Mesothelioma Lump Sum Payments (Conditions and Amounts) (Amendment) Regulations 2023

Monday 6th March 2023 Grand Committee

Considered in Grand Committee

15:45

Moved by

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Mesothelioma Lump Sum Payments (Conditions and Amounts) (Amendment) Regulations 2023.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Viscount Younger of Leckie) (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak also to the Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) (Payment of Claims) (Amendment) Regulations 2023. I am pleased to introduce these statutory instruments, which were laid before the House on 12 January 2023. These instruments will increase the value of lump sum awards payable under the Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) Act 1979, and the diffuse mesothelioma scheme, which was established by the Child Maintenance and Other Payments Act 2008.

As many noble Lords will be aware, these two schemes are not included in the main social security benefits uprating procedure and their uprating is not a statutory requirement. However, through these statutory instruments, we will increase the amounts payable by the September 2022 consumer prices index of 10.1%. These new amounts will be paid to those who satisfy all the conditions of entitlement for the first time on or after 1 April 2023.

Many noble Lords will be aware of friends and close colleagues from your Lordships’ House who have lost their lives as a result of these dreadful diseases. We must remember the great impact that these diseases have on people and their families. The Government recognise the tremendous suffering that diseases such as mesothelioma and pneumoconiosis cause to those who are diagnosed. The conditions covered by these schemes can be debilitating and life limiting and often involve very long latency periods, with symptoms starting to show many years, often many decades, after exposure. Mesothelioma, for example, is an aggressive type of cancer strongly associated with exposure to asbestos and is usually terminal. Life expectancy from diagnosis is poor.

I will now outline the purpose of the two schemes we are debating. The Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) Act 1979, which, for simplicity, I shall refer to as the 1979 scheme, provides a single lump sum compensation payment to individuals who suffer from one of the prescribed diseases covered by the scheme, including mesothelioma, pneumoconiosis and three other dust-related respiratory diseases. This scheme was designed to cover people who are unable to claim damages from employers because they have gone out of business and who have not brought any action against another party for damages. To be eligible, a claimant must be in receipt of industrial injuries disablement benefit for a disease covered by the 1979 scheme.

The 2008 mesothelioma lump sum payments scheme, which I will refer to as the 2008 scheme, was introduced to provide compensation to people who contracted diffuse mesothelioma but who are unable to claim compensation under the 1979 Act. This may be because they were self-employed or their exposure to asbestos was not due to their work. The 2008 scheme allows payments to be made quickly to people with diffuse mesothelioma at their time of greatest need. Under both schemes, a claim can be made by a dependant if the person with the disease has sadly died before being able to make a claim. These schemes aim to ensure that, where possible, the people who suffer from the diseases they cover receive compensation within their lifetime.

The rates payable under the 1979 Act scheme are based on the disease sufferer’s assessed level of disablement and their age at the date of entitlement. The highest awards are made to individuals with the highest assessed level of disablement and those who become entitled to a payment at an earlier age.

All payments for diffuse mesothelioma under the 1979 Act scheme are automatically made at the 100% disablement rate—the highest rate of payment—reflecting the serious nature of the disease. Similarly, all payments for this condition under the 2008 scheme are made at the 100% disablement rate. The highest payments from both schemes are made to the youngest sufferers of the disease. Between April 2021 and March 2022, the latest financial year for which data is available, 3,080 awards were made across both schemes, totalling £44.7 million. Between 2022-23 and 2027-28, expenditure on these schemes is forecast to fall by 8% in real terms.

I will now touch on the legacy of Covid-19. As the Committee will be aware, the Covid-19 pandemic presented unprecedented challenges. I am mindful of the impact it has had on sufferers of respiratory diseases in particular. As my predecessor set out in last year’s debate, the department made the decision to suspend all face-to-face assessments between March 2020 and April 2021 to protect the health of our claimants, and of course our staff. Some assessments were further suspended beyond April 2021 due to the additional risks of undertaking them face to face. Inevitably, this has led to delays in some customer journeys for claims to industrial injuries disablement benefit and the lump-sum schemes.

In response, the department and its assessment provider, the Centre for Health and Disability Assessments, introduced several innovations to ensure that claims for IIDB, the 1979 scheme and the 2008 scheme continued to be processed as quickly as possible. We increased the use of paper-based assessments and introduced video assessments where appropriate. I am pleased to say that we continue to assess some customers via these routes where possible.

I will now touch on one specific, important and sensitive theme linked to these regulations, which is asbestos removal and schools. Tremendous strides have been made to restrict the use of asbestos and introduce safe environments for its handling in this country. However, the legacy of its widespread use, including in schools, is still with us today.

The Health and Safety Executive has a mature and comprehensive regulatory framework to ensure that the legacy asbestos risks in Great Britain are managed, which aligns with the best evidence currently available. Correct implementation of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012 not only ensures management of the risks of exposure but will eventually lead to the elimination of asbestos from the built environment. I understand that some noble Lords have previously raised the issue of asbestos in schools in these debates. I assure them, and this Committee, that the Government take the safety of children and those who work with them incredibly seriously.

