Pension Schemes Bill

Lord Wigley Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 5th February 2026 Grand Committee

I am running out of time, but there is a crucial issue to which I shall return when we discuss Amendment 203, which is that different members with pre-1997 service are going to be treated differently. Effectively, there are members where it was found that there was some entitlement to increases in the rules; there are members where the entitlement was not in the rules; and there are members where we just do not know. Two of those groups—those where it was in the rules and those where we do not know whether it was in the rules—are going to get the increases, unlike those where it was not in the rules. That distinction is false if you actually look at what was happening pre-1997. I will continue these remarks on Amendment 203, but we should be guided by members’ reasonable expectations, not the fine detail of what was in the rules. It is what they could reasonably expect, and almost universally at that time, members expected reasonable LPI increases.

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 203ZB, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton. I shall also address the government amendments in this group. I have signed the noble Lord’s Amendment 203, which we will come to later, recognising that he has professional expertise far greater than mine in dealing with these matters and believing that he comes to these issues, as I am certain he does, from a position of recognising that one group of workers in particular—those of Allied Steel and Wire in Cardiff—were extremely badly treated over 20 years ago, about which I spoke earlier in our deliberations.

I listened with interest and concern to the explanation given by the Minister for introducing these amendments, and I am far from certain as to whether, when enacted, the discretion to which she referred will give former employees of Allied Steel and Wire any of the redress which they seek for the pension loss they suffered with regard to their pre-1997 employment. Are we today recognising the fairness of their claim but not providing any vehicle by which it can, in fact, be met? That is my fear.

In Committee in the other place, my Plaid Cymru colleague, Ann Davies MP, introduced two amendments to provide indexation for compensation under FAS and the PPF to cover both pre-1997 and post-1997 service, and to reimburse members for the annual increase they should have received. The Government rejected those amendments, saying they would not work. Ann Davies MP came back on Report proposing a new clause to provide indexation. The Government rejected that clause so, in considering these and possibly later amendments, I ask the Minister whether their combined effect will do anything at all to give the pre-1997 pensions full indexation and not limit them to the 2.5% cap which Ministers supported in the other place? Will they do anything to reimburse those members for the annual increases which they never received?

[Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I support and have added my name to the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Davies. I support all his remarks, especially on the only excuse for not recognising that people need pre-1997 indexation going forward. There is a wrong that is being corrected; therefore, that wrong probably applies even more to benefits from the past. One of the reasons why I say “even more so” is because the members who have the most pre-1997 accrual are the oldest—by definition, they must be. They have much less time left to live and many of them have, sadly, already passed away. Therefore, to right this wrong by promising people money in future that they may never see, or will see almost none of, does not seem a solid way of righting a wrong.

I understand—I will go through this in more detail in the next group—that the Financial Assistance Scheme, for example, is supposedly funded by public money, while the PPF itself and employer contributions, in the form of the levy, provides the money for PPF compensation, but £2 billion from the scheme was transferred to the public purse. Thankfully, when we were trying to improve the Financial Assistance Scheme in 2005, Andrew Young recommended stopping annuity purchase, which had been happening and, unfortunately, transferred much of the money to insurers rather than putting it towards the Government to pay out over time. Nevertheless, the Financial Assistance Scheme itself represents some of the biggest losers and the ones with the most pre-1997 accrual.

Therefore, I urge the Government to recognise that the cost of the requirements in the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Davies, are easily affordable from the PPF reserve—£14.5 billion is available. The cost estimate for this retrospective addition to the pre-1997 accruals that were not paid in terms of inflation uplifts could be around £500 million out of the £14.5 billion, depending on how the arrears are paid. I would be grateful to the Minister if she could confirm some of the Government’s estimates for what this would be; I have looked at the PPF’s estimates.

I add that the Financial Assistance Scheme does not only help those who affected by insolvency. The European court case was about insolvency, but the MFR protected employers who just wanted to walk away from their schemes before the law changed. Paying in only the MFR was hopelessly inadequate to afford the pensions. There was a brilliant campaign by the unions that went to the European court, and the Government had a great fear that they would lose that. Prior to that, we had an appeal by the workers of Allied Steel and Wire and many of the other schemes to the Pensions Ombudsman, who found in their favour and against the Government, and to the Public Accounts Select Committee. Then we had to go to the High Court, taking a case against the Government, and we won. We also went to the Court of Appeal, taking a case against the Government, and we won on behalf of those whose schemes had failed, whether the employers were insolvent or not, which means that they are all now included.

