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

Lord Jones Excerpts

Monday 6th March 2023 Grand Committee

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Jones (Lab)]

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

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

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

Bereavement Benefits (Remedial) Order 2022

Lord Jones Excerpts

Tuesday 17th January 2023 Grand Committee

[Lord Jones (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for the context in which he placed the order, which was so persuasively itemised, and the department for the detail given in the Explanatory Memorandum. It is a warm-hearted and welcome measure, and it is good to see the Committee populated by caring colleagues.

In relation to paragraph 7.10 of the Explanatory Memorandum, is it possible to give an estimate of the number of retrospective payments now available to our fellow citizens through the measure? Has work been done on such figures? Is there a global figure? Is there any information on the likely typical average amount of retrospective money that might be paid out? Does the department know that sort of figure for that sort of person? Indeed, are there any statistics that might be given to make this welcome measure easier to assess by number and amount?

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, I too start by thanking the Minister for his helpful explanation. I apologise for not being able to attend the briefing, but Monday mornings are a problem.

On balance, we on these Benches are as pleased as other speakers that this has now come to fruition. We are grateful for the work that the previous Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, did on this. The example given by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, was extremely helpful, and the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, and the noble Lords, Lord Jones and Lord Davies, on some of the other implications, such as tax, are very interesting.

I am sorry that I will now get into some really difficult areas; I hope the Minister will bear with me. I appreciate that I am creating a scenario to which there may not be a speedy response, and I am more than happy to have a written reply. I am particularly interested in paragraphs 7.23 to 7.25 of the Explanatory Memorandum, which set out the determining hierarchy should there appear to be more than one claimant. It is very helpful.

In his introduction, the Minister talked about polyamory, but there are other circumstances as well, such as where people with caring responsibilities live under the same roof, which might include familial members who are not actually spouses but, in the event of the death of the parent—for this purpose I am assuming it is a sole parent who is dying—there are others who will take over responsibility for the children. I know that there has been some concern over multiple claims, and paragraphs 7.23 to 7.25 helpfully set out the priority order.

For me, the issue is much more about the JCHR’s proposal that this benefit should be identified as belonging to children. I am not sure it said it should be paid directly to the children, but because much of it is determined on the age of the children it is clearly designed to support extra costs for somebody with children who has lost a partner. For me, that is important, because I want to raise the issue of kinship carers.

I make a full declaration: I think that my husband and I counted as kinship carers 20 years ago when we became foster parents and then guardians, approved by the family courts, for our best friend. When she died, her children joined us. We had to navigate all the systems in place at that time, which included going to the family court and getting the residency order. That enabled us to claim child benefit for the children. I know that is now means tested, but I am talking about eligibility for child benefit.

The organisation Kinship consistently reports that family members who take on responsibility for children after a partner either has been unable to look after them or has died, as in this circumstance, have ended up having to leave their jobs, not being entitled to benefits and finding every barrier put in their way because they are not typical family carers. Even though they may have had to go through the fostering approval process, as we did, because the courts need to be satisfied that they are capable of looking after and taking responsibility for the children, they are not entitled to foster payments because they are regarded as kinship carers.

The “Emmerdale” actor Jay Kontzle, who was raised by his grandparents after his mother died when he was four, recently said he saw at first hand the way it affected their lives. His grandmother had to stop work and they both had to take on the very difficult task of looking after their orphaned grandchild. It is helpful that he has done that. Kinship surveys have shown that 45% of carers give up jobs and have found repeatedly that they were not eligible for support.

I am remembering my schoolgirl Latin. There is a word, “num”, which notoriously requires a negative answer. I think I expect a negative answer, but there is a real injustice here for this group of kinship carers, whose identification is confirmed by the courts and other benefits but who would not be eligible under these arrangements unless they were living in the same house. How long do they need to live in the house? I wonder whether the Minister can look at this. It may be that this is one of those special cases where there is nobody else who would obviously qualify but where it is needed, for the children and the life changes they will face, for the kinship carers to be considered eligible.

Pensions Dashboards Regulations 2022

Lord Jones Excerpts

Tuesday 15th November 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)]

My Lords, I was not expecting to have to do the dashboards but, as the Minister will know, I intervened during the passage of the Pension Schemes Act. I was there for the money and finance bits and discovered that I had a bit of a love/hate relationship with the dashboard. At first sight I love the idea, but then—as has been relatively eloquently explained, and I will not delve further—there are all kinds of problems, ranging from operational ones to the ones that interested me most. I think I am in exactly the same space here as the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, as usual. What happens if it becomes a platform for advertising?

A good starting point is to look at paragraph 14 on page 9 of the impact assessment, which is about the rationale for the intervention and the pensions dashboard. It quite clearly mentions

“potential benefits/efficiency gains to pension providers if consumers are encouraged to keep track of their pensions, save more, potentially consolidate pots, and shop around for decumulation products”,

but those are benefits to the providers, as it says there. We need to be very clear: we want to make sure that the benefits to the providers do not leave out benefits to those with pensions.

Talking about consolidation, I understand that if there are a lot of really small pots, there is probably something to be said for sweeping those together. But having been self-employed for my entire working life, when I set up my own pension schemes I wanted a bit of diversity. I had several because I did not like the notion that one of the funds might go bust and I would be in trouble—if I had loaded it all into Equitable Life or something. Much to my disappointment, they all got consolidated into Aviva through the consolidation of the industry. Actually, that is not quite true; I still have some others. I carefully selected a completely different batch for my husband, but they also ended up all in Aviva.

Some diversity is a very good thing, because you get performance differences. You might want to phase how you take your retirement and it might prove to be more flexible. So the notion that you should force everybody to have one pot is bad news, to my mind, because you are cutting out diversity and the opportunity that that brings.

Like the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, I latch on to the comments made by the Minister about commercial exploitation. That is a very important point. These pensions dashboards will not be cheap to make. If you do one, with all the wonderful data there, you will be very tempted to exploit it in some way; yet we do not have the information in front of us because that kind of thing comes presumably through the FCA route. I apologise that my information is not as full as it should be, as I too was unable to go to the meeting that was arranged. As there are several regulators involved and several parts of this puzzle to be brought together, it would be nice to have that bigger overview instead of having it in bite-sized chunks where you cannot fully see how they inter-fit.

Most of my other points have already been raised by others and I will not go back to them. However, I was slightly curious about delegated access. Again, it was indicated that, essentially, a financial adviser could have the delegated access. When I speak to a financial adviser, I do not necessarily want them to know what I have got everywhere. Again, as I have several different pots, I can get advice about one pot and not another. Assuming that everybody should have the full view is perhaps not the way to go. I do not know whether it would be possible, but it would be good if you could somehow choose which part is visible to somebody and which is not. I would like to have seen that, but it might be rather difficult.

I also wonder what the provisions will be for others, such as family members who may become involved in trying to help some of their older people sort out their pensions. Some people want that, some do not. They will not be regulated. Will they have to have some kind of formal or legally signed document to be able to take that position? Obviously, they can be sitting at your shoulder when you access, but there will be people who are incapacitated. How will their dashboard be accessed and what will be the safeguards?

