Mesothelioma Bill [HL]

Lord Wigley Excerpts

Wednesday 5th June 2013 Grand Committee

[Lord Martin of Springburn]

My Lords, I am very interested in the question of families being exposed to asbestos. I draw on my own experience as an apprentice metalworker in the mid-1960s. Sometimes there would be a rush job to manufacture electric heaters. Asbestos board was used to hold the elements in those heaters. It was therefore required to drill dozens of holes in that board. As young apprentices, we were not trained in the dangers of asbestos. Strangely enough we quite liked it when there was a rush job, as we got some overtime. The metal was covered in oil and it used to go on our clothes. Meanwhile, you just blew the dust off the nice white board and you did not realise that any harm was being done.

The point that I am raising is that in the factory where I worked there were dozens of young ladies, in the same age group as myself, who assembled the electric heaters. They were usually given the same job to do every day. Two of my female colleagues, two sisters, spent all day drilling the asbestos board, regardless of whether there was overtime. There was what was called stack drilling: there were maybe five or six boards packed together in what was known as a jig, and 24 or 25 holes were drilled. When the drill went through, the asbestos went all over.

It was those sisters’ mum who did the washing in their household. In the communities that I lived in, in the mid-1960s, washing machines were a luxury; they were not in every home. Later, I had the good fortune to represent the constituency where I had served my apprenticeship. At that time I spoke to one of these young ladies and asked her how she was getting on and how her mum was keeping. She never mentioned asbestos but she said, “Mum’s getting breathless”. I did not have the heart to say directly, “Have you checked out whether it’s asbestos-related?”, but I said that she had best make sure that her mum got to the doctor. It was a worry of mine that her mum may well have contracted a condition because she had two hard-working daughters who worked every day with white asbestos boards.

[Lord Wigley]

My Lords, I rise to speak very briefly in support of the amendments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Howarth of Newport, and particularly to address the question of the self-employed which is covered by Amendment 7.

Many people working as jobbers in industries who may undertake patching work in schools or in other buildings where asbestos was involved—perhaps electricians who need to drill into the walls—will have had this exposure. As a consequence, many of them will have suffered, and many will have died. Their need for recognition and for help by way of compensation is as great as that of those who are not self-employed. I understand from where the Government have come on this—this is an agreement with the insurance industry, of course—but that in no way lessens the need and the suffering of those who are self-employed, who might not be the people who the insurance industry would choose to recompense in this way. If that is the case, does it not behove the Government to step in to fill the breach for those who cannot be covered by such a scheme? I simply ask the Government and the Minister to think about that between now and Report.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton]

My Lords, I rise briefly to support both of my noble friend Lord Howarth’s amendments, and I do so—relatively unusually, I think—by referring the Minister to the briefing from the Association of British Insurers which I received about one of my noble friend’s amendments, but not about the other. It is the omission of the other amendment that interests me. However, let me deal with the first one first.

The briefing contains an argument against Amendment 7 which is summarised essentially in one sentence of this short briefing:

“As employers’ liability insurers will be funding the untraced scheme, payments from the scheme will only be made to those who would have been covered by employers’ liability insurance”.

That is the argument that the insurers make and I understand why they make it. The association then goes on to imagine that most people who worked in this industry may have been employed at one time and self-employed at others, and that is probably right—there will have been people who were exposed to these fibres both in an employed and in a self-employed capacity. Because of the way in which these cases are dealt with in the courts, that will not disqualify these people from being included in the payment scheme. However, the association goes on to make a point which I think it believes is crucial to its argument but which actually grossly undermines it. In the last sentence 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”.

Let us assume that the phrase “very small category” is the equivalent of “a very small number”. I am not quite sure why the association used the word category; I think that it means a very small number of people. If indeed that is right, and if indeed we are doing an injustice by excluding a very small number of people from this scheme, that is an argument for extending the scheme to that very small number of people, because it would be grossly—disproportionately—unfair to exclude them.

The second point relates to Amendment 8, which essentially proposes extending the scheme to those who have been exposed in a secondary way to asbestos but through exactly the same route as those who are employed and covered by compulsory employer’s liability insurance, or who would have been covered had it been in existence prior to 1972. That is the way in which the payment scheme is constructed. It strikes me as very odd that the Association of British Insurers does not deal with this issue at all in the brief. As I have listened to the debate unfold in the Grand Committee this afternoon, I have wondered why that was the case. I can certainly figure a set of circumstances where there is a traceable employer and where there is a secondary infection. If a man comes home from the shipyard with fibres on his clothes it does not matter whether they are washed—if the fibres get into the air of the environment in which his children or other relatives live and they breathe them in, they are at risk of developing mesothelioma eventually if these fibres are trapped in the fibres of their lungs.