The Department for Education is committed to working collaboratively with the regulator, the HSE, to support schools and duty holders. As part of this, the Department for Education published bespoke guidance on asbestos management for schools in 2020 and is working with the HSE and the sector to look at further ways to help them and to build on existing guidance and support. Well-maintained and safe school buildings are a priority for this Government. That is why over £13 billion has been allocated for improving school buildings since 2015, including £1.8 billion committed for the financial year 2022-23.

I will conclude on a positive and—I hope noble Lords will agree—hopeful note. While there is always a degree of uncertainty in predicting future disease incidence, current projections by the Health and Safety Executive suggest that total annual mesothelioma deaths in Great Britain are expected to decline in the coming decades. For males, a decline is projected over the course of this decade, and for females, deaths are projected to start falling shortly after. These figures offer some hope that, one day, no more families shall have to endure the suffering caused by these dreadful diseases.

Medical research into treatment options is ongoing, particularly in the field of immunotherapy. While these treatments are not currently curative, a recent trial has shown clear evidence of benefit to advanced mesothelioma patients, equivalent to an additional three to four months of life.

I am sure that all noble Lords here today will join me in recognising the continued importance of the compensation provided by the 1979 and 2008 schemes and the importance of maintaining the value of these payments at this time. I am pleased to say that these regulations were considered in the other place on 8 February 2023.

Finally, as part of my role today, I am required to confirm—which I am pleased to do—that these provisions are compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. I commend to the Committee the increase of the payment scales for these schemes and ask approval to implement them. I beg to move.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for the way in which he introduced these regulations. Just before we began, a group of us were recalling how we have discussed this year in, year out. We were also recalling some of his illustrious predecessors and others in all parts of the House who contributed to some of the changes that he has referred to.

I am thinking particularly of the late Lord Newton of Braintree, who was a Secretary of State. He was a great supporter when I moved amendments in your Lordships’ House seeking to change the Criminal Justice Bill and to bring about what then became a full-scale Act of Parliament, the Mesothelioma Act. The noble Lord, Lord Freud, was decisive in making that happen. He also once shared in this Committee how his father had died of mesothelioma. On this side of the Committee, I think of Lord McKenzie of Luton, who died at the end of 2021. It will seem a strange debate without his voice. His attention to granular detail was extraordinary and his knowledge of pneumoconiosis and mesothelioma admirable, demonstrating the very best of your Lordships’ House.

The noble Viscount referred to the removal of asbestos from schools, which I was very pleased to hear about. It has been a recurring theme that we have raised in these Committees over the years. On a hopeful note, he said that mesothelioma might be plateauing. I will come back to the data a bit later. He also talked about advances in medical treatments. He will know that the Mesothelioma Act was specifically about providing government funding toward the work of the British Lung Foundation and others on the causes and consequences of mesothelioma and on looking for cures. Can the noble Viscount tell us more about whether that funding is being sustained and what progress is being made in that area?

One of the things that has struck me is the number of noble Lords who have shared personal stories of loved ones, family or friends who have died of this disease, which, over the distance, has claimed more than 30,000 lives. That is the same number of deaths still estimated to be caused globally every year. As I have done on previous occasions, I pay tribute to John Flanagan and the Liverpool-based charity, the Merseyside Asbestos Victims Support Group, for keeping a candle lit for all those afflicted by mesothelioma. In 2020, I noted that people in Liverpool are more than 18% more likely to die of mesothelioma. I know that we will hear from my noble friend Lord Wigley and the noble Lord, Lord Jones, during our proceedings; we have heard from them previously about the situation in Wales. However, this disease is no respecter of geographical boundaries or class. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Allan of Hallam, and I were discussing this just before the Committee met. We were talking about some of those who have talked about the loss of loved ones.

My noble friend Lord Freyberg talked in the House about his sister, a journalist, who had died of mesothelioma. The noble Lord, Lord McNally, talked about his sister, who had simply been washing overalls and had died of mesothelioma. The noble Lord, Lord Giddens, told us about his wife, who had died of mesothelioma. We also heard from the noble Lord, Admiral Lord West, the story of how young men training for the Navy played snowballs with asbestos. Indeed, Jeremy Hunt, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, described how his father, Admiral Hunt, had also died of mesothelioma. So this is not something that is remote. It is something we know about, but sometimes it is regarded almost as having Cinderella status.

16:00

Mr Flanagan has asked me particularly to ask the Minister what progress, if any, is being made in connection with the equalisation of government lump sum payment schemes. He says that the current arrangements result in

“the short changing, in the main, of widows who are in the predicament of having lost a loved one and being told by government that they must be adversely treated in comparison with other widows who have suffered the same loss”.

So, as much as I welcome the Minister telling us that there will be an increase in the total amounts of money available this year—I will come back to that in a moment—this is nevertheless about equalisation with other schemes. Why is there a discrepancy between how we treat some widows and others?