I think just about everything else has been mentioned. I will just say that I agree with a lot of the questions. In general, I accept that we need this statutory instrument because it paves the way for everything else to come, but it would have been quite nice to see more of the parallel tracks coming to the same discussion. We will have a statutory instrument or something from the FCA, which will be separate from this. It would have been nice to have them as a package, perhaps debated together, so that we could cross-compare for whether there are gaps, how the different responsibilities will be bridged and how the information will be shared. All these things are yet to come.

[Lord Jones (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her introduction—a heroic introduction in the circumstances—and for the department’s lengthy Explanatory Memorandum. The department is clearly trying to help and has put in a lot of hard work to try to throw more light on a complicated subject. My noble friend Lady Sherlock is always up to the mark on complexity, and there is plenty of complexity in these regulations. The pensions paper is 41 pages long, which is not a criticism by any means. Surely these dashboards are positive, helpful and welcome.

Mesothelioma Lump Sum Payments (Conditions and Amounts) (Amendment) Regulations 2020

Lord Jones Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd March 2020 Grand Committee

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Winchester, and I will echo some of her remarks about resources, research and automatic uprating. Along with many other noble Lords in Grand Committee today, I have been involved in the fight against mesothelioma for many years. I am pleased to see this important issue before us again because it is important that we keep it in the public eye and keep talking about the questions that the noble Baroness has just raised.

This is not an abstract, theoretical issue for many Members of your Lordships’ House. I have been surprised over the years by the numbers of colleagues from both Houses of Parliament who have told me about the loss of loved ones—people within their own families—who were affected by this killer disease. I fully support the uprating of the lump sum payments in line with inflation. We must do everything possible to support people who have been exposed to asbestos and other hazardous substances at work and who now face these terrible consequences.

In previous years, when these regulations have been discussed, as they have been annually since the introduction of the compensation scheme, noble Lords have asked whether future increases could be made automatically rather than being at the discretion of Parliament—a point that the noble Baroness touched on a few moments ago. It is important that the Government give careful consideration to this argument, and I look forward to hearing from the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, when she comes to reply, about how the Government intend to take forward the question of automaticity. Doing so would send a powerful message that we are committed to supporting people and their families affected by these awful diseases.

Why do we need to keep raising our voices about mesothelioma and pneumoconiosis? There is a misconception that occupational lung disease is a historical problem that has been solved. However, there are still many occupations and high-risk work activities that present risks to lung health, from construction and cleaning to artisan baking and much more. The Health and Safety Executive estimates that occupational lung disease results in around 12,000 deaths a year.

Mesothelioma is an invasive type of cancer caused by prior exposure to asbestos. It grows in the pleural membrane that lines the outside of the lung and the inside of the chest. Less commonly, it can also affect a similar lining around the abdomen or the heart. There is currently no cure. Mesothelioma patients often have a short life expectancy and experience complex, debilitating symptoms. Around only 5% to 10% of people diagnosed with mesothelioma survive for five years or more.

As the noble Baroness reminded us, I made the point last year that, tragically, we have the highest rate of the disease anywhere in the world. Mortality rates have more than quadrupled over the past 30 years. It is estimated that around 2,500 people die of the disease every year, and that over the next 30 years around 60,000 people will die of mesothelioma in this country unless new treatments are found.

Mesothelioma is more common in certain parts of the country, such as Liverpool, where people are 18% more likely to die of this disease. Indeed, it was as the Liverpool Member of Parliament in another place that I first encountered the tragic and always fatal consequences of this disease. In Liverpool, mesothelioma has its roots in the historic industrial shipbuilding legacy, as asbestos was used extensively in shipbuilding. Later we will hear more about pneumoconiosis from my noble friend—and friend in every respect—Lord Wigley, but I can see that the noble Lord, Lord Jones, wants to intervene. I would not dream of holding back from allowing an intervention from him.

[Lord Jones (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord. I rise simply to say that I recollect the strong campaigns in another place made over the years by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, with sincerity and indeed to some effect.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool]

I am grateful to the noble Lord. For me, it has been a great pleasure to co-operate with him in both Houses of Parliament on issues of this kind. As he knows from his experiences in north Wales, many lung diseases are caused by inhaling dust. The common types include coal workers’ pneumoconiosis, which is caused by breathing in coal mine dust, and silicosis, which is caused by breathing in crystalline silica dust and typically affects workers in industries such as quarrying, foundries and potteries. Like mesothelioma, there is a long delay between exposure and onset of the disease. In 2012, 374 people in the UK died because of pneumoconiosis.

What about diagnosis, prevention and support for people with mesothelioma or pneumoconiosis? Here I pay tribute to the British Lung Foundation. This wonderful charity raises awareness of occupational lung disease and funds research into treatments and cures. It also provides the secretariat to the Taskforce for Lung Health. The task force is a coalition of more than 30 organisations from across the lung health sector, including royal colleges, patients, and the Health and Safety Executive, who came together to publish a five-year national plan to improve lung health in England. Included in the plan are recommendations to improve prevention and awareness of occupational lung diseases such as mesothelioma and pneumoconiosis. I should like the Minister to listen to two of the recommendations, which I will highlight, in order to ask her what more the Government could do to support their elevation in order to make sure that they are given real substance.

Under these recommendations, employers are responsible for ensuring that effective measures are in place to control exposure to hazardous substances in compliance with the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 2002. They should also highlight risks at work to employees and encourage people to think about their own and others’ safety, including wearing the right protective clothing and masks. What are we doing to make sure that employers are honouring those recommendations?

Secondly, healthcare professionals should be trained to recognise and understand lung diseases which are caused at work. Asking questions about occupation when a patient presents with respiratory symptoms could improve early detection, allowing people to start treatment as soon as possible, as well as to access any compensation that they are owed. The number of occupations that present risks to lung health is surprisingly broad. Staff training should be included in undergraduate and postgraduate curricula and continuing professional development. Is that something that the noble Baroness would be prepared to take up with the relevant Ministers in other departments to ensure that it is acted upon? What will the Government do to take forward these recommendations?

What are the Government doing to increase funding for mesothelioma research? Research into lung disease is underfunded in comparison with the disease burden. Only 1.8% of the total UK health research spend went towards respiratory disease in 2018, despite it being one of the top three killers in the United Kingdom. As I have said, there is no cure for mesothelioma and it is poorly understood as a disease. That point was made earlier by the noble Baroness: the reasons people contract the disease are not sufficiently well understood.

In 2014, I tabled an amendment to the Mesothelioma Bill, and in 2015, I introduced a Private Member’s Bill in your Lordships’ House which would have put a small levy on participating insurance firms to help secure long-term research funding into mesothelioma. Unfortunately, the amendment and the Bill were defeated. At the time, it had the potential to raise about £1.5 million a year for research. That represents a small amount of money to each of the insurance companies but would have created a great number of research opportunities and given hope to people living with mesothelioma and, indeed, their families.