There must be cases where that negligent act has caused secondary infection and mesothelioma and there has been a successful litigation against the employer of the person who carried the fibres. So there is a chain—a direct link—and the person who would be sued would be the employer.

I do not know the answer to this, because I do not know the details of the employer’s liability compulsory insurance scheme well enough. However, I ask the Minister, if he can tell us at some stage during the course of our deliberations, whether the insurers pick up the payment for the successful litigation because they were the insurers in the employer’s liability policy, or because of public liability insurance, which is a separate and different but compulsory insurance for people who are in workplaces. Either way, this is likely to be the same group of insurers. I suspect that it may be through the route of the employer’s liability compulsory insurance, and if that is correct, may it be the case that this payment scheme already applies to their efforts? I am not sure whether it does or not, but if it definitely does not, it definitely ought to. Since these general insurers, who carried or presently carry the risk of employer’s liability compulsory insurance, are likely to be the same people who are carrying the risk of public liability insurance, I am sure that the Minister can persuade them that it should.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, clearly I speak for the whole Government generally. The specifics of this are really for the MoD to pursue. There will be lots of issues around this but we need to get this Bill through. If we start going into these areas within this Bill, we risk endangering the start times and the processes. But I hear my noble friend and I know the depth of his feeling on this.

[Lord Wigley]

Before we move on, perhaps I can pick the Minister up on the words that he used a moment ago, that the Government do not have a liability. Is there not a plethora of cases where no liability exists? In most of the cases under the Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) Act 1979, despite the fact that there was not a liability, the Government accepted their responsibility to help these people. The Minister may not be able to do it in the context of this Bill, but can he give me an assurance that he will look at this again in the future?

[Lord Freud]

I am sorry; if I said that, I truncated some words. What I meant to say is that the Government do not take out employer’s liability insurance, so effectively they self-insure, and different departments have different arrangements to pay compensation. Clearly, my noble friend Lord James feels that the ones at the Admiralty are not adequate.

The noble Lord, Lord Howarth, asked about the self-employed. We do not have any data on that area. Again, the core reason that we are not including the self-employed here is that, for obvious reasons, they were not required to have employer’s liability insurance.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Butler-Sloss]

My Lords, I, too, have put my name to Amendment 31. It is with some hesitation that I rise to speak after the two formidable speeches that we have just heard. Having put my name to the amendment, though, I want to say something to support it. It is indeed a modest amendment but it has enormous potential advantages for important research seeking new treatment and a possible cure. We have already heard from the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, what he thinks could be done and why it needs to be done. Of course, I defer to him.

As one of three judges in the Court of Appeal, I heard a number of these cases, and each story was tragic. Although I was a judge for 35 years, these stories have remained with me. We know that currently there is no cure. We know that currently the treatment is poor compared with that for other forms of cancer. It is crucial and urgent that we have proper research. As the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, has said, it is a scandal that this is so poorly supported, when it is a killer but other forms of cancer can be treated and people can live for a long time. Sufferers die two years after the diagnosis—it is like motor neurone disease, and even that, as I understand it, gets more research funding than this does. It is extraordinary that the people who suffer from it are not properly regarded by the state or indeed by insurers. It is high time that the lack of financial support should be remedied with this Bill, at least to some extent.

I very much support the principle of the amendment. Like the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, I do not entirely support the wording. I do not think that matters because we are not going to vote on it today, and if the Government can come up with better wording and be supportive, that is exactly as it should be. The amount of money that would be raised under the present scheme is a modest £1.5 million. It would be much better if the Government felt able to match it; that would be valuable.

I was entertained by the reference by the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, to the Gambling Act, which shows a very useful precedent. It is just possible that if some law were passed in this Bill, we could then to go the insurers on a voluntary basis and say, “If you don’t, it will be backed up by primary legislation”. So we want it there as a spur. If that can be done in gambling, I really do not see why it cannot be done in mesothelioma.

[Lord Wigley]

My Lords, I, too, have added my name to Amendment 31. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for the diligent commitment that he has shown to these issues, which I know is appreciated by all concerned. He deserves to succeed with this amendment. Following on from what the noble and learned Baroness said a moment ago with regard to the potential leverage that an amendment such as this could carry, it reminded me of the term used in chess that the threat is always more dangerous than the execution. Having this in the armoury, I suspect, would be very useful indeed.