I have some other requests for the Minister. A request has been made by the department to insurers and personal injury lawyers involved in the review of the diffuse mesothelioma payment scheme—let us call it DMPS—compensation tariff to provide input and data. I know that some lawyers involved in this would like the department to recognise that undertaking this is a significant task that has consumed large amounts of time from the lawyers working in those practices. They have asked for clarification of the methodology to be employed when analysing the data. The request from the department refers to tariff payments being established based on average compensation figures from civil claims. In response, lawyers say that as stakeholders they believe they are entitled to clarification of the methodology, particularly due to the delay in implementing the review. They also say they have overarching concerns in relation to a number of aspects of the scheme and the current remit of the legislation. They argue, and I agree, that those questions should be considered as part of what is now the overdue DMPS tariff review. Perhaps the Minister can tell us where we are up to with that review.

The stated objectives of the scheme include a commitment that payments will rise in line with the consumer prices index each year, but, as the Government have previously stated,

“if the level of civil compensation also changes, we need to look again at the amount of the scheme payment to see if it should be changed in line with that of civil compensation”.—[Official Report, 17/7/13; col. 764.]

Is it still the Government’s intention to do that? What progress are we making in that regard? I would like the Minister to confirm that these commitments made to mesothelioma victims will be fulfilled.

The Secretary of State gave an undertaking to Parliament that the tariff would be reviewed in 2018-19, but that was not done. There was a stated commitment that payments would rise in line with the CPI, but again that has not been done. There is widespread concern and disappointment at the failure to implement a review and maintain the scheme payments in accordance with the undertakings given. That delay has resulted in DMPS applicants being undercompensated for several years. The Secretary of State should provide reasons for that failure and give, if not an apology, at least an explanation to mesothelioma victims and their families for what is an unacceptable delay.

The limited cost provisions demonstrate that there are clear failings with access to justice and legal representation. The position in relation to legal costs was the reason I became interested and involved in this issue in the first place, when there was an attempt to remove all legal aid for people who had contracted mesothelioma; thanks to your Lordships, that did not happen. I wonder whether this will be considered as part of the terms of reference of any review.

Will it look at the exclusion of mesothelioma sufferers who have suffered para-occupational exposure? That might include the likes of victims who were exposed to asbestos as a result of contact with family members whose clothing—I gave an example before—and persons were contaminated with asbestos fibres or individuals who have suffered from environmental asbestos exposure, for example through living in proximity to industrial operations liberating asbestos fibres. There are also clear inconsistencies in compensation levels, payment of medical treatment costs, access to justice, limitation, deduction of state benefits and eligible classes of claimants. Will they be considered in the review?

Finally, it appears that the numbers of claims for mesothelioma fell during the pandemic period—the Minister referred to this. Various reasons for this might include fewer diagnoses being made, death certificates that recorded other conditions as the cause of death rather than mesothelioma, or potential problems with access to justice. All those may well distort data and favour an average tariff based on six years of data as being weighted towards older, lower settlement levels.

Although there has been some plateauing in the figures, as the Minister told us, we know that more than 5,000 asbestos-related disease deaths occur each year, with 2,544 mesothelioma deaths in Great Britain in 2020. There was a rise that year compared with 2019, but it was similar to the average of 2,523 deaths per year over the previous eight years. Put another way, there are more than seven deaths caused by mesothelioma every single day. Perhaps the Minister, when he comes to reply, can reassure us that we are not taking our eyes off this killer disease. Can he tell us what contribution His Majesty’s Government are currently making on the causes, and hopefully the cures, in combating this terrible disease?

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Alton. The figures he just quoted bring home the reality of this to us, and I pay tribute to the work that he has undertaken over so many years in this area. I am delighted to support both the uprating regulations and welcome the 10.1% increase. I am sure the nurses and the teachers would be delighted to have a similar increase if it was in the Government’s ability to do so, but it is good that the value of these payments should be maintained.

Noble Lords will be aware of the provenance of the Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) Act 1979. It was driven on to the statute book in the dying days of the Callaghan Labour Government, propelled at that time by the needs of slate quarrymen in north-west Wales. Coal miners suffering from pneumoconiosis had of course been compensated as a result of the tripartite agreement between the NUM, the NCB and the Government in 1975, but no provision was made at that time for workers from other industries suffering similar lung diseases. Slate quarrymen were one such case but there are many other industries where it was relevant.

It was in the few days after losing a vote of confidence by just one vote that Michael Foot, to his eternal credit, ensured that the promise given to Plaid Cymru MPs at that time was delivered in all stages. The legislation went through both Houses in just two days, which was remarkable and very much to his credit. I also pay tribute to the work done by the Transport and General Workers’ Union regional secretary, the late Idwal Edwards, who campaigned vigorously on these matters.

Several thousand ex-quarrymen, who had no remaining employer against whom to take legal action, and their widows have benefited from the legislation and still do. But by now, many more workers in other dust-generating industries are also able to benefit from it, so it would be very helpful if the Minister could indicate how many pneumoconiosis sufferers, by industrial group, receive compensation under the Act over whatever recent period is available. If those figures are not available to him but they are in the department, perhaps he can write as they would, I am sure, be of interest to Members on all sides of the Committee.