Even so, the Financial Assistance Scheme and the PPF have not recognised the pre-1997 inflation losses that have left many of these members with half their pension, or even less in some cases. I hope that the Government will look favourably on the amendment. I welcome it, and I am very grateful to the Minister for the recognition that we need to do something—there may be further consideration of that; we will come back to it in subsequent groups—to recompense for the losses of the past.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for introducing his amendment and I look forward to the subsequent instalments of his reflections on these important areas. The Government’s reforms are a significant step forward in making the compensation system and its safety net better for members, but I recognise that it does not go as far as some affected members, or indeed some noble Lords, would want.

We recognise the impact that the issue of pre-1997 indexation has had on affected PPF and FAS members. My colleague, the Pensions Minister, has met with many representatives and has heard at first hand the impact on them. I have also had representations coming into my inbox and I understand the position of those who have contacted me. I recognise the intention behind Amendment 203ZB from my noble friend Lord Davies.

This amendment would increase the pension on which indexation is calculated in respect of PPF and FAS members’ compensation. The PPF has fully assessed the impact of retrospection and arrears. I say in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, that the cost of providing prospective and fully retrospective indexation and arrears—in line with CPI capped at 2.5% for members whose original schemes provided for these increases—is significant, totalling around £5.6 billion: £3.9 billion for the PPF and between £1 billion and £1.7 billion for FAS. If I have understood my noble friend’s amendment correctly, it would have the effect of increasing the baseline compensation paid to all PPF and FAS members, irrespective of whether their original scheme provided for 1997 increases. This would further increase the costs to the PPF and FAS.

The reforms put forward by the Government offer targeted support and introduce changes to indexation to compensation payments prospectively. The Government’s proposal to introduce pre-1997 indexation in the PPF will reduce the PPF reserve by £1.2 billion and cost around £0.3 billion to £0.6 billion for FAS, totalling £1.8 billion over the lifetime of both schemes. This is a significant shift, reflecting the value of the increases to members’ compensation payments.

The PPF reserve protects current and future members, as well as underwriting future claims across the almost £1 trillion DB system. Prudent management of the reserve is needed to ensure that the security it provides for its members, and the DB pension universe, is not compromised. In introducing this change, the Government had to strike a balance of interests for all parties—including eligible members, levy payers, taxpayers and the PPF’s ability to manage future risk—against the backdrop of a tight fiscal envelope. We believe that our reform achieves the right balance. Any further reduction of the reserve increases the risk to members and the PPF’s ability to manage future risk.

While the PPF has confirmed that the Government’s proposal does not affect its plan to switch off the levy, going beyond our proposal increases the possibility of the PPF needing to return to levy payers in the future. As it stands, this is a win for members and for those businesses. Any changes to compensation levels in the PPF and the taxpayer-funded FAS have significant implications for the public finances. Increases to PPF liabilities affect the Chancellor’s fiscal rules, because the present value of these liabilities change annually, which is counted as a cost in the public finances. Any increases to payments from FAS come at a direct cost to the taxpayer. This is why we are concerned about the risks of going further, as well as the risks to the PPF that I have described.

The bottom line is that the PPF and FAS are compensation schemes: they were never designed to fully replace members’ pensions. Members are in a better financial situation than they would have been before these compensation schemes were established. Our changes to the pension compensation system will offer a stronger safety net for members who, until now, had lost out on pre-1997 compensation increases following their employer’s insolvency or scheme failure.

The noble Viscount, Lord Younger, asked me about the solidity of the amendments and whether they would be enough to avoid legal challenge. If a legal challenge were to be brought forward, the Government consider they can successfully defend any such challenge. I hope that reassures him.

We understand that members will want to have a conversation quickly, and the PPF has rightly said that it would like to do it as soon as is practicable, but we have concluded that the earliest opportunity to provide pre-1997 increases to PPF and FAS members is January 2027, because implementation will require the PPF to identify eligible members in order to implement the changes. That is the first possible opportunity to uplift members’ payments pending the appropriate parliamentary processes. We will do it when and as soon as it can be done, but we have to be sensible about that.

I was asked how many members would benefit. I said that more than 250,000 PPF and FAS members are set to benefit from this change. Up to 90,000 may not benefit, although we know that includes a number of people who will benefit where they had post-1988 GMPs, and we are working with the PPF to identify the number of members who had post-1988 GMPs. Some 85,000 PPF and FAS members do not have any pre-1997 service, so they do not fall within the scope of this change.

I think the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, is going to ask about Allied Steel and Wire. The Minister for Pensions has met Financial Assistance Scheme members, including former Allied Steel and Wire workers whose scheme qualified for FAS, and he has heard first hand of the experience of those members. I am happy to confirm that former members of Allied Steel and Wire will benefit from the Government’s proposals of prospective legislation. If that is the question the noble Lord was going to ask, I hope that is enough to satisfy him.

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

I am very grateful and I hope that the benefit will be substantial.

