Mesothelioma Bill [HL]

Lord Alton of Liverpool Excerpts

Monday 10th June 2013 Grand Committee

[Lord James of Blackheath]

I think it will be harder to make progress without the Minister. It seems to me that three very significant problems are emerging in any dialogue with the MoD at present, and they will not go away very easily. Each of them has been shadowed in the discussions this afternoon. For a start, of course, this is a compensation payment for a dying sailor. There is no argument about it. There is no way you can call it anything else. We are here talking of it not being a compensation payment and this gives rise to a total misunderstanding in the minds of the MoD people to whom I have been talking because they seem to think that what we have here is a great big government-funded handout that they can dip their hands in and have a share for their sailors.

Of course, the downside is that in saying no to them, we run the risk that this clever and inspired programme to force the compensation programme through for non-compensation payments will invite the dreadful comparison that the Government, who are concerned to prepare catch-up payments to all the sufferers of this disease for whom they can, should include responsibility for the Navy, which has deliberately discarded any responsibility for payments for people who are suffering similarly. I cannot imagine a more unfortunate juxtaposition.

The MoD has to understand that if it wants a solution to this problem, that must come out of its own resources. It cannot come from this scheme. When I first realised this, simply on the grounds that I did not know the answer I tabled my strange Amendment 47, which says that we have a problem for which we need an answer, and that we must find it when we get a sensible dialogue going with the MoD—which may or may not start tomorrow morning.

There are two other big problems with the MoD. First, it will have a hugely high percentage of what I call the household contamination problem. The sailors and workers will have gone home at night to their wives with their dirty washing from working in the boiler rooms of the intensely asbestos-lagged warships. We are going to have a huge problem of a different nature there.

Secondly, the MoD cannot run an insurance industry-based solution because it cannot insure its ships or people; that has to come from a different pot and a different source. It is absolutely unacceptable that we do not have a solution for the sailors in parallel with this, but it is not going to be compatible with this Bill. Forgive me for having put the clause in, which is completely wrong and irrelevant, but it really is a desperate call: we have got to have something instead. I want to put a marker down that the whole House must work towards this.

We must be totally intolerant of any fudge that does not give the Navy a fair deal. There are far too many affected persons out there. The way to get the MoD really interested in this is to threaten to write to the Queen and tell her how many of her crew of Royal Yacht “Britannia” have been killed by it. That will get the MoD’s undivided attention. I will continue to run that one.

I will withdraw my amendment as it stands, quite clearly, because I cannot run it here. I just wanted to leave it there for the moment. It is a hole into which I have got to get something put before we are through with this.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool]

My Lords, briefly, I support the two speeches which have just been made, not least because I agree with the noble Lord, Lord James, that there are other groups of people outside the scope of this Bill who are clearly looking to the Minister, who has done such a good job for this group of people: the 300 or so of the 2,200 who have unmet claims. He has done such a good job in dealing with this that there is the raised hope and expectation that other groups, whether they are in our Armed Forces or other groups entirely—such as those who have suffered from asbestos-related diseases of the kind to which the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, referred in his remarks—who will also be hoping that the noble Lord will in due course be able to come forward with other measures that might to meet some of those hopes and expectations.

I feel some sympathy with the Minister in this situation. I think it was William Wilberforce who was criticised by William Hazlitt for not dealing with problems of children who were being sent down into the mines; it would take Lord Shaftesbury to do that in due course. One of those who was defending Wilberforce, I think it was Henry Thornton, said it was rather like criticising Christopher Columbus for discovering the United States but also for not going on to discover Australia and New Zealand as well. The Minister is in that slightly invidious position at the moment. People will unfairly criticise him for not solving all the problems of the whole of mankind. What he is doing in the context of this Bill is incredibly noteworthy and all of us pay tribute to him for that. However, he should not neglect the points made by the two noble Lords, because they were well made and these amendments raise the point that there will be unfinished business even once this Bill has passed into law.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

The noble Lord must be very careful about making remarks like that. I think that we should strike them from the record.

The noble Lord was clearly referring in particular to those working in the boiler rooms of those three ships—HMS “Britannia”, HMS “Furious” and HMS “Albion”—a great many of whom would have been exposed to asbestos during the course of their service. We all in this Committee, I know, are deeply sympathetic to a tragic situation. However, as the noble Lord acknowledges, it is not possible for this Bill to be the solution for that, mainly because the MoD was not and is not covered by employer liability insurance. It would not be appropriate to raise finds for such a scheme from the employer liability insurance markets; they are entirely different issues. I know that the noble Lord has particular issues with the arrangements which the MoD has in place for compensation, so I will not go into those. They are dealt with by the MoD and I suspect that they will be the subject of conversation tomorrow.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool]

Before the Minister goes any further on that, would he accept that there is a parallel between people who slipped through the insurance arrangements for people with mesothelioma—and for whom there is therefore no known legal authority and so the Bill has been brought forward to plug that gap—and servicemen who have also fallen through a gap because there is no liability accepted by the Ministry of Defence and no insurance arrangements in place for them either? In parallel with this scheme, surely we should at least accept a moral responsibility for the obligations of the Government to people serving in our Armed Forces and risking their lives in the service of this nation, and therefore accept that it should in due course be met. Can the Minister at least tell us how many people are in those groups to which he has just alluded?

[Lord Freud]

My intelligence on this comes from my noble friend Lord James, who told me that the estimate was 300 people. However, I stand to be corrected by him.

Mesothelioma Bill [HL]

Lord Alton of Liverpool Excerpts

Wednesday 5th June 2013 Grand Committee

[Lord Freud]

Ah, I might say a few words. I hope that in my earlier intervention in the interests of saving a little time I effectively dealt with our approach on Amendments 1, 2, 4 and 5. I will turn to Amendments 3 and 6 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Howarth.

Amendment 3 requires that before the scheme is established,

“the Secretary of State shall publish his proposals and make a statement to Parliament about them”.

This falls into the area of the recommendations from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee to make the scheme rules subject to negative resolution. The result of those considerations may serve to enhance in practice the level of parliamentary scrutiny, which would make this amendment unnecessary.

One or two questions were raised. I apologise for the late arrival of the scheme rules—everything seems to be just in time today—but I was keen to get them to Committee Members before we started. Of course, we will have another day of Committee, and further stages. They are a draft at this stage and a work in progress and we will be continuing to refine them during the passage of the Bill and indeed afterwards.

I ought to deal with the question from my noble friend Lord Avebury on the meeting with the insurance industry. Bluntly, this was a negotiation with the insurance industry and you have to meet people to negotiate with them. To get a working scheme going, that was an essential job. I would have liked to have done it with rather fewer meetings, but that is what it took.

Amendment 6 requires that:

“The Secretary of State must report annually to Parliament on the performance and progress of the scheme”.

I argue that it is not necessary to include this in the Bill. Scrutiny and reviews are already planned for the scheme without the need to include those in legislation. Indeed, we cannot know at this stage whether it is necessary or appropriate to report annually. We are aiming to determine the details of the reviews at a later stage. I am happy to commit to making a Statement to the House on the scheme’s performance. We will keep this under review as, over time, we expect the volume of scheme cases to reduce and for further information on the schemes to be readily available. The kind of information that the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, was talking about may become transparent effectively on a daily basis. I urge the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool]

Before the Minister sits down, perhaps he could put on the record a bit more about the imbalance of the meetings that he held with the industry and the victim support groups. He may recall that I raised this issue at Second Reading. I heard from the victim support groups afterwards and they said, quite categorically:

“We met the Minister three times, however at no time were we involved in any discussions about the scheme which was unveiled on 25 July 2012. The detail and architecture of the scheme was devised by the insurers and DWP”.

That has been a source of some discontent among those who represent the victims of this awful disease.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Walton of Detchant]

My Lords, I rise to support Amendment 8. I spent the greater part of my professional life practising medicine in the north-east of England. Even though I practised largely as a neurologist, I saw many patients with mesothelioma, many of whom had worked in the shipyards on the Tyne and the Wear, and who had been exposed to asbestos. However, I also saw, not under my direct care but under the care of colleagues, some women who developed mesothelioma because they had been involved in washing the clothes of their husbands, who had been exposed to asbestos—clothes which were deeply impregnated with asbestos fibre. For that reason, I would say that this issue does not rest just on the balance of probabilities; in my view, it is beyond all reasonable doubt that they developed mesothelioma because of that activity.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool]

My Lords, like my noble friend Lord Walton of Detchant, in my time as a Liverpool Member of Parliament I also came across shipyard workers from the River Mersey who, sadly, had contracted mesothelioma. I also saw tunnellers, masons and others who had come to surgeries to talk about what compensation schemes might be available.

I vividly recall meeting a man and his wife, and she came back to see me just weeks later when she was a widow, he having died. The rapidity with which people can die after prognosis is alarming, and of course it is a fatal disease. It is suspected that another 56,000 people will die of mesothelioma before this terrible curse is ended.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Alton of Liverpool]

On that point, has the Minister seen the ABI briefing, where it says:

“There will only be a very small category of people who have been solely self-employed and therefore not eligible for a payment from the untraced scheme”?

Clearly the ABI has the data. Before we come back to this issue on Report, perhaps the Minister will discuss with the ABI what it based that statement on and what the numbers are.

[Lord Freud]

Well, my Lords, if I am cleared to speak to the insurance industry again by this Committee, I will ask it for those data, and supply them to your Lordships.

The noble Lord, Lord Moonie, made the point about those who had washed the clothes. Again, that is not covered by employer’s liability. It could be a case of public liability, so there may be something to pursue. I will look into that before the next Committee day to see if I can get a little bit more information. I do not have very much information on the legal differentiation and what actually happens there. The same question was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Browne.