By now, the major group of sufferers from lung diseases is that of mesothelioma victims, as outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Alton. Their condition arises from asbestos dust, so it is right that we should debate both these instruments together. Mesothelioma was covered partially in a 1979 order but, rightly, sufferers have demanded specific legislation dealing with the particular nature of that disease. There have been several such steps over the years. It is a vicious condition, as has been described, which can be dormant for many years, without anybody realising it is there, then attack the victim with a ferocity that can kill within months. I have seen that for myself; it happened in the last few months of the life of a very good friend of mine, Peter Wolfe, whom I remember as a teenager playing snowballs with asbestos flakes when our school gym was taken down and rebuilt. That is similar to the story the noble Lord, Lord Alton, recalled being recounted to a previous Committee. Peter died six decades later but only five months after his condition became apparent. That shows the speed with which it can attack.

It is right that asbestos sufferers are covered by legislation specific to their condition, and it is right that it should be uprated and that new ways of helping the victims and families should be developed. Equally important are the steps that the Government are taking to avoid exposure to asbestos dust. The Minister mentioned this; it is so important that publicly owned buildings—schools, colleges and other buildings, even hospitals—are monitored for the dangers in this direction. Perhaps I should mention very gently that there are parts of the Parliamentary Estate where asbestos has been used, and that too should be a matter of some concern to us in all parts of this Committee.

The Minister has told the Committee what is being done to eliminate or at least partly curtail such exposure. Can he give any indication of what the target dates will be for this being finally overcome? That may be too much to hope for, but it should still be the intention, target and aspiration of whoever is in government to take away the cause of the suffering, as well as compensating those who are suffering. Can the Minister give any indication of the anticipated time period until the demand for such compensation, on the present trajectory, would be finally eliminated?

Finally, I return to the slate industry. The demand for slate has increased in the recent past and now the employment profile is on an upward trajectory, interestingly, for the first time in decades. I am glad to say that employment is now being secured for more people, but greater care is being taken to minimise exposure to the dust—and that is to the credit of employers and unions alike. The slate industry landscape of north-west Wales was awarded world heritage designation 18 months ago, which pleased me and other noble Lords, I know, very much. It is worth noting that part of that story was the social dimension, not least the fact that the industrial hospitals provided in three major quarries, starting around 1820, were among the first such hospitals in any industry in the UK.

Today’s uprating regulations should be seen in the context of the social battles to get fair play for those working in particularly dirty and dangerous industries, and the recognition by government that compensation is appropriate. In any way that government can undertake such action, the cause of compensation should be eliminated.

[Lord Jones (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his thoughtful and succinct introduction. It is always instructive to hear the noble Lords, Lord Alton and Lord Wigley, with their committed and highly informed references to the lump sum payments. On page 4 of the first item on our Order Paper, in lines 4 and 5, I see the magic words that refer to

“increasing the amounts payable under the 2008 Regulations by 10.1 per cent”.

That is really good news. The Minister can be proud of proposing these regulations, which represent a humane approach by a great, undervalued department. Perhaps we can blink at the detail of tables 1 and 2 and contrast those sad figures with the Explanatory Memorandum, which posits words at paragraph 2.1 that must be music to the ear of the recipients or their families. Let us put into Hansard for the record the names of Lewis Dixon of the department and Louise Everett, the deputy director for ESA.

16:15

This is a filthy disease and it is truly fateful, as noble Lords have described. There is a context that perhaps youthful departmental officials may not know. Briefly, the former Minister of State Harold Walker MP, later Chairman of Ways and Means in the House of Commons, then Lord Walker, was on the Commons Front Bench. I heard his story of when the evil consequences to health of asbestos were not known. Lord Walker, a man previously of the factory shop floor, described a tragedy at Hebden Bridge where the workforce, in a slack moment, had played snowballs with asbestos. It was blue asbestos, the deadliest kind. You might say that the journey to these beneficial regulations probably began there. Many families must now be grateful for this progress.

It is also good to see, at paragraph 7.3 of the draft Explanatory Memorandum, the positive approach to “no obligation”. How were the sums in Tables 1 and 2 of the regulations initially arrived at? Was it on actuarial advice, and does the department have an in-house actuary or go out to consultancy? What information might be given on that?

On pneumoconiosis, the instrument is surely thoughtful and caring legislation. It must be welcomed because it is beneficial to so many. In the first table on pages 3 and 4, is it possible to tell how many recipients there are of 37 years and under and, similarly, of 77 years and over? The data designated “under” and “over” would be truly informative. If that data is not available immediately in the context of the debate, might it be given by letter?

The table on page 5 refers to death and speaks volumes. Is it possible for the department to extract from the table the numbers of recipients who were quarrymen and, specifically, who were engaged in the slate industry? North-west Wales was always the biggest supplier to the world of slate, especially for roofing. The social and economic history of north-west Wales was until recent times heavily influenced by slate. The memory lingers and it is very strong.