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

Just for clarity, the benefit will be exactly as I described in the Government’s amendments—which obviously is incredibly generous but, just to be clear, that is the benefit under question. In the light of this, I am grateful to my noble friend and all noble Lords, and I hope the noble Lord will not press his amendment.

Pension Schemes Bill

Lord Wigley Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 12th January 2026 Grand Committee

[Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interests as a current member and director of a pension trust. I want to take us back to the amendment for a moment. I shall refer to the reference to surpluses made by the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, because it is an indicator of how this Bill is going to move; I suspect we shall get a surplus of comments about surpluses.

I go back to the amendment. We are starting to hear remarks suggesting that this amendment is critical. I do not criticise it at all because this is an enormously complex and comprehensive piece of legislation. Bringing our minds closely to the purpose of what we are going to debate, if ever a piece of legislation required it, this amendment is an essential ingredient. I fully support all parts of this amendment, which seem to encapsulate all the different areas to which we shall give more detailed consideration as we proceed.

However, I want to refer briefly to something already referred to: the matter of pension scheme surpluses under subsection (1)(h) of the proposed new clause to be inserted by Amendment 1. I referred to this at Second Reading; I will not repeat word for word what I said then—that would not be appropriate—but I want to probe my noble friend and, in particular, the Minister on this matter a little.

We all know that, historically, when we had low interest rates in this country, deficits often used to be repaired with any surpluses that might occur in schemes. As a result, employers that did not have DB schemes were obviously at a disadvantage. I am interested in how we might deploy surpluses in future. For instance, will they be deployable for capital expenditure? That seems quite desirable, particularly looking at the economy at present.

My second point concerns crossovers, referred to here, enhancing the contributions that already exist in DC schemes. How on earth can crossovers be legitimately and properly handled? That seems rather difficult to me.

Finally, I turn to surplus sharing. There is a case going on at the moment; I referred to it in my speech at Second Reading so I will not go back to it now. The encouragement of surplus sharing between employers and between members is terribly important. How can that be done fairly and equally? Will we be able to rely—as we should, I believe—on the powers of trustees always to do everything in the best interests of members? Pressures from employers, for instance, must be curbed when it comes to those decisions that might be taken.

It is a difficult area. I know that we will look at it in more detail, but it is worth mentioning at this starting point because this list is perhaps another example of how complicated things are and how we need to get a grip. Whoever has been responsible in the past for legislation in this field, this is an ideal opportunity, which I greatly support, for us to get this right. I therefore fully support Amendment 1 and hope that, as we move forward, we will use those objects as the basis for our discussions.

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, I apologise that I, too, missed Second Reading, for reasons outside my control. When you are in a party with two or three Members, it is very difficult to spread yourself in all directions. I have an interest in this area going back to when I was a trustee of the National Assembly’s pension scheme some years ago and, before that, I had involvement as financial controller of the Hoover Company and with Mars Ltd, which is one of the foremost companies in these islands.

I want to flag up one point as we look at the generalities in this comprehensive umbrella amendment—the position of employees such as those of Allied Steel and Wire in Cardiff in 2002, who found themselves on their backs without adequate safeguards for the pensions that they had. Over the almost quarter of a century since, those still surviving did not get justice out of the system. Whatever balance we have to strike in terms of risk—which is inevitably part of the equation—benefits, security and the longer term against the shorter term, we must also have some safety nets for those who fall through, through no fault of their own, as did the employees of Allied Steel and Wire.

I commend the Government for the steps they have taken for the coal miners, who have been in a difficult position, but if the coal miners were justified so are the workers at Allied Steel and Wire. I draw to the Government’s attention that the First Minister of Wales, the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, spoke about this last month and called on them to take action to recompense those who have lost out so badly.

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)]

I no longer have any financial interests to declare, having retired from the board of the London Stock Exchange at the end of 2025 after a long tenure, although that indicates that I have some history in that regard. I also have a history of policy engagement with local authority pension funds, the Local Authority Pension Fund Forum and IPO test marketing with various local authority pension funds. That is for background, so that people can understand some of where I have obtained my information.

I added my name to this amendment because I thought it was a good idea to have a list of purposes. We have before us a very long list of regulatory empowerments and, in some places, to do with value for money, I put a little list on the front of them. Somewhere or other, whether in this proposed list at the front, listed throughout or as a mixture of both, it would help us with structure and understanding. We ought to make our Acts of Parliament as readable as possible for the non-specialist. It is also quite important in that regard. It may not be a perfect list; you could ask for “more” instead of “greater” or take the “-er” off the end of words and make it look like it is not criticising. I do not want to go into that, but I did not take it as a criticism. I thought it was a list of what we are trying to do to make things better and, on that basis, I support it.