On the Northern Ireland question asked by my noble friend Lord Empey, the Northern Ireland legislation mirrors the legislation in the rest of the UK, with the 1979-2008 legislation prevailing, and the plan is to run this there as well.

I think that I have dealt with all the questions, but possibly not to everyone’s satisfaction.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Alton of Liverpool]

My Lords, with his characteristic courtesy, earlier this week the Minister gave Members of the Committee the opportunity to meet him to raise concerns about issues that arise out of the Bill. I went to see him and raised two questions, one of which was the issue of eligibility. Therefore, I am very happy to support the remarks that the noble Lord, Lord Howarth of Newport, has made and to support this group of amendments.

The additional cost of back-dating eligibility to February 2010 pales, as the noble Lord said, into insignificance compared with the hundreds of millions that the insurers received from the taxpayer prior to the Government recovering lump-sum payments under the Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) Act 1979.

Because it was an issue that he raised during our discussion on Monday, the Minister may also say that the insurers may be concerned about their right to property—that is, to compensation—under the Human Rights Act. However, asbestos victims lost not only their compensation, or right to property, but their right to life, and two years’ back-dating seems a very small concession to make in that context. The noble Lord, Lord Howarth of Newport, is right: surely there would be a case for some of those affected by the Bill to challenge the Government in the courts. I should be grateful if the Minister would tell us what legal advice he has received on that issue.

The Committee should perhaps especially consider that the commencement of the consultation in February 2010 is a seminal date. For those affected, it represented a promise waiting to be fulfilled. At the very least, the eligibility date for a payment should be the commencement of the consultation—a point that I shall return to in a moment.

I also want to refer to a point that the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, mentioned concerning reserves. The Minister says that he cannot set an earlier date because only at the date of the announcement could insurers have begun to reserve against making payments. However, for two years the ABI discussed the detail of a payment scheme with the Minister, and it can hardly have woken up on 25 July 2012, shocked that it would have to reserve against making scheme payments. Just as importantly, surely it should have been reserving against asbestos claims 50 or more years ago, as the noble Lord, Lord Freud, himself implied when prefacing his speech at Second Reading. He did so with a reference to the Newhouse Thompson report, to which I have already alluded and which was published in 1965.

First, I think that the Government should be held to account for this date of February 2010 rather than July of last year, because that is when they issued their consultation paper, Accessing Compensation: Supporting People who Need to Trace Employers’ Liability Insurance. I have a quotation from that report which underlines why it is not unreasonable for mesothelioma victims to reference that date as a day when they think this scheme should commence. The Government said that they,

“are also persuaded that an Employers’ Liability Insurance Bureau (ELIB) should form part of the package of measures to improve the lives of those who are unable to trace an old employer or their insurer. An ELIB would be a compensation fund of last resort and would ensure that some individuals who are unable to trace EL insurance records would receive compensation”.

Commenting in the consultation paper on the low success rate of the employer’s liability code of practice in tracing insurers, the Government said:

“The Government are keen to support everyone who needs to trace EL Insurance and cannot accept that 40% of the people who need to use the ELCOP should be left without compensation. The Government are determined to do more. To achieve this, the Government propose the actions considered in the next chapter”.

Those two clear statements of intent left no one in any doubt of the Government’s intention to act to provide protection for those who could not trace an insurer. Mesothelioma sufferers diagnosed on 10 February or later would have had every expectation that the Government’s commitment to set up a fund of last resort would be honoured at least from the date of the publication of the consultation. The date of the publication of the consultation set alight that expectation and it has flamed ever since that time. It took more than two years for Ministers to respond to the consultation on 25 July 2012, on the last day before the Recess last year. Surely it is unacceptable now to throw a bucket of cold water in the face of mesothelioma sufferers and their families and to douse the hopes that they have rightly had at least since February 2010.

In law, a mesothelioma sufferer has three years from diagnosis to claim compensation. It would therefore be reasonable and consistent with current legal practice to take into account that limitation period. Applying the date 10 February is consistent with legal rules on the time allowed to make a claim and provides a more credible reason than the arbitrary date of 25 July 2012.

The Asbestos Victims Support Groups Forum responded to the questions concerning the date of eligibility. Question 15 asks:

“How should an ELIB start to meet claims to ensure fairness to claimants and funding at the start of the scheme?”.

The forum said:

“Claimants should present their claims and they should be dealt with in accordance with the civil law, including issues such as limitation. Sufficient funding should be made available to meet any successful claims”.

It is therefore imperative that the few cases where judgment has already been obtained and compensation awarded, but not satisfied because the insurer could not be traced, are paid under a newly established ELIB.

Whatever eligibility date is applied, many mesothelioma sufferers and their families will be bitterly disappointed and feel that the door has been closed in their face. Applying the date of 10 February 2010 will inevitably disappoint many, but it will at least apply a date that has credibility and which also allows for the long period between commencement of the consultation and the Government’s response. It would be just to capture all those who in the past were unable to trace their insurer and who could prove negligent exposure to asbestos. That is, regrettably, not possible. The very least we can do is to go back to the date of the consultation. I do not think that that is asking too much.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Alton of Liverpool]

10: Clause 2, page 1, line 17, leave out “25 July 2012” and insert “1 February 2010”

[Lord Alton of Liverpool]

My Lords, Amendment 10 has already been dealt with in the debate we have just had, so my remarks will concentrate entirely on Amendment 31, which is grouped with it.

Earlier in our proceedings, I recalled that in 1965 the Sunday Times reported on how an epidemiological investigation by Newhouse and Thompson, undertaken for the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, had shed light on the origins and nature of this terrible disease, finally laying to rest the scepticism of some pathologists who had until that time disputed its existence and its long period of hibernation.

More than three decades earlier in 1930, the Merewether report had warned of a latency for asbestosis of some 25 years. No one can reasonably claim, therefore, that the industry, Government or employers did not understand the risks that workers faced. Yet, staggeringly, this vicious disease has had Cinderella status when it comes to research spending. It is not hyperbole or overstatement to assert that it is nothing short of a national scandal that a disease predicted to kill a further 56,000 British citizens between 2014 and 2044 receives not a penny of state funding for medical and scientific research into understanding its nature and identifying cures. What other disease that kills 2,400 British people every year has to rely entirely on what money can be scraped together from voluntary organisations such as the admirable British Lung Foundation?

In 2011, the British Lung Foundation invested £1 million in research. Here I must pay tribute to those four insurance companies that voluntarily supported that scheme and provided that money. The rest of the voluntary sector invested £400,000. By contrast, the Government invested nothing at all. This is scandalous when we are dealing with a disease that kills so many people and when we compare it with the fabulous sums of money that the noble Lord, Lord James, referred to in the previous group of amendments—billions of pounds being invested compared with £1.4 million given voluntarily, without a penny piece of state funding, for research into this shocking disease.

Back in 1965, the Sunday Times also reported, on the back of stories emerging from London, Belfast, Newcastle, Leeds and Liverpool, some of which have been referred to in our earlier debates, that research would be conducted to examine causes and find cures. That was 50 years ago and we are still waiting for a research base that matches the scale of the problem. Fifty years later there is still no cure, and most people die within two years of diagnosis. The UK mesothelioma mortality rate is the highest in the world. The number of deaths is roughly double the number due to cervical cancer, for example.

My amendment seeks simply to open a debate about the lack of funding for mesothelioma research. Paradoxically, if we could find a cure, it would not only eliminate horrendous human suffering, it would also eliminate the need for the millions of pounds of compensation that we are debating during these Committee proceedings. So there are humane and altruistic reasons for supporting funding of mesothelioma research, but for the Government and the insurance industry there are straightforward financial considerations too. As well as adequate compensation, we should be prioritising much more of our time and money to finding a cure to prevent the ravages of this fatal disease. Of course it would be impossible to eradicate all asbestos from our homes, schools, hospitals, factories and offices, and it is welcome that there is a general desire to act justly to those who have been afflicted with mesothelioma. But the one certain way to prevent deaths from mesothelioma will be to find a cure. That will not happen without adequate resources and that, in turn, requires political will.

I said that mesothelioma has a Cinderella status. Let me illustrate what I mean. Contrast £1.4 million spent on mesothelioma research with the £22 million for bowel cancer, the £41 million for breast cancer, the £11.5 million for lung cancer, the £32 million for leukaemia. Indeed, there are 17 other forms of cancer for which far more research resources are reserved than for mesothelioma. Mesothelioma is quite literally at the bottom of that list.

In 2011 the voluntary sector invested £5 million in myeloma research and £5.6 million on malignant melanoma, the cancers immediately above and below mesothelioma in the table of mortality figures. Yet, even with such limited funds, there have been some exciting developments. I think that some of my noble friends will refer to these. They include the creation of the world’s first mesothelioma tissue bank for researchers, a transatlantic collaborative study of the genetic make-up of mesothelioma and work on overcoming resistance to drugs used to treat the disease. It shows what can be done with the right investment. We have an opportunity in the course of the proceedings of this Committee to create a sustainable fund for mesothelioma research to help ensure that future generations do not have to suffer in the same way that so many have in the past.

At Second Reading, I gave the Minister a letter, which was then circulated in your Lordships’ House, and has been signed by 20 noble Lords and Baronesses from right across your Lordships’ House. Subsequently a letter supporting the same points was published in the Times. This letter underlines the breadth of support throughout the House for the principles that underpin this amendment. Not necessarily the detail—I fully accept that this could be rewritten between now and Report stage, that it can be modified and changed. It is the principle that I am primarily interested in at this Committee stage and that is the point that I will be most pressing the Minister on.

This proposal enjoys the support of many Members of your Lordships’ House, the British Lung Foundation and the victim support groups. The proposal involves a small administrative or membership fee to those companies in the scheme and would raise £1.5 million a year. It would have no implications for the public purse, although I hope that the Government will consider providing at least match funding—it is, after all, receiving millions of pounds from the new scheme. I hope that the Minister, when he comes to reply, will tell us what money his Government will pledge for research and what progress he is making with the Department of Health, the Medical Research Council and the Treasury in putting together a scheme that will address this issue. Such an initiative will bring justice and hope to those who are blighted by a disease that was none of their making.

