,396; the claims received in the last complete year numbered 1,352; and in the current year—1st April till 28th September—the claims received so far number 942. On whether the numbers are going up or down, they appear to remain pretty steady.

The noble Viscount also said that the payments are much lower than would be awarded under a full liability basis if a personal injury claim had been brought. That is broadly correct. However, one must remember that the 1979 Act provides for lump sum payments when there is no realistic prospect of success in the courts. This is not a scheme that is intended to ape the way that the courts would act; this is a scheme that is intended to provide additional funds for people suffering from these terrible diseases. I believe that the approach is correct.

Finally, the noble Viscount, having closely perused the two paragraphs of the Explanatory Notes at the back of the document, referred to the fact that the last time the amount was increased was in 1988. That is wrong. Practically every year, since 1985, there has been an increase. The last increase was in June 2000. It was decided that another increase would take place in June 2001, but unfortunately a Recess intervened and that is why we have not brought the increase before the House before now. The principle is that we have increased it regularly and, as a result, the level of compensation has risen with the RPI since 1980 when the scheme was introduced.

Lord Walker of Doncaster

My Lords, I am not sure that my noble and learned friend is right in referring to the purposes for which the scheme was introduced. The purpose was to give the opportunity to workmen and others who may not have had the chance to pursue a civil case in the courts because of the insidious nature of the disease and the fact that their employer had gone out of business or had ceased to exist in the mean time. Therefore, the scheme provided the opportunity for a disabled person to go to the Department of Employment instead of the court.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton

My Lords, I do not dispute that account, but the point is that the courts would not provide a remedy. As the employer had gone bust, or could not provide insurance, or there was no money or no time, there was no realistic prospect of success for an employee in the courts and so the scheme was introduced. I hope that I did not suggest otherwise.

On Question, Motion agreed to.