Child Poverty: Benefit Cap

Baroness Blower Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Blower (Lab)]

My Lords, I hope that the child poverty strategy group will urgently take advice in particular from teachers, who often find themselves at the forefront of attempting to alleviate the grinding poverty in which some of our children arrive in school, particularly because of the two-child cap.

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My noble friend makes a very important point. I am very conscious that teachers are on the front line of this and that they see the day-to-day effects of the significant rise in child poverty we have seen in recent years. They are very much people who have things to say to us. That is why the strategy is being co-chaired by my boss, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, and my noble friend’s boss, the Secretary of State for Education. Child poverty is not restricted to a single aspect of anyone’s life. It has many different causes and many different solutions. We will work across government, as a joined-up Government, to tackle this properly.

European Social Charter

Baroness Blower Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd September 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, in signing a charter, the UK is indicating that it agrees with the contents as negotiated, but we can ratify it only when we know that we will be compliant with it, because to ratify a charter is to agree to be bound by its provisions. As I have indicated before, that would mean that the UK would need to make an assessment to be sure that it would in fact be compliant with the terms of the treaty before doing it. My noble friend will know that we have plans, including the employment rights Bill, which will change our position on some provisions in the revised charter, so we will certainly consider whether we can ratify the revised charter in the light of the Government’s reforms. On the collective complaints system, the UK has for some time held that it is among the majority of member states party to the European Social Charter who have not accepted that because we believe that the existing supervisory mechanisms are adequate.

[Baroness Blower (Lab)]

My Lords, Article 6.4 of the charter protects the right to strike. Under previous Governments, the UK built up an unenviable record of being in breach of its conformity every time that it was reviewed since 1984. Will the Government now take the opportunity of the forthcoming employment rights Bill to ensure that we are in conformity with the right to strike?

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, the Government have plans for reforming the whole landscape of employment. We value the important role that unions play in shaping employment rights, domestically and internationally, and we want to create a new partnership between businesses, trade unions and working people. That will include taking steps to strengthen the rights of UK workers and their representatives, such as repealing prohibitive restrictions. We will repeal the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act to remove barriers to effective collective action and strengthen rights. It is right that the Government do the things that we consider right for this country, but we will in due course look at whether the changes we have made put us in a position to consider ratifying the revised Social Charter and make a judgment at that point as to whether that is the right thing for Britain to do.

Mesothelioma Lump Sum Payments (Conditions and Amounts) (Amendment) Regulations 2024

Baroness Blower Excerpts

Monday 19th February 2024 Grand Committee

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

My Lords, I will also speak to the draft Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) (Payment of Claims) (Amendment) Regulations 2024 and the draft Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) (Specified Diseases and Prescribed Occupations) (Amendment) Regulations 2024.

The schemes we are debating today provide vital support for sufferers of dust-related diseases often caused by occupational exposure to asbestos and other harmful dusts. This includes diseases such as pneumoconiosis and mesothelioma. Although both schemes aim to provide compensation to sufferers within their lifetime, each scheme also allows for claims by dependants if, sadly, the person suffering from the disease passes away before they are able to claim. This is in recognition of the suffering these diseases can bring to whole families.

The changes we are debating today will apply equally to those in England, Wales and Scotland. The Government recognise that addressing Great Britain’s asbestos legacy, particularly in public buildings, remains a key issue. We also understand the crucial role that research and early detection can play in the fight against cancer and other diseases covered by these schemes. We continue to make progress in this space, with the rollout of the NHS targeted lung cancer screening programme, and around £122 million invested in cancer research in 2022-23 through the National Institute for Health and Care Research. However, while individuals continue to be diagnosed with these terrible diseases, the lump sum schemes remain a vital source of financial support for sufferers and their families.

I will now take a moment to provide some additional background to the schemes. The Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) Act 1979, which—noble Lords will be relieved to hear—for simplicity I shall refer to as the 1979 Act scheme, provides a single lump sum compensation payment to eligible individuals who suffer from one of the diseases covered by the scheme. This includes diffuse mesothelioma, pneumoconiosis and three other dust-related respiratory diseases. It was designed to compensate people who were unable to claim damages from former employers that had gone out of business and who had not brought any civil action against another party for damages. To be entitled to a lump sum award, claimants must have an industrial injuries disablement benefit award for a disease covered by the 1979 Act scheme.

The 2008 mesothelioma lump sum payments scheme, which I will refer to as the 2008 Act scheme, was introduced to provide compensation to people who contracted diffuse mesothelioma but were unable to claim compensation through the 1979 Act scheme. This may have been because they were a self-employed worker or their exposure to asbestos was not due to their work. The 2008 Act scheme provides support quickly to people with diffuse mesothelioma, at their time of greatest need.

This Government recognise the suffering that diseases such as mesothelioma and pneumoconiosis cause to sufferers and their families. I know that 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. I have known two people who have succumbed. We must remember the great impact these illnesses have on people and their families.