Since then, the Government have allocated £5 million for a national mesothelioma centre at Imperial College. I thank those Ministers who put in considerable effort to secure that and to look at voluntary funding from the insurance industry—I am thinking in particular of the noble Lord, Lord Freud, and the work that he did on that. I am pleased that the British Lung Foundation was also able to secure match funding for this £5 million and that two insurance companies, Aviva and Zurich, donated a combined £1 million to the British Lung Foundation’s mesothelioma research programme. Unfortunately, negotiations for a broader long-term funding commitment from the insurance industry came to a standstill. What are Ministers now doing to take that forward, building on the excellent work of the noble Lord, Lord Freud?

Overall, the British Lung Foundation has spent over £8.7 million on research into the disease. With this money, the BLF has been able to support further research and clinical trials, and has set up a mesothelioma research network. The network brings together researchers to share ideas and collaborate to help translate research more quickly into new diagnostics and treatments for people with mesothelioma. It now has 180 members worldwide and has led to 12 new or potential research collaborations. I pay special tribute to the efforts of the noble Lords, Lord Giddens and Lord Willis, and the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, who have worked, with me and others, to bring some of that about. Some of the research projects funded or co-funded by the British Lung Foundation have included exploring using the immune system to fight the disease and the development of a tissue and blood sample bank, MesobanK, which gives researchers quick access to samples and data to help accelerate research.

I would like to see more research into how we deal with asbestos in schools. This is a very real issue, about which far too little has been done. Again, I pay tribute to my noble friend Lady Finlay of Llandaff, who has taken a lead on this. It is also important to look at the effect of mesothelioma in the Armed Forces. We should recall the noble Lord, Lord West of Spithead, describing to us how young men played snowballs with asbestos at Dartmouth. The consequences of our past ignorance are still being lived out today.

While I fully support compensation for the victims of these diseases, it is surely in everyone’s interest—the victims, the Government and the insurers—to put investment into finding a cure. That would, long term, remove the need for lump sum payments or any insurance industry levies. Because this field is so underfunded, every pound of investment is likely to be worth while and to attract further funding. I am pleased that the British Lung Foundation continues its work to secure funding for vital mesothelioma research. It has recently secured £5 million over five years from Catalina Holdings, aimed at achieving early diagnosis and trials of high-potential drugs. But the Government must do more as well.

I come to my last point. The Merseyside Asbestos Victims Support Group—I pay tribute to John Flanagan and to Joanne Gordon, who chairs the Asbestos Victims Support Forum—has raised with me the particular case of equalising and upgrading posthumous payments. I hope that the Minister will reply to this point tonight—I know that it has been raised with the Government by the metro mayor of Merseyside and others. The payments are meant to provide some compensation for asbestos victims who cannot take legal cases. That is surely right. However, there is an inconsistency in the schemes. If applications are made after the patient has died, the payments, which can be claimed only by surviving partners or dependent children, are substantially lower. That cannot be right.

A victim aged 77 making a claim based on a 100% IIDB award will receive £14,334. The surviving partner of someone who passed away at the age of 77 will receive £7,949. In such a situation, many family members feel that the life of their loved one lost to this devastating disease is regarded as being of less value. This is surely morally wrong, especially as in a legal claim a surviving partner will suffer no such disadvantage. Furthermore, victims’ families could suffer a financial hardship, as people budget on the basis of two incomes and, through no fault of their own, are reduced to one income and are further disadvantaged by receiving a lower government compensation payment.

The victims who receive payments are not interested in the money for themselves. However, they are concerned about the financial security of their families. In this situation there is clearly a moral and financial case for raising the level of posthumous payments. I know that the noble Baroness will have been listening with care, and I hope she will be able to respond in a positive way.

There are also practical considerations. Of the 3,830 payments made in 2018, only 260 were posthumous claims. In 2010, the Government acknowledged that there was no justification for differential payments, further adding that such inequality in payments could put pressure on victims at a time when they are most vulnerable. The Government made a firm commitment to bridge the gap between in-life payments and posthumous payments. I hope the noble Baroness is able to say today that that commitment will be honoured.

Some 60,000 people will die over the next 30 years. We owe it to them not to merely go through an uprating ritual every year but to provide tangible support and world-class leadership in research.

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Alton, in this debate. We have campaigned together on many occasions, and I was glad to support his Bill in the past. I came to the mesothelioma question through the death of a very close friend, my school chum Peter Wolfe, who died four or five years ago, within a matter of four months of having been diagnosed as suffering from mesothelioma.

The figure quoted, of 60,000 possible deaths, may be more than the number of deaths in the UK arising from the present flu scare. That puts it into context and underlines the need for us to address it. I have spoken in several debates on this in the past and will not repeat the points I have made. I very much support what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, and the noble Lord, Lord Alton, about the need for funding for research in order to minimise the extent of suffering due to mesothelioma and asbestosis. I reinforce the point made about schools. So many schools were built using asbestos, and in Wales, the National Assembly are facing this issue in a number of locations. This has to be tackled, otherwise there will be problems.

I will focus mainly on the pneumoconiosis order, although the two do of course blend into each other. From debates in earlier years on the uprating orders, noble Lords may recall the interest I have in these matters, arising from having represented for 27 years a slate quarrying area in the Caernarfon constituency. They may well also recall the significant involvement that my colleagues and I had in pressing for the Act to be completed in the dying days of the 1974-79 Labour Government—something that my noble friend Lord Jones will well recall.

[Lord Jones]

The noble Lord will recollect that I was a member of that Administration, which fell on a vote of no confidence.

[Lord Wigley]

Indeed. Our three votes were not enough to save that Government, but they were enough to help the pneumoconiosis Act find its way through, in two days flat, to the statute book. That that happened is a tribute to Michael Foot, among others. There had been delays all along in getting the Act on to the statute book, but Michael Foot made sure that it went through both Houses within 48 hours—quite a remarkable achievement.

It might interest noble Lords to know that considerable interest is now being taken in this legislation in the context of the bid for UNESCO to accord world heritage status to the slate industry in north-west Wales, in a similar manner to that given to the coal industry’s big pit at Blaenafon. One aspect of interest in the presentation of that case is the way in which the slate quarrying communities led the fight and campaign to secure compensation, not just for slate quarrymen, whose health was undermined by breathing in industrial dust, but for workers in so many other industries. That includes those working in cotton mills, pottery production, foundries and other metal industries, and even some working in the coal mining communities who were not covered by the coal mining scheme.

In recent years we have seen asbestosis and mesothelioma, both covered by the Act, become the predominant part of the payments made under the Act, which I will come on to now.

At the time of passing the 1979 Act, the Government estimated that it would cost £5 million in the first year and, thereafter, £75,000 per year—yes, £75,000 per year. In fact, more than £20 million was spent in the first five years and £30 million over the subsequent 10 years. In the five years from 1994 to 1999, the figure was £25 million. Since then, expenditure under the Act has mushroomed. From 1999 to 2009, £236 million was spent, and from 2010 to 2019, £415 million was spent. A large part of that was clearly associated with asbestos-related diseases, but I have tried by way of Written Questions to identify which payments were related to which industries that come under the purview of the Act—which is a reasonable question to ask—so that we might see how the issue relates to other industries.