The Minister met with me on Monday, as I said earlier, and again I am grateful to him for the patience and courtesy that he always shows in dealing with this and the proceedings of the Committee. We discussed the detail of this amendment. One aspect that I know that the Minister does not like is the £10,000 levy that would be paid by all insurance companies. The Minister feels that if there were such a scheme it would better if it were tied to market share or turnover, rather as the levy for compensation is, in the context of the Bill as a whole. I accept that this approach would be in line with the way in which the compensation clauses of the Bill work and I would be very happy to modify the amendment to accommodate that point. A proportionate levy would be equitable and wholly acceptable to me. When the Minister comes to reply, will he indicate whether he would like to bring forward a modified amendment on Report to reflect that kind of change on that kind of basis?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

I have actually got round to asking that question already, so I can answer it now. The reason is that it is an unfashionable area because it was believed that there was no hope. We caught it late, it was happening over a very short period and it was fatal. It was an unfashionable area to go into and therefore the people who wanted to make their careers in research turned to other cancers. As a result, good-quality research proposals were not coming in and therefore the research council did not feel that it could supply funds. That is the reason and it has been the reason for decades. With regard to breaking that cycle, the insurance industry and the voluntary groups working with the BLF have started rolling the stone down the hill, and I think that we are now in a position to get something moving. However, it is a bigger issue than just getting a little bit of money through this device.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool]

My Lords, the Minister said that he feels like a mad mouse going round in a wheel. Fortunately, we have some good medics on hand this evening, who, I am sure, will be happy to diagnose the problem. Whether they can come up with a cure, I am not sure, but it is the job of parliamentarians to come up with a cure to help Ministers who are clearly committed to the underlying principles enunciated in the amendment actually to achieve them. He said that he has been banging his head against a brick wall and that he has been dismayed at the failure to provide adequate resources to deal with these things. The one thing we can do for a Minister in that situation is to provide him with an amendment to the Bill, which he can then take back to the other departments involved, to the Treasury and to everybody else, saying, “In Committee, they gave me a hard time over this. We need to find some way forward”.

Although I am of course not pressing this to a Division today, the fact that 10 noble Lords participated in this debate and have spoken with such experience and conviction, all being in favour of the principles underlying the amendment, means that surely the Minister now has some ammunition in the locker to take away and use to try and promote this case.

I am indebted to everyone who has spoken in the debate. My noble friend Lord Walton of Detchant said that the amendment could be strengthened and suggested two ways of doing that. I particularly liked what he said about the National Institute for Health Research and the role that it might play. I will certainly consult him in redrafting this amendment between now and Report.

My noble and learned friend Lady Butler-Sloss said that if we could do it for gambling, why on earth can we not do it for this? The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, reminded us, as did the noble Lord, Lord Empey, that many other precedents can be invoked in such circumstances. Perhaps the Minister could ask his officials to look at the whole battery of precedents when going away to persuade those who, somewhere in the system, are clearly opposed to us putting these powers into the Bill.

My noble friend Lord Wigley reminded us of the scale and number of people affected by this horrible disease. He recognised, as did others, that a variable approach might be the right one to adopt as we recast the amendment.

My noble friend Lord Kakkar said there had there had been no strategic approach. He is right. He reminded us about the role of the meso-bank, which, as he says, will have global significance. He also referred to the possibilities that genetic research produces, but said that research has to be kick-started. In other words, there has to be some kind of seed funding—in the absence of state funding. Of course, austerity will inevitably be one of the reasons given when the Minister goes back to the Treasury or elsewhere. Other people will have their own priorities and projects, which they say that the money should be spent on. Again, we need to provide the Minister with something that overcomes those objections. The approach adopted in this amendment of a levy is one way of doing that. My noble friend Lord Kakkar also reminded us about something that I had not thought about previously: the importance of research into appropriate palliative medicines and palliative care, and the way in which we care for people during the last months of their lives. That was an important point for us to consider.

The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, reminded us of the stark numbers, and the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, who, along with others, signed a letter sent to the Times, told us about the importance of leverage and asked why a greater volume of resources was not made available for research. I was prompted to think about this issue by two Questions asked in another place by a Member of Parliament, Mr Bob Blackman. I was surprised when I saw on one of his Questions just three dotted lines where figures should have been, detailing the resources available for research into mesothelioma. When he tabled a further Question, the column simply showed three sets of zeros. I was absolutely staggered that that could be the case, given that 56,000 British people will die of this disease before it is over.

My noble friend Lady Masham said that research means hope, and she is absolutely right about that. Without research, we can offer no hope. My noble friend Lord Pannick said that there is nothing novel about this approach and that it would be quite fanciful to suggest that the Human Rights Act could in some way be invoked. That Act ought to be invoked against the state authorities in this country for not having done something about this problem for so long.

My noble friend Lord Avebury was very generous in his remarks, but in fact I am just an apprentice compared to my noble friend. He and I have been friends for a very long time. He published a pamphlet on the subject of mesothelioma in the 1970s and has campaigned on this issue throughout the whole of his parliamentary life. I stand in awe of him on this and many other matters.

The purpose of my amendment was to start the debate. There are moments when Parliament, rather than the Government, can shape policy, and this is one of them. The Minister said that there is a chicken-and-egg cycle. In that case, let us break that cycle. Although I beg leave to withdraw this amendment now, I am sure that noble Lords would expect me to bring it back on Report.

Amendment 10 withdrawn.

Mesothelioma Bill [HL]

Lord Alton of Liverpool Excerpts

Monday 20th May 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Alton of Liverpool]

My Lords, in his opening speech, the Minister benchmarked our knowledge of mesothelioma to 1965. In that year, the Sunday Times reported on how an epidemiological investigation by Newhouse and Thompson for the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine had shed light on the origins and nature of mesothelioma, finally laying to rest the scepticism of some pathologists who had until that time disputed its existence or its long period of hibernation, although more than three decades earlier, in 1930, the Merewether report had warned of a latency for asbestosis of some 25 years. Therefore, no one can reasonably claim that the industry, the Government or employers did not understand the risks that workers faced, although, scandalously, insurers routinely destroyed records during that period. That was not market failure—the phrase used by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury.

The 1965 report to which the Minister referred found that the interval between exposure and development of the fatal tumour ranged between 16 and 55 years. One case highlighted the fate of a woman who had died after brushing the white asbestos dust off her husband’s dungarees and work clothes when he returned from work every night. In 1965, it was discovered that even very brief exposure to the dust could prove lethal.

That was 50 years ago and despite assurances that research would be undertaken, there is still no cure. As we have heard in today’s debate, most people die within two years of diagnosis. As the noble Lord, Lord Jones, reminded us, by 1970 Britain led the world in asbestos regulation, yet the British mesothelioma death rate is now the highest in the world and has yet to peak. As we have all said, it is a horrible disease, and all those who have seen it will confirm that it leads to great suffering.

Just over a year ago in March and again in April I divided your Lordships’ House on the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill on whether those suffering from mesothelioma should lose up to a quarter of their compensation to pay lawyers’ fees, arguing that victims could not be regarded as part of the compensation culture. Eighteen of your Lordships also joined me in a letter to the Times, in which we insisted that the Government’s claims that the proposed legislation would,

“deter frivolous and fraudulent claims is, frankly, risible as far as dying asbestos victims are concerned”.

We contrasted the Government’s proposals with the failure to deal with increasing road traffic accident claims and alleged whiplash claims, with whiplash alone costing a staggering £2 billion annually.

Your Lordships will recall that the late Lord Newton of Braintree, in his last major contribution in the House, gave his support to my amendment. In response to a Question I put to him at that time, the Minister told the House:

“I am spending considerable time on mesothelioma currently and I hope to sort out the real problem, which is the large number of people suffering from the illness who are getting no compensation at all because they cannot trace who was insuring them”.—[Official Report, 23/4/12; col. 1549.]

This Mesothelioma Bill is a down payment on that promise. Like others, I pay tribute to the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, and the officials who have worked with them, who have invested considerable time and effort in trying to deal with mesothelioma victims who have been unable to trace their insurers. As we have heard, it is a down payment rather than a comprehensive solution; for instance, it does not include the many victims of other asbestos-related diseases. At the briefing meeting, the Minister confirmed to me that the title of the Bill prevents any other categories being included at later stages.

Like the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, my reservations about the Bill are that average compensation payments will be reduced by approximately 30%—a point also made by the noble Lord, Lord Howarth—and that only mesothelioma sufferers diagnosed after 25 July 2012 will be eligible to apply for a payment. The Bill excludes all those diagnosed prior to 25 July 2012. At the very least, the three-year limitation period in law should apply. I hope that we will consider this in Committee.

This Bill addresses the needs of victims who cannot trace their insurers. As we have heard, that is about 300 a year, but what about all the other victims who know who their insurers are? Given that the consultation by the Ministry of Justice, which does not predicate this Bill but is certainly influenced by and connected to it, commences in July, I would be grateful if the Minister can tell us the timescale on which he envisages further changes being made, whether he can assure us that nothing will be done that will place additional burdens on the victims of this fatal disease and whether the Government see this Bill as a template that is likely to be extended.

The Mesothelioma Bill has been inextricably linked to the Ministry of Justice proposals, principally a mesothelioma pre-action protocol, which I understand that the Association of British Insurers wrote for the MoJ and which the ABI says will reduce the time of settling a claim to three months. Considerable scepticism has been expressed about the ABI claims, and I wonder whether the Government have tested those claims.

