HL Deb 28 February 2005 vol 670 cc94-6

8.8 p.m.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham

rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 26 January be approved [7th Report from the Joint Committee].

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving the regulations, I confirm my view that they are compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. The regulations are being made under the Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers' Compensation) Act of 1979. They simply increase by 3.1 per cent the compensation paid to people who first satisfy all the conditions for payment on or after 1 April 2005. The increase is in line with the general increase in RPI. It is the same as the increase being applied to the general uprating order for other social security benefits.

The scheme pays compensation to people who are suffering mainly from certain dust-related diseases where the relevant employer is no longer in business. More than 70 per cent of the compensation payments made are for people suffering from the particularly fast-acting disease, mesothelioma, which is a terminal lung cancer caused by asbestos fibres. I think I am right in saying that of 6,500 deaths from industrial diseases last year, more than 50 per cent were asbestos-related. Asbestos is a fast killer.

An increasing number of people are now successfully claiming under the scheme. The scheme makes a major contribution to the support provided to people suffering from these dreadful diseases. In an ideal world, the matter would be addressed in primary legislation, and this would be part of the uprating statement. That it is not is due to the fact that we would need primary powers to do it. Therefore, I bring the matter before. your Lordships separately. However, the regulations seek merely to uprate payments in line with RPI. I beg to move.

Moved, that the draft regulations laid before the House on 26 January be approved [7th Report from the Joint Committed.]—(Baroness Hollis of Heigham.)

Lord Higgins

My Lords, the Minister is right in saying that the diseases covered by the regulations are terrible. Of the eight orders and regulations that we are debating, this is the only one which has already been debated in the Commons—on 22 February. An extensive debate took place, and it received an appropriate ministerial reply, which dealt with nearly all the main issues involved.

It was pointed out during that debate that an undertaking was given last year that the various payments—I do not say "benefits"—that are made to this tragic group would be uprated year by year. The regulations fulfil that undertaking, and I most certainly welcome them.

As the Minister mentioned, one of the most unfortunate groups of workers comprises those who suffer from mesothelioma. The tragedy is that the number of people who are dying from this disease, with absolutely no hope of reprieve, is likely to go on increasing for many years.

It is intended that the increase in payments should offset inflation. I am not entirely clear on two points. First, does the uprating cover all cases of people suffering from these diseases? In one case of which I have personal knowledge, the person concerned was unaware of where the illness had been acquired. There was no specific occupation in which it was thought he might have picked up the disease, although various occupations where he might have done so were considered. Do the regulations cover everyone, or do they depend on the disease being related to some previous occupation?

I turn to my second point. The payments have been increased by 3.1 per cent and rounded to the nearest pound, and so on. Will they be means-tested and will they be taxable? If they are either of those, the extent to which they compensate for inflation will be correspondingly diminished. Has that point been considered? I believe that one can isolate work-related diseases from many of the other problems of health and social security with which we contend.

Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay

My Lords, these are terrible and inexorable diseases. I do not propose to duplicate the debate in the other place, particularly the perceptive and moving remarks of my honourable friend the Member for the ex-mining area of Chesterfield, who talked about his grandfather, a miner who suffered from diseases of this kind. In general, we support the uprating and thank the Minister for her explanation.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham

My Lords, while on the subject of moving remarks, I was rereading the debate that was introduced by the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, a couple of years ago in which he spoke about white asbestos as opposed to blue and brown. I recall Lord Walker of Doncaster observing that, while the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, talked about asbestos in his barns, he had asbestos in his lungs. He held the House in his hand while he spoke.

The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, asked whether the regulations covered all cases. The trigger for the payments is that one is already receiving industrial injuries benefit. Eligibility is related, first, to work which, conventionally, has been in slate-related industriesa—lthough it increasingly applies to the construction industry, which is probably the biggest single cause of new cases coming through—and where the employer is no longer in business. In other words, it is a substitute in instances where the person involved cannot go after the employer, usually because, as the noble Lord will know, these are diseases with long a latency—40 years, 60 years. Many of the firms involved have long been out of business.

That is why we have this rather special scheme. However, to get access to it, first you have to have acquired the disease at work and, secondly, the employer is no longer in business. Therefore, you have no other form of compensation or additional financial support. This was a decent thing that was done as the clock ticked in 1979, in the last months before a general election. It was done by a Labour government, and the following government did not seek to overturn it. There was consent.

Secondly, the noble Lord asked me whether payments count against income support. Yes, they do count against income support, but it would be rare for somebody to be on income support if he qualified for this scheme. Normally, someone would, for example, get industrial injuries benefit. They might get additional incapacity benefit. They might well get DLA and so on, and then some money in addition as well.

Someone might be on income support, in which case it would count against income support. The way that these incomes build up, one would be talking about incomes of anywhere between £10,000 and £12,000 a year through disability benefits, and then a payment depending on the extent of the disability.

I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, did anything other than say than he welcomed our approach, so, with those responses, I hope your Lordships will accept these regulations.

On Question, Motion agreed to.