I wanted also to establish that the total cost of asbestosis is not only the payments under the 2008 scheme but a large part of the payments being discussed here, which adds to the significance of the need to find a solution for those suffering from mesothelioma. We have a right to know. Certainly, it is not the slate quarrymen who have been the beneficiaries of the huge sums that I have referred to, but they will of course be glad that provision is there is to help others in need. The trigger is asbestosis. Can the Minister confirm that, if those figures are not available now, the Government will undertake to identify exactly what costs are attributable to what industries?

I do not deny for a moment the absolute right of those in any industry who have suffered loss of health and even life as a result of their work to be properly compensated, but questions need to be answered about whether the schemes still help those not affected by asbestosis and to what extent. Perhaps a focus can be put on that. It is also relevant to ask what the total for mesothelioma is between all the schemes and what research budget is needed. It is a large sum, but it needs to be even larger to help those most in need. I would be grateful for the Government’s response.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Jones]

I thank the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, for her caring introduction. The increase of 1.7% in respect of asbestosis must be welcome, but, whatever the lump sum paid and whatever the increase, none of us can quite comprehend the miserable impact on the sufferer or the dependant, but it is good that some recompense has now been made.

Is there a regional breakdown of where sufferers worked historically? Does the department have that information? Is there any indication of the number of survivors and the number of dependants in receipt of payments? Does the department have such a figure? What sum of money has been paid so far since enactment? Does the department have that information? If so, could it be given to the Minister?

There have been some recollections. The late Lord Harold Walker of this noble House described to me how in the late 1960s workers in a factory in Hebden Bridge played snowballs with the piles of asbestos. The real tragedy in this case is that the asbestos was blue, which is, in effect, a certain prescription for illness and death.

I recollect debating the subject of the second SI with the Minister on a previous occasion. I remember it well; it might have been her first appearance in this Committee—a very fine appearance, if I might say so. She was responsive, as she always is. Again, I thank her. I intervene on this SI on the matter of the slate quarrymen, particularly those in north Wales, on whom the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, gave us his own insights. How many claimants are there now? How many dependants are claiming? Is there a breakdown for that part of Wales? Is there a breakdown by county—or country—of claimants throughout England and Wales? Is such statistical information available to the department?

Should there be the time and inclination, I will briefly describe a quarry in Blaenau Ffestiniog called Llechwedd. It is underground, of course, cavernous, dark and damp. There were dangers and pitfalls. Of course, the quarrymen worked underground at the quarry face. There were no health and safety regulations whatever when that quarry was at work. In what we call the olden days the quarrymen had to pay for the candles that lit their place of work. That is the memory and heritage. That makes some humanity of the regulations that the Minister must necessarily bring to the Committee. I stress that the emphasis of regulations should be on their humanity—the consequence for the citizen.

Another quarry, Penrhyn, was arguably the biggest in the world. Ten miles away from that great quarry, which is not active now, is a great castle, Penrhyn Castle. It is now a National Trust property. Should Members ever visit it, there is a Rembrandt in the breakfast room. My point is that the castle is mighty; it was built in the 19th century on the profits from the slate quarries. The contrast between the humble quarryman, and the mighty potentate and the wealth and treasure he and his descendants had, is enormous. It puts our debate into further context.

In 1976 I sat alongside the late Michael Foot, when he was deputy leader of the British Labour Party, as a junior colleague throughout the passage of the legislation. He enacted the first Health and Safety at Work etc. Act. It is relevant to emphasise that historic legislation to place this important SI in context. The department would then be the keeper of that memory, and the memories which noble Lords have recalled and put forward for consideration today.

Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 2018

Lord Jones Excerpts

Tuesday 27th February 2018 Grand Committee

[Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope (LD)]

It is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Primarolo, who did some excellent work on child poverty when she was a Treasury Minister, and I agree with everything she has said. I am pleased to join with the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, in that my reason for being here is that my public last year discovered that I was not here either. So here I am—but I am escaping the hour and a half of the consideration of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee by being here, and I have more friends in this Committee than I have upstairs.

I have not had a chance to say this, but I am very pleased to welcome the Minister to the Dispatch Box; I was dismayed by the wholesale shift of the ministerial team at the DWP recently—the only bright spot was that she survived. But I make a serious as well as a flippant point. With a change of that scale at a stage like this, in the middle of all sorts of huge policy changes, and—I am going to mention it once, because every meeting is allowed to mention it only once—the EU withdrawal process, it is very difficult to be confident that any Minister, no matter how engaged and diligent, can really grasp the full complexities of this subject area. It makes my heart sink when I think about exactly what the chances are facing the department, but I am pleased that the Minister is here. I know that she will make a contribution and listen carefully to today’s debate.

I award the DWP employee of the month prize to Mr Ben Pugh who at paragraph 7.7 of the draft Explanatory Memorandum to the statutory instrument came up with this marvellous sentence, which I shall keep as a special uprating debate moment:

“These amounts will therefore be increased by 3.0085%—the difference between £159.55 and £164.35 as a percentage of £159.55, taking account of the rounding of the new full rate to the nearest 5p”.


I think the paperwork we are presented with in consideration of these orders is becoming less useful. The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, asked a couple of really pertinent questions which would be much more relevant to understanding where we have been and where we are going, in terms not just of the spend that we have seen in the past but the affordability of what is going on, and a comparison. Anybody who has a Twitter account can see that the Resolution Foundation is drop-dead marvellous at putting these things in graphs—it makes them so much clearer and so much starker. Admittedly, the Government’s opening statement concentrated on the welcome additions to the pensions, the disability premium and all the rest, at 3%. I think they are right to do that and it is very welcome, but when you look at some of the disparities in the other spendings and you factor in the cuts, caps and freezes, some of these situations are much easier to understand if seen visually.

This is not making the Government’s job any easier but I make a plea that in future, we have an intelligent discussion about affordability, even if it is one of the little round tables that we often have and the Minister is kind enough to arrange. That is what I am driving at, because I am very nervous. In terms of the demographic change, I do not think we can afford the triple lock. I am not saying that it is my party’s policy to abolish it but if I have my way, it will be, because after 2020 the thing becomes impossible to sustain if you look at the economic picture over 20 years.

The Office for Budget Responsibility Welfare Trends Report was very instructive about the fragility, if I can put it that way, of the basis of universal credit. At the end of the day this will be a £60,000 million spend, covering 7.7 million households across the country. If the OBR cannot say one way or the other whether this is going to work properly—it is a very interesting report if that is what it is saying—that has to be taken into account in considering these orders, because we are setting the policy for the next few years. It is something we need to think more carefully about. We need to try to get better value for the spend we are making in these orders.

One of my most recent visits to universal credit—it is something I am thinking more clearly about and organising some extra visits, with the Minister’s help—led me to think about our ability to support families, not just with money but with signposting and warm handovers. There is a big difference between the two, but that can and should develop so that we are not just offering people a guarantee of 3% or whatever it is. We need to get better value for money by, for example, liberating the ability of people who are recently retired and are still relatively healthy: the longevity bonus, if you like. We need to take a community approach and offer them some incentives, to operate alongside families with chaotic lifestyles.