On page 6, reference is made to the 1979 Act, which was truly historic. One reason it was historic is that the slate industry would be included in any consideration of claim. I will briefly give the context for this legislation. The department’s youthful, able civil servants might gain from an insight as to the politics—small p—of the year in which the Act was legislated. It was a Government led by James Callaghan, who had no majority. The Minister of State was Harold Walker MP, who was ultimately, like his Prime Minister, a Member of the House of Lords. The Secretary of State for Wales was Cledwyn Hughes, Member of Parliament for Ynys Môn—Anglesey—in north-west Wales and later the Leader of Her Majesty’s Opposition in your Lordships’ House.

A big effort was made to push the legislation through by Cabinet, by the Whips and by the Parliamentary Labour Party—with a large “P”. Well, there were two Welsh nationalist Members of Parliament who were very supportive of the legislation. They had north-west Wales constituencies in which there was a remaining and significant slate quarrying industry. They were obliged, most patriotically, to speak up for their industry.

There was a notion among the people of north-west Wales of the heritage and hardship which generations had endured. It is no secret that it was very hard. Mention has been made of hospitals: a museum in that very location has a tiny ward where injured men were taken. It is one that you do not forget when you have entered it. Many of the men would walk from Ynys Môn, crossing the strait and then lodging, one way or another, in the confines of the quarry until they went back toward the weekend.

Those two nationalist MPs also entered the House of Lords, as did another north Welshman, a Minister who is now the noble Lord, Lord Jones. His role in part was to journey to Ynys Môn, to Anglesey, and the home of the retired solicitor, himself a Jones who had, in the courts, on behalf of the Transport and General Workers’ Union, with the sainted Mr Idwal Edwards, carried forward compensation claims. The solicitor helped the legislation in detail and helped to carry it forward. After all, for a short time, that solicitor, Jones, had been a Member of Parliament for north-west Wales—his constituency was Conwy. So he was a sitting comrade, with a small “c”, of Mr Callaghan and Mr Cledwyn Hughes. The young Minister suggested a knighthood for the retired solicitor, given all the work he had done. It transpired positively and the legislation was hugely beneficial, as I am sure the Committee will agree.

I conclude by thanking again the noble Viscount for his increase in payments.

[Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)]

My Lords, on the substance of the two instruments before us and the uprating of payments by 10.1%, we on these Benches, like the noble Lords, Lord Wigley and Lord Jones, of course welcome that. I have learned a lot from noble Lords in the debate. I know from reading Hansard on their previous appearances on these uprating instruments that they have long and honourable records of advocating for sufferers of these appalling diseases. I thank both noble Lords present and those whom the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, reminded us are no longer with us. Their words have helped to inform me and provided me with information that I understand will be useful in future years, as we continue to come back to debate these issues.

Much has been said that I will not repeat, but I will emphasise three areas that I am interested in and where I hope the noble Viscount might be able to expand in his response. The first is the question of the latest trends in the numbers of sufferers. As he pointed out, there is an expectation that they will decline once we reach a point 30 years or so after there was a reduction in the use of asbestos. But it would be interesting to hear from the Minister the extent to which there have been any surprises in the data, to understand more about the distribution of sufferers geographically and in terms of their professions, which has already been raised, their gender and any other factors that have surprised people, given the expected exposure and rate of suffering.

The noble Lord, Lord Wigley, was right to remind us that the exposure is not finished. Indeed, as we stand here, we are standing over huge amounts of asbestos, which is securely contained within the basement but which, at some point, will have to be removed as the works take place on this building. That is true across the country: in the 20th century a huge amount of electrical infrastructure was put in using asbestos as a fire preventer, and that is being replaced; people are now saying, “We need to get rid of it”. Whether that is meters in people’s own domestic premises or something on this scale, asbestos exposure is not finished—it will be an ongoing issue. I know that is broader than the instruments before us today, but I hope the Minister will make sure that his colleagues with relevant responsibilities continue to focus on that.

The predictions of expected sufferers would be helpful—not about individuals but about the population as a whole. Making that information public would help people to understand what is taking place. The Minister raised the effect of Covid on the figures, and I think the noble Lord, Lord Alton, asked whether diagnoses were missed during that period. Again, if there were changes during the Covid period, it is really important that we understand whether they were material changes or changes because of practice—because people were no longer presenting to their doctors and, therefore, in a sense, there is a false lowering of the numbers, rather than a genuine change in what has been occurring.

The second area about which it would be interesting to hear from the Minister is research, particularly the development of international networks. It has been mentioned that this affects people across many different countries. I was interested to see PREDICT-Meso, a network of international researchers run by the University of Glasgow involving countries in the EU but also countries such as India and Brazil, which industrialised very rapidly in the 20th century and which will also, sadly, see significant issues. Given that government support for scientific research is very topical at the moment, I am keen to understand the extent to which the Government are supporting research being carried out in this area. Can the Minister say any more about government support for research networks into respiratory diseases?

My final point, which has been touched on already, is about why the uprating is a manual rather than an automatic process. I can see from Hansard that this has been repeated on many occasions. I am sure that those who support the Minister did not have to do much work to recycle the comments made in previous years, but it would be interesting to hear from him again why the Government believe that this should continue to be a manual rather than an automatic process, whereby the people planning can understand that they will be entitled to the uprating, rather than us having to debate it each year. Perhaps the Minister will surprise us and there will be a change in the Government’s position this year, but I will not hang on for that.