What really cut through the foot dragging, as the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, said, was Senior Master Whitaker’s ground-breaking practice direction, and court procedure which gets liability resolved in most cases very quickly. Surely it would have been better to fund those specialist courts and have a more effective approach using those courts than allowing for delays inherent in the proposed protocol.

I was also surprised and disappointed that although the industry has been fully involved at a formal level with the Minister in drawing up these proposals, the victim support groups were not. Many will share their view that 100% compensation—that is the full age-based, average compensation—should be paid, although I know that the Minister will insist that 70%, which it has to be said is worth more than £300 million during the next decade, is better than no payment. I have some sympathy with that, but remember that for decades it was asbestos victims who bore the burden of untraced insurance and insurers have saved hundreds of millions of pounds avoiding liability for insurances that they wrote. For decades, the taxpayer has funded the government lump-sum payments for those who could not trace their insurer, and they have recovered those payments only when an insurer was found since 2008. Prior to that, insurers recovered all government lump-sum payments which offset the compensation they paid, worth hundreds of millions of pounds.

Let me turn to my final point. As well as adequate compensation, should we not be spending more of our time and money, as was alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord Monks, in finding a cure to prevent the ravages of this fatal disease? In 2011, the British Lung Foundation invested £1 million in research, the rest of the voluntary sector invested £400,000 and the Government invested nothing at all. These are scandalously small sums to spend on a disease which kills so many people. Let us contrast the £0.4 million from the not-for-profit sector spent on mesothelioma research with the £22 million for bowel cancer, the £41 million for breast cancer, the £11.5 million for lung cancer and the £32 million for leukaemia. Indeed, there are 17 other forms of cancer for which far more research resources are reserved than for mesothelioma. Mesothelioma is literally at the bottom of the list. In 2011, the voluntary sector invested £5 million in myeloma research and £5.6 million on malignant melanoma—the cancers immediately above and below mesothelioma in the table of mortality figures. Yet, even with such limited funds there have been some exciting developments, including the creation of the world’s first mesothelioma tissue bank for researchers, a transatlantic collaborative study of the genetic make-up of mesothelioma and work on overcoming resistance to drugs used to treat the disease. It shows what can be done with the right investment. This Bill offers an opportunity to create a sustainable fund for mesothelioma research to help ensure that future generations do not have to suffer in the same way that so many have in the past.

I have today given the Minister a letter, which will be circulated in your Lordships’ House tomorrow, which has been signed by 20 Members. They include the noble Lords, Lord Avebury, Lord Bach, Lord Crisp, Lord German, Lord Harris of Peckham, Lord Howarth, Lord McColl, Lord Monks, Lord Pannick, Lord Patel, Lord Tugendhat, Lord Turnberg, Lord Walton of Detchant and Lord Wigley, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford, the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Greenfield, Lady Masham, and Lady Thomas of Winchester. Since the letter was written the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, and the noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Bolton, have also indicated their support. The letter underlines the breadth of support throughout the House for an amendment which will be tabled for Committee stage on 5 June and which enjoys the support of the British Lung Foundation. It involves a small administrative or membership fee for those companies in the scheme and would raise £1.5 million annually. It would have no cost implications for the public purse, although I hope that the Government would consider providing match funding. It is, after all, receiving millions of pounds from the new scheme.

This Bill is a down payment in honouring the Government’s promise to respond to victims of mesothelioma. I welcome that, but I urge the Minister to see what more can be done within the scope of the Bill to bring justice and hope to those who are blighted by a disease that was none of their making. The truth is that we cannot eradicate all asbestos from our homes, schools, hospitals, factories and offices, but we can act justly towards those who have been afflicted by mesothelioma. The one certain way to prevent deaths from mesothelioma is to find a cure.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

Virtually all noble Lords mentioned the start date. The trouble is that, in principle, this is a sheep and goats situation. Any date, wherever it is set, as the noble Lord, Lord Monks, mentioned, is always arbitrary at one level. To pick up on the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, this concerns dependants as well, so if there was no start date and the date went back indefinitely, we really would be talking about a huge amount of money. We will spend a lot of time talking about this, but let us flesh out the areas of discussion.

I think that we might look in Committee at the point made by my noble friend Lord German and reinforced by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, about a cap or a different structure. Noble Lords can see my constraints, but we can look at shaping the structure in different ways. The noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, asked when we would have the report on payments. It will be ready in the summer. In response to my noble friend Lord Courtown, I will say that we will have the scheme rules ready to be looked at by the time we reach Committee.

Extending this to other asbestos-related diseases was the other big issue of concern to virtually all noble Lords. The point about mesothelioma is that if you have it, you will essentially have contracted it doing a job in which there was negligence, and that it is fatal. You can fix a figure with a tariff level and you can go very fast. The objective is to reach a point within five months as compared with a typical period now of two years. Noble Lords will be conscious of the meaning behind those periods, given the prognosis of survival for up to 15 months. Getting something this quickly is really important. There may be schemes for other types of asbestos-related illness, but they could not be set up within this structure. We would have to look at something else; it could not be a simple extension.

My noble friend Lord Avebury and the noble Lord, Lord Alton, asked how many meetings have been held. Out of amusement, I counted them. There were 15 meetings with representatives of the insurance industry, of which seven were held in quite a tight period. You can imagine that they were being held during a time of heated negotiation. A total of 11 meetings were held with representatives of victims’ groups, lawyers and members of the all-party parliamentary group. It is not a complete balance but I took on board as much as I could as we built this.

I will not spend a lot of time tonight on the MoJ process. We will have time to do a bit more. The fundamental point is that the MoJ will launch a consultation shortly. It will go through all these issues and then come up with a scheme on the balance, taking on board all the responses. This is a major process and we will just wait for it to happen.

The noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, raised the question of the scheme administrator. We are in control of this scheme and the DWP will drive the scheme rules. The scheme administrator will therefore be answerable to the Secretary of State, who will monitor whether it is doing the job that needs to be done. It is not a done deal with the ABI at this stage, though it is setting up a shadow company. If it does this successfully and if it is the administrator, it means that we can go very fast, but it is open at this stage.

My noble friend Lord German raised a key point about the assumption of negligence. What distinguishes mesothelioma from some of the other diseases is that there is no reason for it other than being exposed to asbestos in employment. There has been a general acceptance that if you were exposed to asbestos in the workplace it would be through negligence. The decision has typically been made on a balance of probabilities. We will spend more time in Committee on the important legal context of why one can do such a straightforward and rapid scheme.

I have had good warning from the noble Lord, Lord Alton, that I will get an amendment proposing that some of this levy should effectively go into research. I cannot tell the noble Lord how hard I have tried to produce that result for him. I have failed to do it and we will spend time on this in Committee. There are some really complicated technical reasons why that cannot happen, mainly because, formally, a levy is a tax and it cannot go to anyone but the victims. I have tried every single route round this. If noble Lords are cleverer than me and can work their way through it differently, I will be delighted.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool]

I am grateful to the Minister, who is obviously coming to a conclusion, for giving us a lot of his time in replying. Has he noticed that the British Lung Foundation proposal is not asking for money from the levy? It is suggesting a membership scheme for every insurance company, who would then contribute £10,000 as part of that scheme. This would raise £1.5 million each year. He will also recall that I made a point about the amount of money coming into the Treasury as a consequence of the proposals before your Lordships tonight.

Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill

Lord Alton of Liverpool Excerpts

Monday 4th March 2013 Lords Chamber

Therefore, legislation would have meant that money being spent on both EHRC and Talk for a Change could have been saved. I do not believe the Government’s antipathy to legislation is really to do with the cost. What is certain is that, just as the Home Secretary and the Lord Chancellor are bent on reducing the means of legal redress available to victims of human rights violations—about which we read in the press every day—as part of this mindset, there is a doctrinal aversion to this proposal in the Cabinet, which is not going to be eliminated by any number of studies and failed alternatives. It is time for the House to make a decision.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool]

My Lords, I want briefly to intervene in order to support the amendment that has been laid before this House by my noble and right reverend friend Lord Harries of Pentregarth, and to support the powerful speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Deben, and the intervention by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury.

As I heard their speeches, I was thinking of two things that I have in my study. One is a poster on the wall that says:

“God so loved the world that he did not send a committee”.

I recalled that it was William Wilberforce who, after the abolition of the slave trade, said that the next great challenge was the abolition of the caste system. Here we still are setting up yet more committees and more inquiries. I really do not believe that that is the signal that we want to send today.

The other thing in my study is a terracotta pot that I brought back with me from Uttar Pradesh two years ago. When a Dalit has held that pot, they are required to break it, because nobody else must touch it if they have drunk from that pot. That is what it means, in simple terms, to be untouchable. Those two simple things motivated me to speak in this debate.

I know that my noble friend has pursued this issue with great vigour and doggedly over the years, and I think that the House ought to support him today not least because, as we discovered in the earlier amendment, the importance of making declamatory statements is sometimes crucial in advancing a cause. The Minister should perhaps recall the wise advice that was given to her on an earlier amendment by my noble friend Lord Cormack. He suggested that if she were not able to accept that amendment today, it would be wisest to come back at Third Reading. The same is true with this amendment. She ought to go away and think about it further if she cannot accept the amendment today, not least because of the declamatory nature of not accepting it.

What signal will that send to the extraordinary number of people who remain in India as Dalits, some 170 million of them in addition to the 400,000 in our own country? When the House considers that every single day in India every 18 minutes a crime is committed against a Dalit; every day three Dalit women are raped; two Dalits are murdered; two Dalit houses are burned; 11 Dalits are beaten; that many are impoverished; some half of Dalit children are under-nourished; 12% die before their fifth birthday; vast numbers are uneducated or illiterate; and 45% cannot read or write it is quite clear that we do not need more inquiries or studies. We have to be certain about what it is that we want for ourselves. The noble Lord, Lord Deben, is right: there are values that we hold dear in this country that we stand for and believe in. We must stand firmly on those principles, not suggest to others that somehow or other to import those kinds of conditions into the United Kingdom would ever be acceptable. Furthermore, however important things such as trade relations are—and they are important to British industry in developing cordial and good relations with India or China—none the less, the stand we take on upholding not just human rights but human dignity, and the belief that no one is untouchable and that every person is of equal value, certainly in the sight of God and as they certainly ought to be in the sight of their fellow human beings, are important. For those reasons, I am happy to support the amendment of my noble friend.