Each year, the schemes continue to provide vital financial support to sufferers and their families. Between April 2022 and March 2023, the latest financial year for which data is available, 2,860 awards were made across both schemes, with expenditure totalling £42.3 million. However, between now and 2028-29, expenditure on the schemes is forecast to fall by 8% in real terms. In part, this may reflect historical changes in the domestic workforce but also improved health and safety provision more widely. This may provide some hope that fewer families will suffer the impacts of these terrible diseases going forward.

Two of the instruments we are debating today seek to increase the value of one-off, lump-sum payments made under the 2008 Act scheme and 1979 Act scheme respectively, this time by 6.7%. These new rates will apply to those who first become entitled to a payment from 1 April 2024. As many noble Lords will be aware, these two schemes are not included in the main social security benefits uprating procedure. However, a 6.7% increase is in line with the September 2023 consumer prices index and mirrors the proposed increases to industrial injuries disablement benefit payments and other disability benefits. As I outlined this time last year, there is no statutory requirement to review the level of these payments annually. However, the department has decided to uprate payments under both lump-sum schemes together, in line with inflation, since 2010. I reassure noble Lords that this year will be no different, which reflects the continued importance of the support provided by these schemes.

This year, in addition to the uprating instruments, I ask that the Committee considers a third draft instrument. Unlike uprating, this instrument will not form part of an annual process. Instead, it seeks to extend the eligibility criteria under the 1979 Act scheme. This instrument will simply realign the diseases which may bring entitlement to a payment under that scheme with those that may bring entitlement to IIDB, ensuring that the original policy intent of the 1979 Act is reflected in the legislation. In doing so, it will widen the 1979 Act scheme entitlement to customers suffering from two additional dust-related conditions; first, unilateral or one-sided diffuse pleural thickening and, secondly, asbestos-related primary carcinoma of the lung where there is no accompanying asbestosis.

As many noble Lords are aware, the department is advised by the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council—an independent scientific body, called IIAC—on changes to the list of prescribed diseases for which IIDB can be paid. At the point that they were added to the 1979 Act legislation, the specified diseases exactly mirrored diseases listed in the relevant IIDB legislation. Over time, IIAC has recommended several changes to IIDB prescribed diseases that are also specified in the 1979 Act, which have been accepted by the department.

The unintended impact of accepting these recommendations was that people who suffer from one-sided diffuse pleural thickening and primary carcinoma of the lung with occupational exposure to asbestos, but no accompanying asbestosis, are now potentially eligible for IIDB but not eligible for an award under the 1979 Act scheme. This divergence was first identified in September 2023, when officials were asked to provide clarification on entitlement for an individual case. Officials have worked at pace since September to bring forward the legislation that we are debating today.

The proposed amendments seek to address this divergence by realigning diseases specified in the 1979 Act legislation with those which may bring entitlement to IIDB. If approved, this instrument will mean that the diseases specified in the 1979 Act legislation are based on an improved clinical understanding and that the original policy intent of the 1979 Act is reflected fully in legislation.

Historically, payments have been made to sufferers of these two diseases, despite the divergence identified in the legislation. This was because the department was using diseases set out in the IIDB legislation when considering entitlement to a lump-sum award under the 1979 Act scheme. Importantly, our understanding is, therefore, that customers who made claims for these two diseases historically have not missed out as a result of the change not being made sooner.

As of 16 February, the department was holding 94 claims made since September 2023 where it has not been possible to establish entitlement under the current legislation, but where the criteria would be met under the proposed legislation. If it is approved today, we will pay these customers as soon as possible.

Overall, we estimate that this change will extend legislative entitlement to a 1979 Act scheme lump-sum award to approximately 300 people a year with one-sided diffuse pleural thickening and asbestos-related primary carcinoma of the lung—a reflection of the vital role the schemes play in providing compensation to those affected by these terrible diseases. I am sure—I hope—that noble Lords here today will join me in recognising the continued importance of the compensation provided by these schemes.

Finally, as a part of my role, I am required to confirm that each of these three provisions is compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights, and I can gladly do so. I commend the proposed amendments to these schemes to the Grand Committee and ask noble Lords’ approval to implement them. I beg to move.

[Baroness Blower (Lab)]

My Lords, as general secretary of the National Union of Teachers, I was aware of a number of members who died from school-acquired mesothelioma. I declare an interest: having worked in an asbestos-contaminated school myself, I have that registered on my medical record, although I am in good health at the moment.

These lump-sum payments are meant to provide some compensation for asbestos victims who cannot get civil compensation from a former employer, but there is an inconsistency in the schemes. If a surviving partner or dependant must claim after their loved one has died, they receive a substantially lower payment. In 2019-20, a 77 year-old with mesothelioma would have received £14,334 if they claimed themselves, but if they died before claiming, which can of course happen with a cancer that is both aggressive and difficult to diagnose, their surviving partner or dependent child would have received £7,949. Mesothelioma patients typically have months left to live at the time of their diagnosis.

