Lord Freud
“(c) the person has not brought an action for damages in respect of the disease against the relevant employer or any insurer with whom the employer maintained employers’ liability insurance at the time of the person’s exposure to asbestos,(ca) the person is unable to bring an action for damages in respect of the disease against any employer of the person or any insurer with whom such an employer maintained employers’ liability insurance (because they cannot be found or no longer exist or for any other reason), and”
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud)
My Lords, in speaking to these amendments I hope noble Lords will not mind if I open with a few thanks. First, I thank noble Lords for their consistent and invaluable dedication to this important Bill. The Bill looks quite different now to how it did at Second Reading and it is certainly in better shape for its passage through this House. I never cease to be amazed by the attention to detail and rigour that noble Lords apply when examining a Bill and I admit that I have ruthlessly stolen as many noble Lords’ ideas as I could over the past few weeks.
The Bill as it stands is a collaborative piece. I have listened with great interest to the concerns of noble Lords and responded to the pressure points. Since the Bill was introduced we have been able to renegotiate the rate of payment to 75%, which is in no small part thanks to the pressure exerted by this House. We have pledged to explore the creation of an oversight committee to ensure that the scheme may operate in the most efficient and just way, an idea that I cannot claim credit for. For that, and indeed much more, I must thank the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, and the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock. The noble Lord and the noble Baroness have been kind enough to give their time frequently and I am grateful for their supportive approach and their expertise.
Returning to the issue of scheme management, we have announced that the scheme administrator is to be selected through an open-tender route. I am confident that the scheme that will be set up as a result of this Bill will be the best it can be and will offer financial support to those who, through no fault of their own, have contracted this terrible disease yet cannot sue for damages. This represents a substantial achievement and, once again, one for which I cannot claim all the credit; so I thank noble Lords. My particular thanks go to those who have given so much of their time to contribute to the comprehensive debates we have had. The continued support and attention of the noble Lords, Lord Howarth, Lord Wigley and Lord Avebury, have been key.
One issue that we have discussed at length, and I know that many noble Lords feel strongly about it, was research into mesothelioma. As noble Lords will remember, I mentioned that when negotiating the terms of this Bill, I really hit a brick wall at every turn regarding research. A great debt of thanks must therefore go to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for raising the awareness of the lack of research in this area and, although we disagreed on the mechanism, the pressure of his amendment has helped me, jointly with my noble friend Lord Howe, to form a strategy for how we might encourage proposals for high-quality research into mesothelioma. On Report last week, my noble friend Lord Howe outlined this strategy, and I thank the noble Earl once again for his support and collaboration on that point. The momentum in this area created by his efforts and the efforts of this House should not be underestimated.
I have tabled one amendment for today and I apologise to the House for its tardiness. The amendment is minor and technical in nature and we will come to it in a moment, but I will quickly say that further thanks are due, this time to the noble Lord, Lord Browne. The purpose of the amendment is simply to add further clarification to Clause 2. It was the noble Lord’s careful scrutiny of that clause that alerted us to a possible source of confusion. The amendment was deemed necessary in cases where an individual had tried but failed to bring a claim against a relevant employer but, where any other relevant employer existed, the individual must attempt to bring a claim against that employer also before being able to come to the scheme. It has always been the policy intention that this scheme must be one of last resort and that all other avenues should be exhausted first. The object of the amendment is only to avoid any misinterpretation of Clause 2.
Before I conclude, I will briefly mention the sterling work of the team behind the scenes. There have been many working in DWP, MoJ, the Department of Health and parliamentary counsel to whom I extend my thanks, including, in the Box, Rose Willis and Fiona Walshe of the Bill team. I pay especial thanks to the tireless work of our redoubtable Bill manager, Lee Eplett, with whom I know many noble Lords have worked during the passage of this Bill.
I know that noble Lords have wished for the Bill to go even further than it does but I hope that they can agree with me that it is a major step forward. The issue of poor record-keeping in the industry has for far too long prevented mesothelioma sufferers from receiving the compensatory payments due to them. The Bill represents substantial progress in rectifying this injustice, and I once again thank noble Lords for their role in this achievement. I beg to move.