I hope that the Minister can put some flesh on those three points about predicted numbers, government support for research and the manual versus automatic process. I will be interested to hear about them, but, as I said, broadly speaking, we welcome the 10.1% increase.

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing these regulations to the Committee, and all noble Lords who have spoken. As we have heard celebrated by my noble friend Lord Jones and others, the sums payable under the 1979 and the 2008 schemes are to be uprated by 10.1%—the rate of inflation as measured by the CPI 12-month rate last September, which is in line with other social security benefits, including the industrial injuries benefit.

First, I join the Minister in remembering all those who have suffered so much from these terrible diseases. Although many of us would like not to have to come back every year, it is at least an opportunity to pay tribute to them and to remember the lives so blighted. These schemes continue to provide crucial compensation to those who suffer from these terrible diseases and their families. Annual deaths from mesothelioma in Britain increased steeply over the last half century, due mainly, as we have heard, to the widespread industrial use of asbestos from about 1950 to 1980, which accounts for the high death rates among males over 70 whose younger working lives coincided with that period of peak asbestos use. It is good to see that death rates from mesothelioma among the under 65s have been falling.

I looked through the latest statistics on mesothelioma deaths published by the Health and Safety Executive last year, which went up to 2020. As the noble Lord, Lord Alton, said, there were 2,544 mesothelioma deaths in Great Britain in 2020, 6% up on 2019 but similar to the average across the previous eight years. But as the Minister pointed out, there are gender differences here. Those deaths comprise 2,085 men and 459 women. The projections are that annual deaths in men will reduce after 2020 but that female deaths will not, likely staying in the range of 400 to 500 throughout the 2020s but hopefully reducing further after that. Does the Minister know why there is this gender difference? I would be interested to know anything he can share on that.

16:30

Looking at the statistics, I was struck by how my own region, the north-east, stands out as so shockingly high. As we have heard so eloquently expressed, these diseases are a product of our industrial past, which has scarred so many lives and so many lands in so many ways. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, and my noble friend Lord Jones for that important history lesson. Schemes such as this may be taken for granted now but, like so many of the things that benefit workers, they were hard fought for, inch by inch. If we forget that and take them for granted, we put at risk the lives of workers in future. I thank them for reminding us of that and making sure we do not forget how hard it was to get these schemes in the first place.

When we reflect on our industrial past, we are reminded of the importance of a strong Health and Safety Executive. I regret to say that the number of health and safety inspectors was slashed by this Government. I think the Minister’s phrase was that the HSE has a mature regulatory framework for asbestos. Can he tell us how confident he is that the HSE is sufficiently well resourced both to manage the risks to employees today and, crucially, to look out for the health risks of the future? Noble Lords have spoken about people playing ball games with asbestos. When I was a child, we had asbestos table mats and oven gloves; it was seen as some kind of magic product. That seems ridiculous now, but the really interesting question is: what is today’s version of that? What are the things that now we think are fine but will be revealed later to be unsafe? Who is doing the research on that? That point was made by the noble Lords, Lord Allan and Lord Alton. Also, who in the health and safety environment is looking out for the interests of those whose workplaces may be harming them?

Has the DWP made any assessment as to whether the HSE has the resources it needs? I do not mean just an increase in budget, because of course its responsibilities have increased—not least in the wake of Brexit. Has it made a full assessment of whether it has the capacity to meet the demands placed on it? Can the Minister assure us that enforcement is still a high priority for the HSE? It seems there has been a downward trend in the number of prosecutions since 2016.

The noble Lord, Lord Allan of Hallam, reminded us of the importance of continuing to control asbestos well. Standing in this building, we all know how important that is. We have just had the post-implementation review of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012. Are the Government confident that the regulations are still fit for purpose? Can the Minister assure us that the controls will be maintained into the future?

I come back to a point often raised in these Committees, the position of dependants and the differential support supplied to them and to workers. My late and greatly missed colleague Lord McKenzie of Luton, celebrated by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, was a regular in these debates and often spoke of his regret that there was still no move to narrow or eliminate the gap between compensation paid to sufferers and to dependants. My noble friend used to remind noble Lords that the 2008 Act payments were meant to be funded from recoveries from civil compensation arrangements. What is the position today? He also said that the gap between payments to workers and their dependants would be eliminated once resources allowed; that had been the intention. That gap can be very big. If we look at the figures in the regulations, we see that a qualifying individual suffering from mesothelioma aged 60 at diagnosis would be entitled to £50,300, but a dependant of the same age would get just £21,774, rather less than half.

When we raise this, Ministers are wont to say something to the effect that the scheme is mainly aimed at those who have got the disease. I hope the Minister will look at his notes and not simply repeat that back to me this time. But this misses the point that those dependants are claiming compensation only because the worker has died, because the compensation was intended for the worker. The dependants are receiving it only because the worker has already died—and that is before we talk of the many terrible cases of women contracting the disease, as was described, from washing the contaminated clothing worn by their husbands, partners or fathers. I too remember just how poignantly the noble Lord, Lord McNally talked about his sister. So can the Minister tell the Committee what the current position is on this? Is there any plan to close that gap in time, or have the Government simply turned their face against this possibility?