[Baroness Flather]

My Lords, perhaps I may say a few words as the only person here to belong to a caste. As far as I know, there is no other Hindu in the Chamber.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Alton of Liverpool]

I was trying to say—and perhaps my voice was not particularly helping—that it was more that we had made a declaratory statement in the earlier amendment and I felt that it would be a negative declaratory statement if we were not to pass this amendment because of the message that it would send, not just to the 400,000 Dalits in this country but to those living in India.

[Lord Lester of Herne Hill]

I am most grateful. Contrary to the impression that I might create, I am not simply a cold-hearted lawyer: I value symbols very much indeed.

I finish with this about education and legislation. It is almost 50 years since, in 1967, in its first annual report, the Race Relations Board summarised the role of legislation in this way: First:

“A law is an unequivocal declaration of public policy”.

Secondly:

“A law gives support to those who do not wish to discriminate, but who feel compelled to do so by social pressure”.

Thirdly:

“A law gives protection and redress to minority groups”.

Fourthly:

“A law thus provides for the peaceful and orderly adjustment of grievances and the release of tensions” ,

and fifthly:

“A law reduces prejudice by discouraging the behavior in which prejudice finds expression”.

Gandhiji is no longer alive, but I have no doubt that his spirit would guide us in a vote if it is decided to divide the House.

Welfare Benefits Up-rating Bill

Lord Alton of Liverpool Excerpts

Monday 25th February 2013 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Alton of Liverpool]

8: After Clause 1, insert the following new Clause—
“Motability Operations leaseholders
(1) A person who is—
(a) a recipient of a sum or sums specified in subsection (4), and(b) a leaseholder of a car, powered wheelchair or scooter from Motability Operationsmay petition the Secretary of State if, during tax years 2014-15 and 2015-16, the sum or sums specified in subsection (4) are insufficient to allow them to meet their obligations under the lease specified in this subsection.(2) On receipt of a petition under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must increase the amount of the sum or sums specified in subsection (4) received by the petitioner to a level sufficient to make the payments required under the terms of the lease specified in subsection (1), or arrange for equivalent additional payments to be made to the petitioner to allow them to meet their obligations under that lease.
(3) The Secretary of State must, in each of the tax years ending with 5 April 2014 and 5 April 2015, consult Motability before making an order by statutory instrument increasing each of the sums specified in subsection (4).
(4) This section shall apply to sums—
(a) specified in regulations under section 79(3) of the Welfare Reform Act 2012;(b) specified in paragraph 11 of Part IV of Schedule 1 to the Naval, Military and Air Forces etc (Disablement and Death) Service Pensions Order 2006 (S.I. 2006/606).”

[Lord Alton of Liverpool]

My Lords, Amendment 8 stands in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Grey-Thompson. In moving the amendment, I am returning to a subject that I raised in your Lordships’ House on 17 January, 24 January and 13 February, and in a series of Written Questions that all relate to the issue of Motability.

During the debate on 17 January, I asked this question:

“Can the Minister confirm the Government’s own prediction, made earlier this month, that 27% fewer working-age people will be eligible for the Motability scheme once PIP is fully rolled out? Disability organisations say that the new proposal means that 42% fewer disabled people of working age will be eligible—an average of 200 people in every constituency”.—[Official Report, 17/1/13; col. 818.]

I received no answer from the Minister that day, and that failure to set out the Government’s own estimates of how many people will actually be affected has driven me to raise this issue yet again. On 24 January the noble Lord, Lord Sterling, the chairman of Motability, said that there are some 620,000 vehicles on the road,

“which is probably the largest fleet of its type in the world”.—[Official Report, 24/1/13; col. 1181.]

For Parliament to be asked to walk blindfolded into decisions that will result in some Motability users having their specially adapted vehicles repossessed is simply unconscionable. It is also deeply irresponsible.

One-third of disabled people live in poverty, and with some claimants losing as much as £150 a month if they fail to meet the newly tightened criteria—an annual loss of nearly £1,800—the situation is unbelievably bleak. The Disability Benefits Consortium, which represents more than 50 disability rights groups, reminds us that for disabled people, Motability vehicles are,

“their means of independence and participation, the lifeline that enables them to get to work, to GP appointments, to the shops, to take their kids to school”.

On 13 February, at the conclusion of the debate on the regulations, we got a little closer to the scale of what is about to happen. I quoted the figures and asked the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Freud:

“Does the noble Lord agree with those figures? If he disputes them, what figure would he give the House?”.

The noble Lord, Lord Freud, replied:

“My Lords, we know how many people will get the higher mobility component, a figure that will clearly be fewer under PIP than under DLA. I have provided those figures but, just for the record, the figure of roughly 1 million people on the DLA component in a steady state will reduce to roughly 600,000. That is the decline”.—[Official Report, 13/2/13; col. 741.]

When pressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, the Minister also remarked:

“Yes, my Lords, there is some churn”.

He added, after an intervention that I made:

“In closing, it is simply not possible for me to confirm, deny or reach any figures in answer to the noble Lord’s question on how many cars will go”.—[Official Report, 13/2/13; col. 742.]

Yet we are asked to sleepwalk our way into allowing people’s Motability cars to be taken away from them. I might remark that “churn”, when referring to people losing their means of mobility, strikes me as an unfortunate expression to put it mildly. It sounds like a calculating or statistical term when we are debating an issue with enormous human implications.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

I do not think that the noble Baroness heard me say that it was small beer. That is not the point that I am making at all; I am making the point that Motability is incredibly important to people, but it will still continue. Yes, some people will not be eligible for it in future, and I know that those who will be affected will feel it very strongly. However, I want to make the point that sometimes in the way in which this is talked about the impression can be given that we are removing Motability from everyone. That is clearly not what is happening.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool]

I am sorry that the Minister feels that that impression is being given. It is certainly not the intention of myself or, I think, anyone else who has spoken in debates to suggest that everybody is going to lose Motability. But one problem that we face is that we are all debating in the dark, because the Government have not been able to provide figures to tell us how many people are likely to lose Motability. It would be extremely helpful for us to know that. Perhaps the noble Baroness could also confirm that in this year’s annual report Motability said that about £17 million was given by way of government aid, and that the Government will support the scheme by about the same amount during the next 12-month period. By what amount will it be reduced in the next four or five years? That will give us some hint of the reduction in the number of vehicles that will be available.

--- Later in debate ---

Several noble Lords questioned the adequacy of the process whereby somebody is able to retain their Motability vehicle for 28 days between a decision being made and the point at which Motability has said that it would have to recover the vehicle. These proposals are certainly consistent with what happens now. The proposal for the 28 days is not a new arrangement affecting a transition from DLA to PIP. This procedure would happen now if somebody was no longer considered eligible for this provision.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool]

The noble Baroness made two points. The first was that the vehicles will be offered for sale to existing users rather than them necessarily being repatriated. Will she explain to the House what research has been done by the department and by Motability to establish how many people would be in a position to afford to buy their own vehicle? What work has been done to look at the maintenance costs of those vehicles, should they purchase them?

The noble Baroness went on to describe the circumstances in which people would be able to keep the vehicles if an appeal was pending. Surely that is precisely what this amendment is seeking to do: that is, to find transitional arrangements in all those circumstances. Would it not therefore be sensible for the Government to take the amendment away and to come forward with an amendment that does all the things that it seems to me we are agreed we need to address?

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

On the point about the cost of purchasing, all the evidence suggests that a Motability car in effect acquires through its VAT exemptions and tax exemptions something like a 40% discount on what it would cost to hire a similar car in the private market, and that is before any adaptations. Given the level of income of disabled people and the poverty that we know so many of them face by being out of the labour market and having the additional costs of heating and so on associated with their disability, I cannot see how that would be a realistic option for all but a very few of them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

I regret that in the context of this Bill I am not in a position to be able to offer the noble Baroness the kind of response that I know she is looking for. I will, as I have promised, go back to the department and discuss further with colleagues and Ministers the issues that have been raised in the debate tonight. They are clearly important issues. I can see why people wanted to raise these concerns in the context of this Bill and I do not have any problem with the fact that this has been debated and discussed tonight. However, I am not in a position to offer the kind of assurance that the noble Baroness is looking for, but I will go back to the department and follow up in writing with further information, as I am able to, after I have had those discussions.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool]

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, for her reply, and especially her assurance that she will ponder on some of the things that have been said in your Lordships’ House this evening and discuss them with officials and come back to us in writing. I also thank my noble friends Lady Grey-Thompson and Lord Low, the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, for their contributions to this evening’s debate.

The Minister is quite right that this would not be the ideal vehicle; it is not the ideal amendment. No pun is intended. But you have to take what you can in parliamentary life and this is the only Bill that is before Parliament at the present time that is capable of amendment on this crucial issue. I felt that it was incredibly unsatisfactory when we debated this issue last, when it was lumped in with a number of other unamendable regulations that we took one after another. As the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, rightly said, this is not an issue that has been given sufficient attention in either House during the progress of all the Bills and regulations that have been proceeding, yet it is one that causes great anxiety outside your Lordships’ House. If the estimate that the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, has given is correct—that 185,000 vehicles could be affected—that should give us all pause for thought. We should all stop and think about the implications for the owners and users of those vehicles. It will place limitations on their freedom of travel and their ability to get to work, schools, health appointments, shops, engage in social life, and all the other issues that have been raised during the debate.