Many surviving partners, often women on modest wages or pensions, suffer financial hardship after the loss of their loved one. Their household income falls, but many of their outgoings remain the same. In that situation, they are further disadvantaged if they can receive only the much lower posthumous payment, so there is a clear moral case for raising that payment. Of the 3,830 payments made in 2018, only 260 were posthumous claims, according to the figures I have from the TUC. It estimates that it would cost £1.5 million to equalise payments. In its view, and indeed mine, raising the level of posthumous payments is therefore affordable.

In 2010, the Government acknowledged that there was no justification for the differential payments, stating that the inequality in payments could put pressure on victims’ families when they are most vulnerable. Does the Minister agree that it is now time to change this and equalise the payments?

[Baroness Donaghy (Lab)]

My Lords, it is ironic that the all-party group on asbestosis is meeting as we speak. The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and I had to leave that meeting early to be here. That group is doing good work. I also pay tribute to the staff at the DWP for all the work they do in this area. They do not always get the thanks that they deserve.

My interest in this is not related to what I am going to say. I chair the oversight committee of the mesothelioma compensation fund on behalf of the Department for Work and Pensions. That committee consists of all the interests involved: victims, unions, employers and insurance companies. I have been doing this since the creation of the Act.

I simply want to support what my noble friend Lady Blower just said. This inconsistency has existed for 14 years now, and the Government themselves have always acknowledged it: if a claim is not made before the person is deceased, the family ends up with a pitiful amount of money. This is really a plea to underpin what my noble friend said, as something ought to be done to rectify this terrible anomaly.

Child Poverty: Ethnicity

Baroness Blower Excerpts

Thursday 27th May 2021 Grand Committee

[Baroness Blower (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Woolley, for this debate and for giving us the opportunity to consider the ONS report and, of course, systemic inequality in general. Hungry children cannot learn as effectively and efficiently as those who are well fed, or at least adequately fed and nourished. Teachers and teaching assistants know this only too well; they deal with hungry children in their classrooms every working day of their lives and respond by providing food, often at their own expense. Hunger in the classroom is, alas, not a new problem but education staff observe it to be an increasingly prevalent one.

As we all know, the pandemic has exposed significantly different health outcomes by ethnic group, while the ONS report has shown that Bangladeshi, Pakistani and black ethnic groups have more children living in low-income households than the national average. These children must therefore be exceedingly likely to be disproportionately affected by hunger daily. As we all know, it took a young man better known for football than politics to draw on his own lived experience and push the Government to do something on food which they had no intention of doing originally. Marcus Rushford is no longer just a football star but a champion for the right to food—and now food for the mind, too, with his campaign on reading and access to books.

The pandemic has hit many families’ finances hard. Eight out of 10 teachers say that they have seen this impact. We know that many schools have organised foodbanks and delivered food parcels to pupils in their homes—some, of course, even before the pandemic. We cannot allow our children and their families to languish in hunger during the summer break. Local authorities can be well placed to provide recreational and educational programmes and include food as part of that offer, but they need sufficient resources provided in a coherent and timely manner, and on an ongoing basis throughout the summer and during the autumn half-term. In fact, this should happen in all school holidays to ensure that no child or family slips through the cracks.

If the levelling-up agenda means anything, it must mean an end to child and family hunger and poverty. It must mean a right to food and an end to systemic inequality, which has left so many facing a future in which their own future is less bright than it could and should be.

Unemployment: Support

Baroness Blower Excerpts

Thursday 21st May 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Stedman-Scott]

I will answer the noble Baroness’s last point first: of course, I am prepared to meet groups that are trying to help people in this very difficult position. I am sorry that I am not in a position to make financial commitments, but I can say that the Prime Minister and the Chancellor have made it clear that we will do whatever it takes to help those affected by Covid-19. We are keeping the situation under continuous review.

[Baroness Blower (Lab)]

My Lords, the level of unemployment that we are confronting is, frankly, unthinkable. We know that even before this crisis many individuals and families were literally one pay cheque away from financial disaster. Noble Lords may not know just how low benefits are and how impossible they are to live on. We as a society have to find the resources to ensure that people can keep a roof over their heads, food on the table and clothes on their backs. Will the Government therefore convert universal credit advances into grants and end the five-week wait?

[Baroness Stedman-Scott]

The noble Baroness asks about converting advances into grants. I am sorry to say that the Government have no plans to do that. On the five-week period, no one has to wait five weeks for their money, but the five-week wait is an integral part of the design of universal credit. The Government are cognisant of the difficult situations that people find themselves in and are doing everything they can to support them in this difficult time.