We need a long-term plan. Before the end of 2020, I would like us to structure a social protection system that is open about what percentage of the national wealth should be devoted to it. Then, if the economy goes up, we all enjoy the benefits; if it goes down, I think people would be prepared to accept that that is the way the world works. That is much fairer than imposing cuts, caps and freezes between now and 2019-20. The evidence indicates that low-income households will be assessed in a much harsher context than I have seen in my time in public life. I am older than I look and I have been round the block, but, seriously, come 2020, that will be the result if the benefit freeze is allowed to continue. The evidence is clear. My two colleagues earlier referred to their takes on this issue. We have the IFS, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and the End Child Poverty coalition. The United Kingdom is blessed with an experienced and trusted research community that can be relied upon to carry out this work.

Of course, no one has the ability to foretell the future but all the indicators suggest that this situation will get a whole lot worse before it gets better. I do not think that it is sensible merely to tackle this from year to year and stick with policies crafted when inflation was 1%. It is now 3% and we are told that local authorities are contemplating putting up council tax by 6%. That just will not work. The End Child Poverty campaign has said that the poverty premium is now £1,700 a year for some households in some parts of the United Kingdom. That is a much higher figure than I have ever seen, so this is all pointing in the wrong direction. It is not safe to leave this freeze in place without thinking very carefully about where it is going and what we are going to do at the end of it. My honest opinion is that public opinion will not put up with the consequences of the current policy if it continues to 2020 and 2022.

I know that the Minister will think about this issue sensitively and carefully and will use her influence as one of the most senior Ministers in the DWP to twist people’s arms. I hope that she will kick down the door of the Treasury to try to inject a bit more realism with regard to what the department is facing. If she does not, the consequences will be picked up by low-income households and children living in poverty, as we heard earlier. They do not deserve that. We as legislators should pay more attention to putting these things right before they get too out of hand.

[Lord Jones (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her exposition, which was, as ever, very precise, and welcome my noble friend on the Opposition Front Bench. I also welcome both these orders. The triple lock is welcomed by millions of people. Looking at the complexity of these two orders and at the long list of the Committee’s business today, I might be forgiven for expressing the personal view that perhaps they should have been taken on the Floor of the House. We have discussed a huge range of benefits in a short period of time. We have had a short debate, yet the issues are huge, the moneys are mighty and they all relate to the citizenry—our people. All of us want better things for the people of our nation.

In Part 2, the DLA is increased by £2.50 a week. That is surely welcome, but will the Minister say why the increase could not have been bigger, given the difficult times that are experienced by so many people, who are just getting by or not even getting by? Part 2 also refers to bereavement benefits and the bereavement support payment. The latter is not to be increased. Will the Minister, in the fullness of time, say why not? Surely that is worthy of an increase.

--- Later in debate ---

Those are a number of questions that I hope I have managed to respond to. In addition, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Jones, for welcoming these upratings. I think that he was alone in doing that.

[Lord Jones]

I am grateful, but they should have been much bigger.

[Baroness Buscombe]

My Lords, I would love to concur with the noble Lord. The following point is certainly not in my brief but is something that I think about a lot. The children we have referenced today will sooner or later become the working young. I think of my three children, who are all working now but do not earn very much. The issue is how the working young will afford pensions in the future. In probably about an hour’s time we will debate the order on auto-enrolment, which shifts the culture in terms of people contributing to their future pensions. There is very much a cross-party consensus on working out how we can make pensions sustainable in the long term. However, in the short term, I hope that the noble Lord will accept that, notwithstanding the fact that we would like to be ever more generous, it simply is not possible.

[Lord Jones]

That is a fair answer. Has the Minister answers to some of the questions that I posed? If she does not have them to hand, she may wish to write to me. However, she may wish to answer one or two of the questions.

[Baroness Buscombe]

I thank the noble Lord. I have just found the answers in my array of papers. He asked about different benefits, particularly disability and carer benefits. We now spend over £50 billion a year on benefits to support disabled people and people with health conditions, which is over £7 billion more than in 2010. The noble Lord asked about disability living allowance and benefits for carers. We are increasing benefits for the additional costs of disability and for carers in line with inflation. Recipients of carer’s allowance will now get £550 more per year than in 2010, while the monthly rate of disability living allowance paid to the most disabled children will have risen by more than £104. On a before-housing-cost basis, the absolute poverty rate among people living in a family where someone is disabled has fallen to a record low.

I am sorry that I have not been able to respond to noble Lords’ questions, particularly those of the noble Lord, Lord Jones, in relation to cold weather payments. That was discussed in the department yesterday, but I will write to the noble Lord.

Financial Assistance Scheme (Increased Cap for Long Service) Regulations 2018

Lord Jones Excerpts

Monday 22nd January 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, for her clear introduction to these regulations. As we have heard, they will amend the legislation to allow the Financial Assistance Scheme to pay a higher amount of assistance to capped FAS members who have long service in a single pension scheme. They allow an increase in the cap by 3% for each year of pensionable service over 20 years up to a maximum of double the standard cap. This is in addition to the inflationary increase in the amount of the cap. As we have heard, a parallel change has been made to the PPF, although not by the use of regulations, with effect from April 2017 in line with the policy to align the two systems and following a government Statement on 15 September 2016.

FAS and its follow-up, the PPF, have been important mechanisms—I think this is a view that we share—to improve confidence in defined benefit schemes. They protect some 11 million in the UK who belong to such schemes. For FAS to be involved, a scheme must have commenced wind-up between 1 January 1997 and 6 April 2005; after these dates, individuals would look to the PPF. We introduced these schemes when in government and continue to support them.

FAS would generally meet 100% of entitlement for those having reached retirement age when wind-up commences; for those who have not done so, members would generally receive 90% of the expected pension accrued at the point that the scheme began to wind up, subject, of course, to the cap. From recollection, the expected and actual pension amounts for these purposes would not always coincide with scheme definitions. Could the Minister comment on how they might diverge at the current point?

Notwithstanding the 6 April 2005 date, we know that there can be a considerable lead time between commencement of wind-up assessment and entry into FAS. According to the most recent accounts—the Minister might be able to confirm this—in the year to 31 March 2016 there were still some 23 schemes that completed wind-up, with a total of £141 million of assets transferred to the Government. Incidentally, could the Minister remind us how the receipt of scheme assets, employer contributions and FAS payments are dealt with in the government accounts?

As we have heard, the PPF took over responsibility for the management of FAS in 2009. By the end of 2015-16, it had completed the transition of 1,027 schemes, with 155,000 individuals entitled to FAS assistance. This is an impressive level of support, without which thousands of individuals would have received or be entitled to little or nothing at retirement. At a time when we are debating in general the merits or otherwise of outsourcing, FAS is a worthy example of the state stepping in to support failures of private pension provision.

It was announced that, in 2016, FAS would be closed to new applications. While this would keep the scheme open some 10 years longer than originally planned, have the Government made any assessment of the number of individuals who would lose out as a result of such a decision and what the Government’s saving would be? Failure to access FAS might be laid at the door of trustees or scheme administrators, but any loss would be suffered by members. Is that fair? Would failure to seek access to FAS cause any restriction on access to social security benefits?