It is also extraordinarily unfair on Motability, particularly on the noble Lord, Lord Sterling, who does such important work on behalf of disabled people throughout the country and who is held in such high esteem here in your Lordships’ House. It is unfair to expect people to operate in the unknown. I was surprised, therefore, that the noble Baroness was unable to confirm whether the £17 million mentioned in the annual report of Motability will be the figure for the following years. I am grateful to her for saying that she will establish what the figures are. That will give us some idea of where the balance of responsibility then truly lies. Obviously, we cannot make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear. If Motability has not been given adequate resources, it will not be its fault if vehicles then come to be repatriated.

I was struck by what the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, said about the appeals process. I tabled some Written Questions just a week or so ago involving that issue, among others. I tabled four Questions and got eight lines by way of reply in which the noble Lord, Lord Freud, said that the Government have no plans to fast-track appeals to Motability customers or provide financial support to the Motability scheme to help those people who lose their vehicle through personal independence payments reassessment. It could not be clearer that not only will there be no resources made available if this position continues to apply but there will be no plans to fast-track appeals from Motability customers. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, rightly told us, in the 28-day period that people will have it will simply not be possible to deal with the avalanche of appeals that will arrive.

The noble Baroness also said that there had never previously been a need to protect Motability users in the way that is set out in the amendment. However, never previously were there circumstances in which people’s Motability vehicles were going to be taken away from them. Never before were we confronted with the sequestration or repatriation of vehicles that were awarded to people as a result of a properly established process created by the department and indeed by Parliament.

The noble Baroness also said that the amendment discriminates in favour of those who have opted into the scheme. Of course, that is true. I would rather that everybody who will find their mobility allowance limited as a result of the changes will be assisted. However, simply because we cannot help every group, that is not a reason for not helping any of them. Not being able to solve the problems of the entire world is not a reason for not helping anyone.

My modest amendment simply sets out to help users of the scheme at the moment as they stand to lose their vehicles. I hope that we will address what will effectively be an even worse form of discrimination should that proceed. The amendment simply seeks to create what the noble Baroness referred to as a period of grace—the time in which the issue can be resolved. Nobody should be placed in the invidious position of being told that if they cannot afford to buy their vehicle—we are talking about vast numbers of people who by definition are living below the poverty line and so will not be in a position to buy, maintain and continue to run their vehicle—it will be taken away from them.

I do not believe that the Ministers who are sitting on the Front Bench are the sort of people who would happily or willingly see such a set of circumstances occur. That is why I hope that between now and Report it will not be left to my noble friend Lady Grey-Thompson, me or others to bring forward an amendment that by definition the Government will say does not do this or that. I hope that the noble Baroness will use the Bill as an opportunity to put right something that will otherwise come back to haunt many people, including the Government, in ways that I do not believe they would wish. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 8 withdrawn.

Social Security (Personal Independence Payment) Regulations 2013

Lord Alton of Liverpool Excerpts

Wednesday 13th February 2013 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson. She and other Members have spoken very powerfully about PIP, and I share their concern.

I want to speak very briefly about the implications for carers, to whom the Minister referred. He prayed in aid Carers UK’s approval at an earlier stage of the process. I think he would probably accept that if it had known then what it knows now, it would have been less approving. It issued a press release saying that it finds shocking the figures in the impact assessment, which appeared only days ago—we have been trying to get it for a long time. I think that it withdrew its approval at that point.

The Minister talked about only 5,000 fewer carers being eligible. It is not “only” for each of those 5,000 people. Each of them will be worse off. That 5,000 is nearly 7%, which is a minority but still a significant number. It is based on a static analysis. The Minister is always telling us that we should do dynamic analysis. Well, Carers UK has done what I would consider to be a more dynamic analysis of the figures in the impact assessment, and it suggests that by 2015 10,000 fewer carers will be eligible for carer’s allowance. Will the Minister comment on those figures? Will he also tell your Lordships’ House whether the Government will offer any transitional protection to carers losing carer’s allowance as a result of the introduction of PIP? Also in the spirit of the dynamic analysis, by 2015 I think that we are only about one-third of the way through the introduction of PIP. Do the Government anticipate further proportionate losses to those eligible for carer’s allowance as the process continues after that?

[Lord Alton of Liverpool]

My Lords, I think we all recognise that taking regulations of this nature in the course of a debate on eight sets of regulations is perhaps not the best way to do business. Given the speeches that we have already heard, especially about the effect on mobility and the allowances that people with disabilities cling to in order to ensure their freedom of movement, these regulations are so crucial that I am surprised that they have not been uncoupled from the others so that we could consider not just the regulations as they stand but the amendment that the Minister referred to earlier, which he intends to lay in due course anyway. It might have been better if they had been uncoupled from the other regulations before us today so that we could have had a separate debate on that question.

All of us will have been moved by my noble friend Lady Grey-Thompson’s powerful speech. Having had the chance to speak to her briefly yesterday, and to my noble friend Lady Campbell of Surbiton, none of us should underestimate the strength of feeling. My noble friend’s remarks about contemplating tabling a fatal amendment to the regulations underlines that, despite the changes that have been made, welcome though they are—as the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Winchester, said, the Minister has listened and made some changes—there are deep concerns in many organisations throughout the country. Some of those concerns have been mentioned already, but I shall refer to others.

During a debate on 17 January initiated by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham, I signalled my concern about the impact that the changes to the personal independence payment would have on the mobility of sick and disabled people. During that debate, and again on 24 January when I asked an Oral Question, I drew attention to those two things. The first was the omission of the words,

“reliably, safely, repeatedly and in a timely manner”,

from the text of the regulations setting out the qualifying criteria for the payment and the impact of altering the criteria for the enhanced mobility rate from 50 metres to 20 metres.

During the debate on 17 January, I asked the Minister to,

“confirm the Government's own prediction, made earlier this month, that 27% fewer working-age people will be eligible for the Motability scheme once PIP is fully rolled out? Disability organisations say that the new proposal means that 42% fewer disabled people of working age will be eligible—an average of 200 people in every constituency”,—[Official Report, 17/1/13; col. 817.]

a figure my noble friend referred to a moment ago. I received no answer in the Minister’s reply that day.

When I returned to the question on 24 January, I pressed him once more and asked whether he accepted that,

“with one-third of disabled people living in poverty and an estimated 42% fewer being eligible for mobility support-many fearing that they will become prisoners in their own homes-his admission that under the new regime some disabled people will have their specially adapted vehicles taken away from them or offered to them to buy has caused widespread disbelief and considerable distress?”.—[Official Report, 24/1/13; col. 1180.]

Let us be clear: some existing claimants will face losing as much as £150 a month if they fail to meet the newly tightened criteria. That amounts to an annual loss of £1,800. As the Disability Benefits Consortium, representing over 50 disability rights groups, says, that loss will have calamitous effects, as Motability vehicles, which include adapted cars, powered wheelchairs and scooters, are withdrawn. In its words, Motability vehicles are,

“their means of independence and participation, the lifeline that enables them to get to work, to GP appointments, to the shops, to take their kids to school”.

During the briefing session which the Minister kindly arranged two weeks ago, I returned to the same line of questioning, simply trying to obtain from the Government their estimate of how many people will be affected by the regulations that we are being asked to approve today. Not to know the figures but simply to have guesstimates thrown around like confetti is not a sensible way to proceed when the House is being asked to agree something as important as the regulations.

In a Written Question on 4 February, I asked,

“how many people they estimate will be affected by changes to mobility support for people with disabilities; and how many vehicles are likely to be repatriated or offered for sale”.

The Minister’s reply was, to put it charitably, opaque. He said:

“We are continuing to work closely with Motability to understand what impact personal independence payment might have on its customer numbers and to ensure the smooth introduction of PIP as it relates to users of the Motability scheme”.—[Official Report, 4/2/13; col. WA26.]

That is information that Parliament needs to have before we can in all conscience approve the regulations. The Minister needs to tell us how many vehicles will then be sequestrated or repatriated. What are the best guesstimates that have been made by his officials? He must have had discussions with Motability. What figures has it given him? How many will be offered for sale to their users and at what average price? What assessment has been made of the ability of the current users of those vehicles the funds to buy them and then to fully maintain them?

Like the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, and others, I would also like the Minister to say something about companies that have been given responsibility for implementing PIP. Perhaps he can confirm that Atos Healthcare, also mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, has been given responsibility for two of the three contracts for PIP. Only last week the Public Accounts Committee reported on the work capability assessment. The committee is damning of the whole process, and particularly stresses that ultimately the Department for Work and Pensions is responsible. One of its main findings was that:

“The Department lacks sufficient rigour in managing the contract with Atos Healthcare. It has adopted a light-touch approach to managing this contract and placed too much reliance upon information provided by the contractor. The Department seems reluctant to challenge Atos Healthcare. It has failed to withhold payment for poor performance and rarely checked that it is being correctly charged for work”.

If after three years of trying with the work capability assessment it has been unable to get that right, goodness knows how much further misery and cost will be incurred with PIP.

--- Later in debate ---

We have developed these reforms in a principled and considered fashion by seeking the views of disabled people and their organisations at every step. We have carried out four major consultations and have listened and acted on each of them. We also know that these regulations are not the end of the journey; they are the start. We will be monitoring and evaluating their operation to ensure that they are working as we intend, and to identify whether there are improvements that we need to make. Key to this are the independent reviews that noble Lords rightly insisted we build into our plans. Given all that, I urge noble Lords to support these important regulations.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool]

Before the Minister sits down, would he be kind enough to answer the question that my noble friend Lady Grey-Thompson and I put to him about the numbers of people who will be affected by these regulations? Before asking the House to agree them, it is surely not unreasonable for us again to put the question to him, not for the first time, of whether he disputes the figure of more than 40%—perhaps as many as 200 people in every parliamentary constituency in this country—standing to have their vehicles repatriated or sequestrated. Does the noble Lord agree with those figures? If he disputes them, what figure would he give the House?