My final question is one already raised by the noble Lord, Lord Allan of Hallam, about whether there has been any move on automatic uprating. There have been some very good questions today, to which I will be very interested to hear the answers. For example, the noble Lord, Lord Alton, asked about the tariff review for the diffuse mesothelioma scheme.

I was very pleased to hear the good news from the Minister about work being done in schools and about progress in using the benefits of the pandemic time—finding novel ways to take evidence remotely from applicants, for example, which is very welcome. I will be interested also to hear what is happening with research and welcome again the improvements on the medical front, such as immunotherapy, which at least help to prolong by some small amount the lives of those suffering from mesothelioma. We are, as always, very happy to support the uprating of these lump sum payments in line with inflation. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

I thank the Committee and all noble Lords for participating this afternoon, and for their general support for these regulations. I noticed that the noble Lord, Lord Jones, described our approach as humane; I might think that was a little bit of an understatement, but I appreciate the comments that he made.

I will pick up on some of the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Alton. He did the Committee a huge service by reminding us about the historical context of this. We should remember, as he rightly said, Lord Newton of Braintree, who I remember—just, as a much younger person—as Tony Newton. I think he was an ex-Health Secretary. It was helpful to hear the noble Lord’s comments there and to remind ourselves, as we do need reminding, of my noble friend Lord Freud, who did so much in this area. We should particularly remember Lord McKenzie of Luton—the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, is completely right on that—who was so active in this House and did so much for it.

On a personal note, I also want to mention a very dear friend who died of mesothelioma about 18 months ago. He was a quite remarkable individual who survived for eight years. He told me that he knew the longest surviving period of time was seven years and he managed, through thick and thin, to survive for eight. He was an incredible individual who gained an MBE for the work that he did in prisons, so I always remember that.

A number of questions were asked and I will start by saying that the Government recognise that the two schemes we are debating are a crucial part of the support available to people suffering from these dust-related diseases. It is right that we maintain the value of these payments at this time. In addition to the compensation awarded through these schemes, the department provides specific support for those who have industrial injuries, or diseases caused by occupational exposure, through industrial injuries disablement benefit, a weekly payment based on the assessed level of disablement. Other state benefits may also be available to claimants of the schemes to cover other needs, such as income replacement and caring costs, as well as further costs arising from their disability.

I want to pick up an important point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, which was followed up by the noble Lord, Lord Allan of Hallam, on the question of funding. Research is crucial in the fight against cancer and the Department of Health and Social Care invested £98.3 million in cancer research in 2021-22, through the National Institute for Health and Care Research. For several years, we have been working actively to stimulate an increase in the level of mesothelioma research activity from a pretty low base. This includes a formal research priority setting exercise, a National Cancer Research Institute workshop and a specific call for research proposals through the National Institute for Health and Care Research—so those are important points to be made.

The noble Lord, Lord Alton, asked about schemes comparable with civil damages claims. When the DMPS was introduced in 2014, the payment tariffs were based on 80% of the average damages award in the civil courts. As a result of the Diffuse Mesothelioma Payment Scheme (Amendment) Regulations that were laid on 27 February 2015 and came into effect on 31 March 2015, the tariffs increased from 80% of average civil claims to 100%. Since then, the tariff payments have remained the same. However, in line with commitments made during the passage of the Mesothelioma Bill, working collaboratively with the insurance industry and other key stakeholder groups, the department has now started to progress the tariff review to ensure that the expectations of the stakeholder lobby groups are managed and that, fundamentally, the payments are still commensurate with damages awarded in civil cases for occupational mesothelioma.

The noble Lord also raised equalisation. I hope that I can give him a reasonably comprehensive answer on this, because there is often much interest in the Government’s position on equalisation of payments made to dependents with those made to the sufferers of these diseases. I have listened carefully to the concerns raised today by the noble Lord. The Government remain of the view that available funding should be prioritised for those currently living with the disease to support them in dealing with the challenges that these illnesses bring in life. It is therefore right that available funding should be targeted where it is needed most. Indeed, around 90% of payments made under both schemes are paid to the sufferers of the diseases covered by them. However, it is of course clear that whole families can be devastated by the diseases covered by the lump sum schemes, which is why dependants are still entitled to some compensation under the schemes.

The noble Lords, Lord Jones and Lord Wigley, asked a number of specific questions on the figures involved. I will do my best to answer them, although I fear that there may be a letter arriving after my comments. As a generic response to the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, on the numbers per sector, data on mesothelioma deaths in Great Britain is published on the Health and Safety Executive website, on the health and safety statistics page under the sub-heading “Ill health”. These statistics include analyses of the relative frequency of recording of different occupations on mesothelioma death certificates, which are more useful as an indication of potential past sources of occupational asbestos exposure than absolute numbers recorded for particular occupations.