We have seen a copy of the Government’s response to the consultation on the increased cap proposals. One issue arising is whether there should be a definition in the regulations of pensionable service, as it would help avoid confusion where service was under another scheme and would be disallowed. The Government say that they are content to rely on information from trustees about pensionable service based on the definition of pensionable service contained in individual scheme rules, but one bugbear of the scheme, at least initially, was the poor quality of some of the data held by various schemes. What is the current situation in this regard, and what confidence is there across the board that scheme data are now more robust? In how many cases has the FAS scheme manager had to issue guidance to individual schemes, and on what points?

It seems that, despite the original intent, periods of service accrued in a member’s own right are to be aggregated with those arising under pension credit arrangements in determining long service. We do not oppose this, but, for the record, perhaps the Minister would expand on the potential stumbling block referred to in the documentation should the alternative position have been adopted. Further, we support the potential inclusion in the long service cap of those in receipt of a survivor’s pension but who do not have any pensionable service of their own.

The Explanatory Memorandum draws attention to the reference to the European Court of Justice in the case of Grenville Hampshire. This is a matter engaging EEC directive 80/987 and whether in the event of an insolvency every employee should, inter alia, receive no less than 50% of their expected pension benefits. From recollection, this matter has been around for a little while. Perhaps the Minister would update the House on the current state of affairs. The risk would be where the current cap is in play and would, I presume, be ameliorated by these regulations. Should the Secretary of State or the board of PPF not prevail, what are the consequences?

The caps on both FAS and the PPF were a mechanism to limit costs and to guard against excessive risk-taking, the latter potentially arising where decisions could risk insolvency of a company where there was no chance of a diminution in executive pensions because they would be wholly underwritten by FAS or the PPF—that is, the moral hazard position. In amending this approach, we are asked by the Minister to recognise the unfairness for those whose long service has been in a single pension scheme and where, without raising the cap by length of service, they would be in no better position than someone with equivalent pension entitlement levels but who could secure additional benefits in a new scheme. We recognise that position.

It is noted that no impact assessment is offered for these regulations, although reference is made to the impact assessment for the Pensions Act 2014. Will the Minister say why no such assessment has been prepared, particularly given that, for FAS, after asset transfers and recovery the net cost is met by the public purse? Under PPF, it is met by the levy on other DB schemes. A phone call to officials suggested an annual cost of £1.2 million a year—indeed, the noble Baroness confirmed that figure—and that some 290 members would benefit. Given the stop on further FAS transfers, this is a finite population. Other things being equal, we might question whether this is a priority at the present time, but alignment with PPF, prior deliberations and fairness lead us not to oppose but to support these provisions.

Having recognised the principle, the question arises as to the quantum of the relaxation—in other words, the 3% for each full year of pensionable service over 20 years, subject to the limit of double the standard cap. Will the Minister remind us of the basis on which this 3% is computed? It should be noted that, for the PPF, the increased cap for long service could increase levy payments by some £139 million in the period to 2030. Will the Minister tell us how many recipients are likely to be involved over that period?

These regs are about FAS, but we should not let the moment pass without making a general point about the pensions environment and the PPF. Not only has it to deal with BHS but, as the result of last week’s events, also Carillion. It is to be welcomed that the PPF is in robust health, with, I think, £4.1 billion in reserve, but there is obviously a limit to the strain it can take. Subject to all this, I support the regulations.

[Lord Jones (Lab)]

My Lords, like my noble friend at the Dispatch Box, the Minister is a master of detail and I thank her for her helpful introduction. However, since they refer to Wales as well as the rest of Britain, have these draft regulations any relevance to the steel-workers of Port Talbot at the previous Tata company? Indeed, do they in any way impinge upon the pensions entitlement of the remnant of the steel industry across Britain? It is not that one expects steel pensions to be sky-high, which the cap might anticipate. If the Minister can in any way make reference to the beleaguered steel industry, and in particular those steel-workers in the great Port Talbot works who are very anxious about their pensions, that would be helpful.

[Baroness Altmann (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate the Government on introducing these very important regulations. I spent years of my life helping the victims of failed pension schemes under the previous system, which had no insurance protection for lost pensions, despite the workers in those schemes having part of their state pension and their entire private pension savings included in their pension scheme as they were not allowed to have any other pension savings. Having been assured by the Government that their pensions were safe and protected by law, they found that it turned out that they could lose their entire pension. Indeed, many of them did, including steel-workers in south Wales at the time.

It is 10 years since the Financial Assistance Scheme was extended to mirror the Pension Protection Fund. It took a parliamentary ombudsman inquiry, a Public Administration Select Committee inquiry and then a case in the High Court, followed by a case in the Court of Appeal—where the victims were forced to take the then Government to court—to ensure that the Financial Assistance Scheme, which at the time was designed to help only a few of those who had lost their pensions and to replace only a small portion of the pensions they had lost, was extended to mirror the PPF. As the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, rightly said, it is only right that the continued mirroring of the scheme should be followed, and having extended the Pension Protection Fund cap, it is essential that the Financial Assistance Scheme cap must also be increased. I congratulate the Government on doing so.

Pension Schemes Act 2015 (Transitional Provisions and Appropriate Independent Advice) (Amendment No. 2) Regulations 2017

Lord Jones Excerpts

Wednesday 29th November 2017 Grand Committee

[Lord Jones (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her measured exposition. I note that in the Explanatory Note the word “survivor” crops up. Does she have to hand a legal definition of “survivor”?

[Baroness Drake (Lab)]

My Lords, I refer to my interests as set out in the register, in particular that I am a trustee of two occupational pension schemes. The regulations have the effect of removing some individuals—currently estimated at 2,360 per annum—from the need to get regulated advice before accessing those pension pots with a safeguarded flexible benefit, such as a guaranteed annuity rate. This is a consequence of changing the valuation process to determine whether such benefits meet the greater than £30,000 trigger for requiring the individual to take regulated advice.

The term “safeguarded flexible benefits”—the subject matter of these regulations—can feel imprecise, however many times one reads the background paperwork. I appreciate that there are problems with getting data from both contract- and trust-based schemes, but it is not always clear which benefits are included and which are not. I acknowledge that schemes may well need to seek legal opinion to get that clarity so they are sure about how they are applying these regulations to their own schemes.

I thank the DWP officials who quite late into yesterday evening were still answering my various questions. I take this opportunity to ask the Minister two questions about which safeguarded flexible benefits are included. In occupational schemes where members have a right under the scheme rules to convert their AVC saving into scheme defined-benefit benefits, does that provision come under these regulations? Is it possible to give greater clarity on which guaranteed annuity rates in occupational schemes would not be considered money purchase benefits?

Moving on to the risk warning process, I recognise that these regulations sit alongside a new requirement for schemes to send members with safeguarded flexible benefits a tailored risk warning about the guarantees their benefits offer before they proceed to transfer, convert or flexibly access them. Such risk warnings are welcome, but I have a series of linked questions for the Minister on the process around those risk warnings. First, why can the risk warning not be issued immediately following receipt of a member request to transfer, convert or directly access their flexible benefits and before commencing to process the member request? If the warning is received as late as 14 days before any live request completes, evidence suggests that by then individuals are well set on a course of action, inertia takes over and risk warnings are less effective. Some schemes run a system where there are warnings in place: the first thing is the warning, before the full process is triggered.