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, we know how many people will get the higher mobility component, a figure that will clearly be fewer under PIP than under DLA. I have provided those figures but, just for the record, the figure of roughly 1 million people on the DLA component in a steady state will reduce to roughly 600,000. That is the decline. What we do not have, and therefore find it difficult to comment on, is a read-across from how many people are on the full mobility allowance to those who have a Motability contract, because that is a private matter. Motability runs its operation separately from us; it is a charitable operation. It is therefore impossible for us or anyone to calculate a read-across of the percentage of people on Motability contracts who will be affected.

Growth and Infrastructure Bill

Lord Alton of Liverpool Excerpts

Monday 28th January 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Deben, has taken a broad interpretation of the scope of the amendment. I am glad that he has and the Committee should welcome an opportunity briefly to debate Section 106, because it is an enormously important factor in housing development in this country and the House is unlikely to have another, foreseeable opportunity, either during the passage of this Bill or otherwise, to discuss it.

The noble Lord, Lord Deben, argues, and I think that I can follow his argument fairly clearly, that since there is clearly a cost for developers in entering a Section 106 agreement, whether it is to build affordable housing or to meet some other condition that may be imposed by that agreement, that cost must be reflected in the price of the houses that they sell and therefore be borne by those who buy those houses, who happen to be a limited part of the population. I am sure that that is the noble Lord’s argument—I am sure that he will interrupt me if I have got it wrong. He leaves out an important factor in the equation, which is that if there were no Section 106 agreements fewer houses would be built. Affordable houses are built and receive planning consent only because of Section 106 agreements. If more houses are built, there is a greater supply in relation to a given demand, and that will be factor in the equation bringing down the average price of housing, although not necessarily by the same amount as the other factor in the equation brings it up. The noble Lord should take that point into account if he is to try to design a model for how the housing market works.

The noble Lord, Lord Best, set out his amendment with great lucidity and very persuasively—he of course knows a great deal about this subject. I thoroughly agreed both with his analysis of the situation and with his rather ingenious compromise solution, which we may well want to adopt at this particular moment, having got as far as we have. I deeply regret for two reasons that the Government have decided retrospectively to waive Section 106 agreements. First, it will deprive a lot of people of affordable housing. That is a very bad day’s work. It is just the opposite of what we need in the present situation and an extraordinary reflection of the Government’s priorities. The noble Lord, Lord Deben, was concerned also about people who can afford to buy a house which is not designated an affordable house. He might dispense a little bit of his sympathy for those who could not dream of buying a house which was not deliberately built to be an affordable house and was in other words at the bottom end of the market and a good deal cheaper than average houses in this country.

The second reason why I regret what the Government have done is that it seems to falsify to whole system of planning in this country. As I have just explained, many Section 106 agreements result in land being designated for development which otherwise would be not be so designated. The local planning authority, normally the local council, has quite rightly to make a choice, an arbitrage, between considerations, on the one side, as to whether giving planning consent for, let us say, development on green belt areas or areas outside the existing curtilage of towns and villages represents the loss of an environmental amenity, but, against that negative public interest, as to whether there is a positive interest which outweighs that, which in present circumstances is the need for affordable housing. Therefore, the planning authority in the discharge of its responsibilities has quite reasonably weighed those different aspects of local communities’ interest and come out in that particular direction. Now, of course, if the Section 106 obligations are retrospectively withdrawn yet the development goes ahead, it becomes no longer a balance but entirely a one-sided gift to the developer and the community loses both ways. On the one side, it loses through the loss of the land, the loss of the environmental benefit, the loss of the amenity benefit and the visual impact of the development, whatever that may be; on the other, it loses the benefits of affordable housing or the other benefits of the Section 106 agreement which has been entered into. That is a doubly bad deal for the local community.

I dealt with a lot of Section 106 agreements when I was in the other House and on one occasion took the initiative in brokering a major Section 106 agreement between a landlord, a developer, a district council—South Kesteven District Council—and Lincolnshire County Council as the highways authority in order to finance the southern bypass of Grantham. There was no way in the world that the southern bypass was going to get into the then Government’s road programme—it would not have the met COBA thresholds—but it could and was financed in that way. It took a long time and a lot of negotiation, but it was well worth doing. However, it would have been most extraordinary if, retrospectively, we had said to the developer and the landowner, “Well, that’s alright. You can have the planning consent, but you do not need to build a bypass any more”. That is effectively the sort of deal which this Government are now offering developers.

I have to say that not many people are doing very well out of this Government in this country. People on benefit are obviously suffering; the public sector has suffered greatly; the private sector has suffered enormously; and our Armed Forces are suffering. Everybody is suffering except, as far as I can see, two categories of people: those who are lucky enough to be earning more than £150,000 a year, whose tax rate has been reduced from 50% to 45%, and now real-estate developers and speculative builders. I have nothing against real-estate developers and speculative builders—far from it—but it is an extraordinary set of priorities which are reflected in what the Government are doing.

As the Committee knows, I was for a number of years in the Tory party myself—far too many years, I have say; I am very sorry and repent of that particular sin—but, nevertheless, I know a little about how it works. I must say that if you went to Conservative associations up and down the country and did an analysis by sector of the business activities in which donors to local Tory associations are involved, you may well find that that particular section of the market comes out very high. I do not wish to establish a causal link between the two things; I have no evidence to enable me to do that. However, I simply state these two separate facts as an interesting coincidence.

I have considerable distaste for what the Government currently propose, but we need a way out of this situation that makes some sense and makes sure that these developments take place and affordable housing is built. In that spirit, I very much endorse the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Best.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool]

My Lords, I will be brief. I should like to support my noble friend Lord Best. I declare an interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association.

My noble friend set out a good case for the amendment and I hope that even if the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, is unable to accept it today she will at least take on the general thrust of his arguments, not just for this amendment but also for those that he said are in later groupings. I believe that he was trying to help the Committee by discussing some of those at this time in order to save time later on.

I was also taken by the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Tope, who said that it is really everyone’s desire to see the spades in the ground and housing being built. I was struck by a report in the Times today about how over the next four years many people in poorer categories will see their homes defaulted on because of their inability to pay interest-only mortgages. Therefore, this already difficult situation, with homeless people in this country and people unable to get on the home ownership ladder, as the noble Lord, Lord Deben, said a few moments ago, means that we have to do all that we can to try to find space for affordable housing. We must ensure that those who are in homes at the moment will not have to renege on their mortgages and become part of an issue that then has to be faced by local authorities because they are under other obligations to find them temporary accommodation.

I think back to my own time as chairman of a housing committee in Liverpool 30 years ago when we had vast amounts of derelict land and no money at all to build large amounts of new municipal housing even if we had wanted to. We came up with an innovative scheme at the time which met some of the points that the noble Lord, Lord Deben, addressed in his remarks. By retaining the ownership of the site—the land—in the hands of the local authority, we were able to pioneer the building of low-cost homes for sale in inner-city Liverpool—the first that had been built there in virtually a hundred years. Perhaps more importantly, we gave first priority for those homes to people who were already in existing council properties. This meant that, at the same time as encouraging people into home ownership, we freed up their accommodation—at no cost to the public purse—for people on the housing waiting list. Perhaps, therefore, we should look at something along those lines for first-time buyers and for existing council tenants, who would be able to free up their properties and therefore not only stimulate the building of new affordable housing but also create rented accommodation for people currently on waiting lists.

The other point I would like to make to the Minister concerns the issue of integration. I agree with what my noble friend said about how, particularly in rural areas, it has been very good to have a mixture of social housing alongside quite expensive housing. This has enabled people to stay in communities from which they would otherwise be driven. I think that many noble Lords from all sides of your Lordships’ House will have seen how, in rural areas especially, people have been driven away because they simply cannot afford the cost of homes, which are often taken up as second homes by people who live in cities or urban areas. Our first priority should be to allow those people to stay in, and contribute to, their own communities. Similarly, in urban areas, having a mixture of rented and owner-occupied property ensures that we do not create the municipal Bantustans that stretch facelessly and often aimlessly from the railway lines to the cemetery, and which in the past have caused so many of the social problems that we have to deal with today.

--- Later in debate ---

Although I am not prepared to accept this amendment, I hope that I have been able to give some reassurance to the House that we understand completely the need for housing; we understand that Section 106 is a major contributor to that; we understand that Section 106 is valuable and there is no question of funding at least some of the affordable housing other than through Section 106—I am sure this is a debate that my noble friend Lord Deben will want to see us carry through at some other stage, but it is not for today; and that we are currently taking action to ensure that developers are encouraged to proceed with developments in a timely manner. I hope that having stirred a major and interesting debate, the noble Lord, Lord Best, will be willing to withdraw this amendment. I hope he will speak on the remaining amendments he has proposed, but we have had a real overview of those.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool]

My Lords, perhaps the Minister could comment briefly on the proposal that local authorities should be able to retain the land itself in order to reduce the cost of houses that are built, in order in turn to bring them within the pocket range of either first-time buyers or existing council tenants. Even if she is unable to give a response today, will she at least agree to write to me about it?

[Baroness Hanham]

My Lords, I would be very happy to write to the noble Lord, but my feeling is that, if the local authority owns the land and thereby gives it without cost to the developer, by definition everything ought to be lower cost and it ought to be able to have some more control over it. I think this justifies a further look and I will come back to the noble Lord.