The noble Lords, Lord Wigley, Lord Jones and Lord Allan, asked about the breakdown of costs by region. The noble Lord, Lord Jones, also asked about quarrymen and those working in the slate industry. I feel that I will need to write to him on that. Volumes of awards through the 1979 and 2008 schemes, broken down by region, are now published. Unfortunately, information on the occupational breakdown of these awards is not published or readily available. This would require analysis of multiple datasets for the 1979 scheme and the industrial injuries disablement benefit scheme to determine industry information. Information on IIDB assessments is published on Stat-Xplore. I will write to see what more I can do to help all noble Lords on this point.

However, I might be able to help in one respect. The noble Lord, Lord Allan, asked, perhaps more as an aside, whether I could give some figures on the sex of those who have suffered. It is fairly simple: in 2017-18, the breakdown was 5% female and 95% male; the overall figures from then until 2021-22 are 7% female and 93% male. I hope that is of some help.

The noble Lord, Lord Allan, and the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, asked why statutory uprating should not be done on a regular basis—and this may be asked every year. Perhaps I can make some reassurances to this Committee that, although there is no statutory requirement to review the level of these payments annually, DWP Ministers have agreed to uprate payments under both the 1979 and the 2008 scheme together in line with inflation each year since 2010. A change of this nature is unlikely to make any monetary difference to those who receive awards under these schemes. Making this a statutory requirement would require amendments to primary legislation and, even with amended primary legislation, it is probable that statutory instruments would still be required to uprate the schemes annually. As such, parliamentary debates on this subject would continue. I add that these debates provide a valuable avenue to raise awareness of the lump sum schemes and, more broadly, support for people with respiratory diseases. That point was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, and I very much appreciated that.

16:45

I shall give a bit more information to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, on cancer services and research. As he and the rest of the Committee will know, the pandemic has created a backlog of care across the whole system, which the Government are working very hard to reduce. Improving early diagnosis is important to help boost cancer survival, and the Government are committed to the NHS long-term plan aim of diagnosing 75% of cancers at stage 1 or 2 by 2028. The targeted lung health check is a national NHS programme designed to identify signs of cancer at an early stage when it is much more treatable. By August 2022, over 1,200 lung cancers were diagnosed through the programme; the majority of these were at stages 1 or 2. The UK National Screening Committee has recommended that the TLHC programme is rolled out nationally. Research is also crucial in the fight against cancer. As I said, the Department of Health and Social Care has invested £98.3 million on cancer research.

The noble Lord, Lord Allan, raised the question of long Covid. I shall move on to that, as it fits nicely with what I have just mentioned on the health aspects. On matters relating to the IIDB, the department is advised by the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council, an independent scientific advisory body, on recommended changes to prescription and guidance. The council can recommend prescription only when there is good scientific and epidemiological evidence to establish the link between the disease and the occupation.

As this Committee will be aware, the council published a Command Paper in November last year which recommended prescription for certain disabling long-term pathological conditions that may develop as a consequence of having had Covid-19—long Covid, in effect—contracted through work. These recommendations were limited to the health and social care work sector, as this is where the evidence for occupational exposure was strongest. The council considered that the evidence is not, at present, sufficient to recommend prescription for long Covid or occupations other than health and social care workers. However, I reassure the Committee that the council will continue to keep this position under review. I am pleased to say that the department is currently carrying out a detailed assessment of the report’s recommendations and will provide a formal response once the work is complete.

The noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, asked what we were doing to ensure that the Health and Safety Executive was properly funded. I will start off by giving a general answer on the HSE. As she will know, I touched on the HSE at the beginning of my remarks. In addition to the comprehensive regulatory framework, the HSE works hard to raise awareness of the risks of working with and exposure to asbestos. Following the asbestos awareness campaigns of previous decades, the HSE continues to make a wide range of information freely available through its website. In 2023, the HSE will run a further awareness-raising campaign targeting the sectors most at risk from asbestos exposure.

On the questions raised by the noble Baroness, she will know—and I hope that she agrees with me—that the HSE has a strong track record in driving efficiencies in its work while ensuring the burden of costs falls in a proportionate manner on those who create risk. This approach has reduced the HSE’s reliance on central government funding, achieving over £100 million of collective savings since 2010-11 while ensuring that it continues to deliver agreed business plan targets.

The HSE allocates budgets and resources based on the levels of expected interventions, including inspection, investigation and enforcement activity. It does not allocate budgets at subactivity level, such as construction health inspections. In addition, the HSE employs a range of regulatory tools to improve health and safety, bringing together multiple interventions to achieve impact. The HSE influences and engages stakeholders, creates knowledge and awareness of risks and drives behavioural change through both assessments and direct interventions, including inspections, investigations and prosecutions, where needed.

To conclude, because of the sensitive nature of these regulations it has been a great privilege to take part in this debate. I very much recognise the serious points raised. It has demonstrated the need for this Committee to raise the necessary support available through the regulations to individuals suffering from these dreadful diseases, as I said at the outset, and to support their families. It has been a welcome opportunity to shine a light on the wider issues facing these vulnerable members of our society. With that, I commend the uprating of the payment scales for these schemes, and I ask approval to implement them.

Motion agreed.