Secondly, will the risk warning be sent to any other potential beneficiary of the benefits, such as parties involved in a pensions sharing order or, as my noble friend said, possibly survivors? This is a duplicate question, in that sense. Why is the warning restricted to signposting the member to free and impartial guidance? Is this not exactly the type of case where a person should be given almost a default access to the guidance service in line with the recent amendment agreed to the Financial Guidance and Claims Bill? Just a written reference to signposting can often get lost in the detail of the information sent to members, and we are talking about safeguarded benefits.

Bereavement Support Payment Regulations 2017

Lord Jones Excerpts

Tuesday 21st February 2017 Grand Committee

[The Lord Bishop of St Albans]

I thank the Minister for his succinct and helpful introduction. I realise that we have already had extensive debates during the passage of the pensions Bill and I do not wish to impede the progress that we are making with these regulations. Therefore I hope the Minister will not mind if I briefly raise a number of concerns, which I know are shared by my colleagues on the Bench of Bishops, in the hope that Her Majesty’s Government might keep these under review.

I have three concerns. The first is around the length of time for which bereavement support payments will be made, particularly to widowed parents with dependent children. At Second Reading of the pensions Bill, my right reverend friend the Bishop of Derby suggested that three years of additional financial support should be a minimum standard when helping bereaved families to adjust to life without a father or a mother, and I endorse his comments. If the Government are serious about this payment being about bereavement support, they must recognise that the effects of bereavement go way beyond 18 months. I realise that it is difficult to decide on what is the right length of time but I want to push the issue a little. Universal credit, with its system of conditionality, is unlikely to be appropriate for a young family still coming to terms with its grief.

My second concern is about the Government’s refusal to uprate basic support payments in line with inflation, which will see the value of the payments eroded after time, particularly given the likely rises in inflation over the coming years. Benefit support payments must be added to the list of benefits subject to annual review and be uprated in line with inflation. I hope that the Minister will encourage Her Majesty’s Government to commit to that in the forthcoming Budget.

Thirdly and finally, I have a concern about the failure to extend eligibility for bereavement support payments to cohabiting couples, particularly those with children. One might be surprised that I am making this point. As a Bishop, I of course support marriage and want to encourage everyone to consider it good for society and individuals. One would know the line that I would come out with. However, a situation that leaves one in five parents ineligible for bereavement support if their partner dies is inadequate. I recognise that determining a qualifying partnership outside marriage or civil partnership is complex but these challenges are not insurmountable, particularly when one thinks about the welfare of children, who are almost always those who take the hit and suffer most.

Benefit systems already accommodate the claims of cohabiting couples, and the Armed Forces Pension Scheme successfully uses a definition of “eligible partner” to determine who can receive a pension. I hope that Her Majesty’s Government will give serious thought to this situation and see what can be done to extend support, at least to cohabiting partners with dependent children. That is my key point. Failure to do so could leave an estimated 2,000 families a year facing the future, having lost a parent, without the financial assistance of bereavement support.

[Lord Jones (Lab)]

My Lords, I am glad to follow the right reverend Prelate’s caring remarks, and my intervention will be brief. I thank the Minister for his thoughtful outline of the impact of these complicated regulations about serious matters. I note that Article 19 of the order to follow—the Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 2017—refers to bereavement benefits. Can the Minister give us an estimate of the numbers of those claiming such payments in the past year? On the basis of that insight, can he estimate the number of future claimants under the new regulations?

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation of these draft regulations and all noble Lords who have spoken today.

As we have heard, these regulations enact the provisions of the Pensions Act 2014—which, as the right reverend Prelate pointed out, we debated at some length. They introduce a new single payment to replace bereavement payment, bereavement allowance and widowed parent’s allowance for those whose spouse or civil partner dies on or after 6 April 2017. The Government’s case is that this will modernise the current provision and increase simplicity for those who are bereaved and seeking support. I am grateful to the Minister for confirming that the Government’s main aim is not to save money. However, I am pleased to reassure him that they are, accidentally, about to save quite a bit of it. I confess that my antennae always start twitching whenever I hear Ministers promise that a social security reform is mainly just about making things simpler. The first question is always to look at who stands to gain as a result of the new simplicity—the claimant or the Treasury. On this occasion, after two years of an introductory period the answer is, I am sorry to say, the Treasury. The Explanatory Memorandum tells us that after two years of reform, steady-state savings are expected to be about £100 million a year. In other words, these reforms take £100 million a year from bereaved families and give it to the Exchequer.

The Explanatory Memorandum offers two other objectives for the reforms: for the system to be fair and to promote self-dependency. I suspect that if the Government had tested public opinion on the matter of fairness, being kind to widows might come high up the list. Has the Minister reflected again on the issue of promoting self-dependency? People who get married or civilly partnered and have children were not intending to be self-dependent. They formed a family which had been ruptured, presumably by the death of their spouse or partner. That was precisely the sort of situation for which the welfare state was designed to step in. We on these Benches registered our concerns about the impact of these reforms during the passage of the Bill. Indeed, concern was expressed across the House. I still remember the powerful speech given by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby when we discussed these matters; his interventions were very much taken to heart by many in the House. We sought to amend the Bill to mitigate some of the effects but, sadly, we were unsuccessful —so here we are.

On matters of detail, concern was expressed by the Social Security Advisory Committee and the Work and Pensions Select Committee about a number of areas, and I am pleased to see that the Government have responded to one criticism raised by both committees by extending the period that the bereavement support payment can be accessed from 12 to 19 months. Unfortunately, that is less generous than it sounds because the Government have simply redistributed the amount of money that they originally proposed over a longer period, so people get the same amount but for a longer time.

There are notional gainers, such as younger widows, although figures in the original impact assessment seemed to me to suggest that, perhaps unsurprisingly, and fortunately, there are very few of those, with the vast bulk of the current caseload in the over-55 bracket. Despite the time extension, the Childhood Bereavement Network, which I thank for the very comprehensive briefing that it sent to all interested noble Lords, suggests that 91% of parents will still be supported for a shorter time than under the current system and that the DWP’s own figures admit that 75% of claimants with children will get less money. Can the Minister confirm that those figures are correct and, if not, give the Committee the department’s own estimates instead?

Those with young children will be disproportionately affected, as the parents can currently claim for longer. The current widowed parent’s allowance is paid until the youngest child leaves full-time education. As the briefing from the Childhood Bereavement Network briefing pointed out, a six year-old child losing her father in 2016 would be supported until she leaves school. A six year-old losing her father in 2018 will be supported for just a year and a half. I suspect that her mother might be willing to deal with a bit of complexity for the sake of another decade of additional support to feed and clothe her daughter. The Childhood Bereavement Network says that those with younger children could be up to £31,000 worse off in total than they would have been without these reforms. Can the Minister confirm that this is correct?

The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans raised the question of cohabiting couples, and I am sure that the House was glad to hear concern for those cohabiting couples and their children, notwithstanding his support for the institution of marriage. In their consultation response, the Government said:

“The Government position on this issue is unchanged: there are still no plans to extend eligibility for bereavement benefits to those who are not married or in a civil partnership”.