Welfare: Personal Independence Payment

Lord Alton of Liverpool Excerpts

Thursday 24th January 2013 Lords Chamber

Asked By

[Lord Alton of Liverpool]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the effect of the proposed introduction of the Personal Independence Payment on the mobility of sick and disabled people; and of the omission of the words “reliably, safely, repeatedly and in a timely manner” from the text of the Regulations setting out the qualifying criteria for the payment.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud)]

My Lords, the mobility component of the personal independence payment is designed to support those disabled people who face the greatest barriers to mobility. The principle that individuals must be able to complete activities safely, reliably, repeatedly and in a timely manner is integral to the assessment. We do not believe that this needs to be dealt with in regulations. However, we are looking urgently at whether it is possible to do this in a way that will achieve the outcomes that noble Lords and the Government want.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Does he accept that, with one-third of disabled people living in poverty and an estimated 42% fewer being eligible for mobility support—many fearing that they will become prisoners in their own homes—his admission that under the new regime some disabled people will have their specially adapted vehicles taken away from them or offered to them to buy has caused widespread disbelief and considerable distress? Will he say how many repatriations will be involved and at least ensure that those four words he has referred to—“reliably”, “safely”, “repeatedly” and “timely”—remain in the regulations, as almost every single disability rights organisation in the country have urged him and the Government to do?

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, I recognise the strength of feeling around retaining those words, and we are very actively looking at how to put them into the regulations in a way that works legally. I am planning to update Peers next week, on 31 January, on exactly where we have got to. We are looking to incorporate them in regulations and have a device for doing it in that way.

Taxation: Families

Lord Alton of Liverpool Excerpts

Thursday 17th January 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Alton of Liverpool]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, has a long-standing and well deserved reputation as someone who, both in office and out of office, has championed the cause of disadvantaged people. I share her basic proposition that the Welfare Benefits Up-rating Bill, to which she referred, is both poverty-producing and risks increasing both absolute and relative child poverty. I strongly believe that the Government need to become far more focused on the root causes of social security and tax credit demand and that their priority should be to make progress on full employment, living wages, affordable housing and support for children.

They also need to be much more aware of the impact of their policies on the vulnerable—a point that has been alluded to by virtually everyone who has spoken in this debate—and especially, I would argue, on people with disabilities. The Government should note a report that has been released today, The other care crisis: Making social care funding work for disabled adults in England, published jointly by Leonard Cheshire Disability, Mencap, Scope, the National Autistic Society and Sense. I would particularly refer them to the chapter headed “Turning back the clock on disabled people’s independence”.

When the Welfare Benefits Up-rating Bill was considered in another place, Sarah Teather MP, the former Minister for Children and Families, was courageous and right to vote against it. She was also right to say that it is the politics of the playground to paint a picture of scroungers versus strivers. Rather than caricatures, we need to ask how it can be right to promote policies that will lead to a couple with two children earning £26,000 a year losing more than £12 a week while 8,000 millionaires will be better off by an average of £2,000 a week. It is neither fair nor just, or equality of sacrifice or an equitable sharing of austerity, that, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, referred to by the right reverend Prelate in his excellent speech, some 7 million working families will be on average £165 a year poorer, while another 2.5 million families with no one in work will be £215 worse off. In this context, the new legislation is the last straw on top of escalating inflationary increases in the costs of food, travel, fuel and heating, and comes on the back of changes to housing benefit regulations, the Welfare Reform Act 2012 and the Local Government Finance Act 2012—all thrown at the poor like a series of hand grenades.

Two nights ago I chaired a Roscoe Lecture at Liverpool John Moores University, and I declare my interest as I hold a chair there. I had invited John Bird MBE, the founder and editor-in-chief of the Big Issue, to deliver the lecture. At the heart of his remarks on Tuesday was the proposition that the creation of a dependency culture has not helped the poor, but quite the reverse. He said that the Government have,

“created a new class of people who are outside society: workless, broken, and lost to ambition and social improvement”.

But he was not suggesting that the way to tackle this culture is to cut benefits before we have tackled the fundamental cause. Mr Bird suggested that 450,000 families are on long-term benefits. I invite the Minister to comment upon a statistic he gave, that only half of 1% of those on long-term benefits go to university or into higher education. If that is so, what can we do about it? Certainly, the disincentive of phenomenal indebtedness from student loans is a major disincentive for poorer families, kicking aside the ladder of educational advancement, with all the concomitant effects that has on social mobility.

Having been the first from my own family to experience higher education and having grown up in a home without a bathroom, and then a council flat—and then, as a student, being elected to represent a disadvantaged community in the heart of Liverpool, where half the homes had no inside sanitation or bathrooms—I have noticed some fundamental changes in the intervening 40 years. One is the disappearance of fathers from the lives of children and having any involvement in their upbringing. Some 800,000 children have no contact with their father, a point referred by the noble Baroness, Lady Massey of Darwen, in her excellent remarks a few moments ago. Many drift into gangs and drug culture. The Government need to take parenting much more seriously. I support entirely the recommendations made by CARE and referred to by the right reverend Prelate and by the noble Lord, Lord Bates.

The second change that I have seen concerns benefits. Before the 1980s very few people were on benefits. Working class families, like the one I came from, saw them as the Beveridge safety net. The 1980s and mass de-industrialisation changed all that, turning the working classes into workless classes and, all too often, into benefit-dependent classes—which is why, with 2.5 million unemployed and 958,000 NEETs in this country, people without opportunities for education, employment or training, job creation is crucial.

Where is the present approach taking us? Last year, the implementation of the Government’s policies saw a 44% rise in the number of families relying on emergency bed and breakfast accommodation after losing their homes, bringing the total to almost 4,000 people, and a staggering 79% increase in the number of people visiting volunteer-run food banks—we heard this referred to earlier on—with some 230,000 expected by the end of 2013.

This spectre should concentrate all our minds. It represents not only a catastrophic human cost but also stands to create profoundly negative economic and social effects in the long run. Considering the numerous studies linking unmanageable debt to crime, family breakdown, alcohol abuse and mental health difficulties, there are clear dangers stemming from the fact that more than one million people now rely upon payday loans to cover essential outgoings such as utility bills. Similarly, the hundreds of thousands of children growing up in overcrowded homes or going to school hungry face significantly increased risks of education and health problems, presenting obvious challenges further down the line.

In this context it is unsurprising that so many organisations working to support poor families have expressed deep concern at the virtually unprecedented set of restrictions on the welfare system, which threatens further to weaken the safety net, which has been badly holed. The chief executive of the Cardinal Hume Centre, which provides a vital lifeline to Londoners in poverty, recently said:

“Breaking the link between inflation and benefits before the effects of these changes”—

to the welfare system—

“have even been assessed, is a potentially disastrous move that could cause unsustainable hardship for many people who are already struggling to get by”.

I particularly want to ask the Minister about the effects on disabled people. The Welfare Benefits Up-rating Bill alone stands to impact upon the lives of some 1 million disabled people, adding to the pressures already generated by the Welfare Reform Act and associated cuts. One third of disabled people are living in poverty in the UK and the new legislation simply seems to add to their impoverishment. I particularly want to ask about the new personal independence payment, especially as it relates to mobility issues, about which I have a Question down for a reply during Oral Questions next Thursday. An alliance of disabled people’s organisations is extremely concerned about its effects. Can the Minister confirm the Government’s own prediction, made earlier this month, that 27% fewer working-age people will be eligible for the Motability scheme once PIP is fully rolled out? Disability organisations say that the new proposal means that 42% fewer disabled people of working age will be eligible—an average of 200 people in every constituency.

By changing the criteria for the “enhanced mobility rate” from 50 metres to 20 metres, many will lose a vital lifeline. Cars will simply be taken away, while those who are unable to drive, and use their mobility allowance for other means of transport, will be without the wherewithal to fund privately owned cars or taxis. It is sheer Janus-faced double-speak to tell disabled people to bring their gifts to society and to contribute by working, volunteering or being part of their community, and to take away their means of doing so.

I would also like to ask about the new regulations and the failure to include the existing qualifying phrase,

“reliably, repeatedly, safely, and in a timely manner”,

the criteria used to decide whether a person can carry out essential activities. Without those words, these guidelines will not be worth the paper they are written on when it comes to tribunals or appeals. I hope that the Minister will give this urgent reconsideration.

To conclude, overall, the impact on vulnerable people of many of these changes is going to be devastating. These changes are too deep, they are coming too fast and they are already undermining the most fundamental safety net through which no one should fall. It is unacceptable that through job loss, disability, illness or low pay, parents and children are going hungry and becoming homeless. But the facts speak for themselves and that is the reality for a rapidly growing number. With food banks and shelters increasingly overburdened, it is now urgent that we repair the damage being caused to families and to our society. That is why it was so right for the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, to put this Motion before your Lordships’ House today. We are all indebted to her for doing so.

Workers’ Memorial Day

Lord Alton of Liverpool Excerpts

Monday 23rd April 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, we are very supportive of the report by Professor Löfstedt. He made the point in the report that legislation,

“can contribute to the confusion, through its overall structure, a lack of clarity, or apparent duplication in some areas”.

That is why we are driving through reforms designed to make the system easy to understand, easy to administer and easy to enforce.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that one of the cruellest industrial diseases is the asbestos-related lung cancer mesothelioma, which can strike up to 40 years after exposure and has thus far claimed the lives of 30,000 workers? Is not one of the best things that the Government can do to support such workers is to respond positively to the all-party calls made in both Houses for mesothelioma victims not to have to face surrendering up to 25 per cent of their much-needed compensation to pay legal costs—compensation which they need in facing the last nine months to one year of their lives?

[Lord Freud]

I am spending considerable time on mesothelioma currently and I hope to sort out the real problem, which is the large number of people suffering from the illness who are getting no compensation at all because they cannot trace who was insuring them. I hope to see some real progress in this area—looking at the whole area of mesothelioma, both those who have been traced and those who are untraced—and to report back on that in the not too distant future, certainly before the summer.