Lord Browne of Ladyton
My Lords, I speak in support of these amendments to the extent that they improve the Bill. I am pleased to have been of some assistance to the noble Lord, Lord Freud, in improving the Bill. I venture to suggest that at one stage he thought that I was perhaps more of an irritation than an assistance on Clause 2. However, important issues still need to be addressed and, if your Lordships’ House will bear with me for a couple of minutes, I shall explain.
My noble friend Lord McKenzie of Luton first raised concerns about Clause 2 when he moved Amendment 12 in Committee on 5 June. My noble friend’s contribution spurred my interest, and I recollect making some points of observation in debate. In his response the noble Lord, Lord Freud, initially dismissed these points, but as the debate became more engaged he promised to write. That was because he found himself—I think I quote him properly—“in deep legal territory”, or he was concerned that he might find himself in deep legal territory. He promised to write, and on 7 June he did so. He dismissed my concerns again, but I persisted. Thanks to the engagement of the Bill team, in particular the Bill manager, I was able to find a route of communication with parliamentary counsel about my concerns in relation to Clause 2.
I will not take up the House’s time by going into these in detail, but I remain unconvinced that even an amended paragraph (c) of Clause 2(1) is necessary, except in the most remote, hypothetical circumstances. I commend the ingenuity of those supporting the Minister in trying to find sets of circumstances which justify the words in the first draft of the Bill. In my view, the justifications which I was given were either wrong or showed a repeated misunderstanding of the interaction of other parts of Clause 2 with that very paragraph or, as we got deeper into the weeds in this, a misunderstanding of the relationship between Clause 10 and Clause 2, and then a misunderstanding of the relationship between Clause 2 and its provisions, and the draft set of rules which we were then given. I presume they will now form the template for the regulations which will set out the scheme.
At every point at which a justification was made for the wording there was an inconsistency, which I pointed out. However, having said that, the clarification which the Minister gave in his letter of 7 June that the phrase “the relevant employer” in Clause 2(1)(c) was a reference to the same “a relevant employer” in paragraph (a) of the same subsection, perhaps deals with the issue, at least to some extent. If the Minister finds some way of putting that explanation on the record, it may be sufficient to see off my concerns in the short term. In any event, at this stage I do not intend to persist, now that the paragraph has been divided and recast.
Amendment 1, which would put new paragraph (ca) in Clause 2(1), and Amendment 3, which would put new paragraph (ba) in Clause 3(1), are improvements. I support them without any qualification because they deal directly with my concerns about cases where an employee had multiple employers. It is a simple necessity that at the time of application the employee-applicant, or an eligible dependant, must be unable to bring an action against any of the employers or relevant insurers.
I move now to the consequences of Amendment 5. Amendment 5 is extremely interesting. It would amend Clause 18(3) so that it reads as follows:
“The scheme may specify circumstances in which a person is, or is not, to be treated as able to bring an action for the purposes of section 2(1)(ca) or 3(1)(ba)”.
This is potentially a very significant provision. Remarkably, despite all of the scrutiny it has remained totally unscrutinised. It has now been brought to my attention because of this amendment. I presume that these circumstances will now require to be set out in the regulations which will apply to the scheme—in other words, what were the draft rules that we were given copies of. I went through the draft rules in detail after I received this amendment and could find no references at all to any such circumstances. It seems therefore that a very important part of the structure of this scheme has not been subject to any form of parliamentary scrutiny. I hope that this will be corrected when the Bill goes to the other place. If this provision is necessary, the circumstances that are to be in the scheme ought to be shown to Parliament before parliamentary scrutiny of the Bill is concluded, which it has not been.
Finally, the most important point that has arisen from my engagement beyond Parliament with the Bill team is that during my conversations and in correspondence with those advising the Minister it was explained to me that it was the Government’s intention that, when a person was diagnosed with diffuse mesothelioma on or after 25 July 2012 but before the Bill comes into force as an Act, application to the scheme would have to be made and received by the scheme administrator not later than three years after the date on which it comes into force, not three years from 25 July 2012. That would be a very welcome relaxation of the limitation rules, given the nature of this dreadful disease and how quickly it can become fatal.