Under the proposed new clause, the scheme administrators would be permitted to charge an additional annual administration fee of some £10,000 from each insurer. One can argue, certainly, that there could be a sliding scale there. That is detail; it is the principle that we are after here. The clause sets out that all funds raised from this fee would be invested into research for treatments for this awful disease. Listening to the noble Lord, Lord Walton, speak from his own experience of the medical world, we see the pressing need for these funds to be made available. They should be available already. They should be coming from the normal course of research funding. But as they are not, we need to do something and there is an opportunity to do so here.

--- Later in debate ---

Amendment 41 is consequent upon benefits and state lump sum payments not being recovered from scheme payments. The Bill allows for the Secretary of State to make regulations under which insurers have to pay a levy with a view to meeting the costs of the scheme. In deciding the total amount of levy, the Secretary of State may deduct the sums recovered, or expected to be recovered, under the recovery of benefits legislation during the period in respect of scheme payments made during the period or before it. On the basis that social security benefits and government lump sums are recoverable from scheme payments, the effect of this amendment would be to prevent the recycling of money generated through recovery of benefits and state lump sum payments in order to reduce the amount of the levy in period one. To be clear, we only intend to recycle this money in year one of the scheme’s operation in order reduce the risk that the costs associated with a higher levy are passed on to British industry.

[Lord Wigley]

I believe I am right in interpreting that there are cases that could get compensation for diffuse mesothelioma under the 1979 Act who might equally get compensation under this Act if they had not got it under the 1979 Act. That being so, I raised the question at Second Reading as to how the scales of compensation compared between the two. Is there any information that the Minister can give on that? If he has already included it in today’s letter, which I believe has been sent to my home, I apologise as I have not yet seen it.

[Lord Freud]

The noble Lord is raising a slightly different question. What we are looking at here is the question of whether one can claim on the scheme even if one has received the 1979 payment. We will be dealing in later amendments with the offsetting issue. It may be easier to leave this question until those amendments.

I ask the noble Lord to withdraw these amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wigley]

My Lords, the fact that we are at a late stage of the debate today should not stop us from speaking and pressing this most important of the amendments to the Bill that we are considering. If we get nowhere on it today, I suspect that we may need to come back to it on Report. As was rightly said a moment ago, this is something that was referred to by almost all the speakers at Second Reading, and it should not go by default at this point in time.

It strikes me that if someone is entitled to 100% of the compensation because of their condition, their suffering and what they have gone through, but they have not had that compensation because at some time in the past some insurer failed to deliver it, that does not in any shape or form justify a 30% abatement of what they will get. Their suffering should justify the 100% level. There may be an argument about 10% here or there, although I do not like even that, but I certainly do not like the idea of it being abated by 30%.

No doubt there has been some horse-trading on this. It would be interesting to know where the Minister started his argument. If 70% was the first offer made by the insurers, then I suspect that there is room to move up from that figure. If there is not, then this is something that Parliament should be addressing further. I do not recall with the 1979 Act that there was a reduction in the compensation on the basis that it was going to be easy. The argument put forward at the time was that it was fair compensation for the suffering. If that is the case with other legislation, why on earth should there be less for people who have suffered so much? This really is something that should be pressed.

[Lord Wills]

My Lords, I, too, support the amendments. I very much agree with my noble friend on the Front Bench and the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, that these amendments go to perhaps the most important issue in the Bill. I agree with everything that has been said so far although, given the hour, I do not intend to rehearse all the arguments.

I assume that this particular issue must lie very near the heart of the deal that the Minister has done with insurers. I am confident, from everything that he has said today in Committee, that he has done the very best deal that he thinks possible, particularly given the need to get a resolution quickly so that those who are suffering from this terrible illness get the support that they deserve as quickly as possible. I am sure that that has been at the forefront of his mind. He has said already in Committee that he is going to return to his discussions with insurers, and I hope that he can assure the Committee that he will convey to those insurers the strength of feeling that he has heard, at this late hour in our proceedings, about this issue. He knows it already. He has heard it at Second Reading and this has been a consistent concern throughout.

I hope he will remind his interlocutors that there is a real risk that if they do not agree what is widely conceived of as being a just settlement—and this is not a just settlement, in my view and that of every other speaker so far this evening—and, worse still, if they threaten delays or legal action as a result of anything that the Minister goes back to them with, this Bill is most unlikely to be the last word on these issues, given the strength of feeling in both Houses of Parliament on this issue, which we have seen time and again in recent years and which is responsible for this Bill coming before us. I hope that he will remind them of the risk that any future legislation may well be tougher than this Bill.