No reason was offered as to why the Government had rejected this proposal. Given that the right reverend Prelate had given his blessing and feels that the institution of marriage will be safe should the Government venture into this territory, can the Minister take the opportunity to tell the Committee why the Government chose not to extend provision in this way?

Lastly, I would like to ask a couple of questions about universal credit—first, on the interaction of universal credit with bereavement support. I think that I heard the Minister say—and I apologise as I did not quite follow the argument, which is entirely my fault—that BSP will be disregarded in full when calculating entitlement to universal credit. Can he confirm that in his reply? I apologise for making him revisit the matter.

Secondly, paragraph 7.13 of the Explanatory Memorandum says:

“Payments will be subject to a disregard within the calculation of income-based benefits; Payments will also not be counted as benefit income when calculating the maximum amount of other benefits a person can be paid”.


I think that that means that BSP will not count towards the benefit cap, but could he just confirm that? I apologise if he did so and I missed it.

There is then the question raised by the right reverend Prelate about those who need to claim universal credit as well as BSP and will be subject to conditionality. I understand that those conditionality requirements, as the Minister said, will be suspended for six months following the death of a partner or child, but during the passage of the Bill we had a lot of discussion about this point—the position of parents with children who are dealing with the consequences, not just for themselves but for their children, of losing a partner or parent. The consequences were emotional for the children and for the parent having to deal with their own and the child’s emotions, but also practical in a range of ways. During the passage of the Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Freud, agreed to conduct a review of the position of parents whose children had suffered distress in bereavement, in response to points made in the Chamber by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay. Parents whose children’s distress and bereavement disrupts their normal childcare responsibilities are, I understand, able to request a one-month suspension of work-related requirements. If I have read this correctly, you can request another one month every six months for up two years. So that would be potentially four one-month periods but only one every six months. I believe from my reading of the regulations that that was enacted in Regulation 8 of the Universal Credit and Miscellaneous Amendments (No. 2) Regulations 2014. Can the Minister confirm that that is the only specific provision available for parents in this circumstance? If it is, can he tell the Committee—or agree to write if not—how many claimants have used, or are expected to use, this facility?

On backdating, paragraph 7.17 of the Explanatory Memorandum states:

“Given the vulnerability of this claimant group there will be a period from the date of death in which the claimant can make a claim without losing any money. If a claim is received more than 3 months after the date of death payments can be backdated for three months before the date of claim. This time limit is extended to 12 months for the initial higher payment to help ensure that people do not miss out on this payment”.


I am glad that the Government are acknowledging that people are vulnerable after a death and that they may not always quickly manage to turn their attention to making a claim for bereavement support payment. However, given that the Government have accepted that, what is the rationale for limiting that flexibility only to the lump sum? Why not allow people the same flexibility in relation to the monthly payments?

I endorse the point made by the right reverend Prelate about whether or not it is the Government’s intention to update the value of this payment in line with other benefits. It would seem that it is not. I hope that we have misread that and that the Government can tell us now whether it is their intention or that we can expect a change of policy on that matter very soon.

I thank my noble friend and the right reverend Prelate for their contributions and I look forward to the Minister’s reply.

Mesothelioma Bill [HL]

Lord Jones Excerpts

Monday 20th May 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Jones]

My Lords, I am glad to follow the committed remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. Nowhere in the Bill, nor in the Explanatory Notes, can the awful consequences of this disease be adequately described. One might read the entire Bill, one might read the helpful, detailed Explanatory Notes, one might have visited a Turner & Newall factory in the north-west, but the sheer human impact of the disease on the sufferer and the sufferer’s family is virtually impossible to place on the public record.

I welcome this measure and wish its speedy enactment as delineated by my noble friend Lord McKenzie. In this instance, we can see a positive trail. The Gordon Brown Government began consultation; the coalition Government carried matters forward to today’s second reading. I thank the Minister for his comprehensive introduction of the long overdue legislation because employers and insurers are not the easiest people to deal with in compensatory matters. The victims of this dreadful disease and their families surely deserve both justice and generosity. In my noble friend Lord McKenzie the victims have had a most reliable champion who remains their friend to this day. I acknowledge his detailed, industrious, conscientious and successful ministerial style. He had compassion and capability and got things under way. The noble Lord, Lord Freud—a parliamentary midwife perhaps—has brought matters very patiently to a head. His departmental Bill team must be very pleased with events today.

The Asbestos Victims Support Groups Forum UK—Messrs Whitston and Gordon—supplied a timely and cogent brief to Members of your Lordships’ House. It was helpful. My wish is that, before long, their proposals to embrace those excluded from the Bill might be acknowledged positively by the coalition. There are, for instance, quarrymen in Wales who may still seek claims and may yet get some help. We are not dealing with huge numbers and this dastardly disease is, literally, accompanied by death—there are reasons for moving quickly. In yesteryear, as this disease was stealthily advancing, there were still great British manufacturing industries. In steel, shipbuilding, railways, defence and defence-related industries, the construction industry and many more, asbestos was in use. The power stations and steel works always had their laggers. Asbestos products even entered our schools and hospitals.

In Grand Committee, we have annually debated orders relating to this asbestos-related cancer and similar orders. I recollect in Grand Committee describing the miserable happenings in a Hebden Bridge factory. The workforce had compressed deadly blue asbestos particles and proceeded to play snowballs on the factory floor, innocently and unknowingly. Such was the state of health and safety matters in the then industrialised British state of the late 1960s. This happening was described to me in the Commons by my fellow Front Bench colleague and occasional mentor, the late Harold Walker MP, who became Chairman of Ways and Means and then Lord Walker. He was from the shop floor. He was both a Minister and an opposition spokesperson.

The root of this helpful legislation lies in two Administrations in the 1970s: that of Prime Minister Harold Wilson and the one that followed it, that of Prime Minister James Callaghan. That is something to be proud of. I am glad to have served in their Administrations and to have helped. At that time, the Secretary of State for Employment, the late Michael Foot, successfully presented two Bills, which are the root of our discussions today: the Employment Bill and the Health and Safety at Work etc Bill. Despite much opposition and minuscule government parliamentary majorities, these Bills were, in the end, passed and enacted, with the help of a deeply committed TUC. The two Acts had a considerable impact on the economic, political and social history of Britain. That remains the case today, I am glad to say.

With this Bill, the Minister presents a long-awaited and much needed measure. Health and safety is, today, self-evidently a prime responsibility of every major company in the country. Those companies wish to have good health and safety measures and it is because of those endeavours by those Prime Ministers and Cabinet Ministers in those Administrations that I have talked about. There is no going back. Much has been gained but there is more work to be done. This measure is long overdue. Let us improve it. It might also be described as an historic measure.

Unemployment: Young People

Lord Jones Excerpts

Wednesday 16th November 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Freud]

Indeed, my Lords. The Germans have had a long tradition of apprenticeships and that is something that we need to copy and build on. We have put in money to fund an additional 250,000 apprenticeships over this spending review; we had 442,000 apprenticeships starting last year, an increase of 50,000; and we are putting in measures today to encourage smaller firms to take on apprentices.

[Lord Jones]

My Lords—

[Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top]

My Lords—