Unfortunately, the draft rules make no mention of that relaxation and there is no such relaxation anywhere in the Bill. However, there is a very specific relaxation in draft rule 7, where a person has died on or after 25 July 2012 and the claim is made by an eligible dependant. That very significant concession is known to me and is now known to all Members of your Lordships’ House. It requires some parliamentary acknowledgement or commitment, at the very least. More than that, it requires some commitment that the regulations will deal with this in an explicit way.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, we support these amendments, which were spoken to by the Minister some little while ago. We do so in the confidence of having received advice from my noble friend Lord Browne, to whom I pay tribute for his tenacity in pressing certain points, even at Third Reading, and for the food for thought that he has left for colleagues in another place, added to that suggested by my noble friend Lord Howarth and the noble Lord, Lord Alton.
We have heaped praise on the Minister for all his efforts in developing and bringing forward this scheme, and we should do so again this afternoon—in particular, for his determination to have a co-operative approach to a scheme which, sadly, will have to last for many years. This has been reflected in the welcome approach of the Bill team, for which we are very grateful, and indeed in the attitude adopted by all noble Lords who have participated in this debate. I thank my noble friend Lady Sherlock in particular.
Of course, we would have hoped that the scheme would go further, especially in terms of the level of payment. However, we have something solid and substantial to build on in both another place and with a future Government.
I have a final word for all those who have campaigned on behalf of people who are or will be affected by this terrible disease. They, too, can be justifiably proud of what has been achieved so far. It will be their efforts that continue to remind us of what we still have left to do.
Lord Freud
My Lords, I shall just tidy up the questions that noble Lords have raised. I turn, first, to the concerns about the scheme rules raised by the noble Lord, Lord Browne, who takes pride of place in terms of specificity. He was looking at the draft rules, and we will update them to reflect the points that he has made. I do not have an answer for him right now concerning the discrepancy between “a relevant” and “the relevant” employer but I will write to him over the summer. If possible, I should like to borrow his expertise in the coming months. We are still seeing the Bill through and I retain overall responsibility for making sure that it gets through in good shape. Perhaps I may borrow the noble Lord to go through some of these points with the Bill team, because he seems to have been most effective and helpful.
My noble friend Lord German raised related points concerning a company which is uninsured at the point of exposure and which later moves on. If the employer still exists, a claim would have to be made against that employer. If the employer no longer exists and no employer liability insurer can be identified, the person could come to the scheme. That is relatively straightforward to address.
I should take up the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, who has been utterly assiduous in looking through the Bill, for which I thank him. I will touch on some of the points that he commends to another place. These issues are very specific, so the rate that we can pay is tied very much to the risks that the costs get passed on to British business. The start date is very much tied to the structure of the smoothing that we have, so that would be very difficult to change. We also have a problem with the household member concerned because it is cover not from employer liability but from public liability. We look at the point on annual reporting in the context of how the oversight committee works.
On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Empey, on research, we are having a meeting later this week on this issue with key players, launched by the British Lung Foundation. My noble friend Lord Howe and I will be there, and it might be a useful place to discuss how we might look at the progress of research. While we did not agree with the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, we very much agree with the sentiment behind his motivation for raising the issue because something most disturbing was happening with the lack of research. We are looking for the very best way of making sure that we have quality research. I know that my noble friend Lord Howe went through that in great detail and that he has put a lot of energy into ensuring that we transform that situation. With that, I beg to move.
Lord Freud
Lord Freud
“(b) no one has brought an action for damages in respect of the disease under the fatal accidents legislation, or on behalf of the estate of the person with the disease, against the relevant employer or any insurer with whom the employer maintained employers’ liability insurance at the time of that person’s exposure to asbestos,“(ba) no one is able to bring an action for damages in respect of the disease under the fatal accidents legislation, or on behalf of the estate of the person with the disease, against any employer of the person with the disease or any insurer with whom such an employer maintained employers’ liability insurance (because they cannot be found or no longer exist or for any other reason), and”
Lord Freud