I would be very pleased if we could all work together to build a list that we were all happy with and that reflected a true convergence of minds. During the passage of the previous Pension Schemes Act, there was an awful lot of working together to try to find the right wording. The Minister was on this side then, and we went through it together with many of the other people in this Room. We should be getting something good up front that tells everybody what it is about, not using it as a way to tie the Government’s hands. I do not look at it like that; I look at it as something that is explanatory. But if it helps in the interpretation, so be it.

If we cannot produce a list like that, I have reservations about whether one should go forward and jump straight into a list. If you do not want it here, you have to put one in every clause, so maybe it is better to try to do a shorter one here. Those are the reasons why I support the amendment. I support the principle of it, and I am more than happy to work at trying to make it something that everybody could sign up to.

Teachers: Music, Drama, Art and Design, and Dance

Lord Wigley Excerpts

Monday 17th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I believe that good teachers bring specialist knowledge as well as the particular skills that teacher training and qualified teacher status bring alongside that. That is why pupils have an entitlement to ensure that those teaching them have both the knowledge specialism and the teaching specialism in order to give them the best possible opportunities. That is the reasoning behind this Government’s determination that all pupils should be entitled to have a qualified teacher in the classroom in front of them, because, as we know, the quality of teaching is the single most important determinant in pupils’ success in school.

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

Does the Minister accept that the most important driver in this area would be every primary and secondary school having access to a professional music teacher, whether full-time, part-time, peripatetic or through distance learning? If that were to happen, it would create the demand for teachers, which would lead to the necessary supply. I draw attention to my interest in that my wife is a harp teacher.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I am sure that the noble Lord’s wife is doing an enormously important job in developing an interest in harping in the pupils whom she teaches. We need to ensure that we have qualified teachers with access to the support for their specialisms—which, for example, the Government aim to provide through the new national centre for arts and music education—to ensure that all children, not just fortunate children, have the opportunity to benefit from arts and music. That is what this Government are putting in place.

National Insurance Pension Underpayments

Lord Wigley Excerpts

Thursday 13th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My noble friend raises a really important point. There is a lot of complexity, particularly in the old basic state pension. With the new state pension, your entitlement depends on your own national insurance contributions in the majority of cases, so in future it gets a lot more straightforward. Most people claim their new state pension online, so getting it is mostly automated. However, under the old state pension, if you did not have enough pension in your own right, you could inherit it from a civil partner or a spouse, or a divorced partner or a late spouse. That has led to all kinds of complexities. We are making sure that before someone reaches state pension age, the Pension Service writes to them to tell them what they have to do to claim their state pension. As part of that process, they have to give us the details that enable us to work out if they are still carrying forward any entitlements from partners’ contributions as well as their own.

So, we are really committed to making sure there is clear, accurate, accessible information out there about the state pension. There is lots of it online, on GOV.UK. There is even a tool called “Your partner’s National Insurance record and your State Pension”, which, while not imaginative, is a pretty clear description of what it does. If anyone would rather not go online, they can ring the Pension Service, which will talk them through it. We are really determined to help people get this right.

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, will the Minister give an assurance that beneficiaries who have been denied the benefit to which they are entitled will be paid in full, however far back it goes?

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, some of the cases in the LEAP exercise go back to 2006, so this is already going back a very long way, but I can reassure the noble Lord that that the exercise went back through the book. This is really complicated, as I am sure he understands, but, in summary, the exercise specifically addressed women who reached the state pension age ahead of their husbands. That was not uncommon because, in those days, the retirement age for women was 60 and for men it was 65, so the woman got to the state pension age first. If she did not have enough pension in her own right and her husband reached the state pension age, she could then have inherited more state pension from his contributions. After 2008, that should have been done automatically by the DWP. Earlier, people had to claim, but where the DWP failed to do that automatically, the department has gone back through the entire book and made payments to all those people. That is what the system has been doing.

Autism Employment: Buckland Review

Lord Wigley Excerpts

Tuesday 10th September 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right about the shockingly low level of employment of autistic people. It is shocking to find that only about 35% of autistic employees feel able to be really open in work about being autistic—how can they develop, and how can the employers learn? We very much welcome the report from Sir Robert Buckland. The process had begun, in the sense that informal expressions of interest had been made about the task force, but the process was stopped by the general election. Ministers are meeting with Sir Robert Buckland next month to discuss the report’s recommendations and to look at expanding the scope to cover neurodiversity in general and not just autism. Recruitment for the task force is paused for the moment, but my department is working with colleagues across government to look at each of the recommendations under the five themes and to find ways in which we can apply that learning to neurodiversity in general.

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, I pay tribute to the work that Sir Robert Buckland has undertaken in this sphere over many years. Can the Minister give any indication of how long the Government are likely to take to come to some positive conclusions regarding the report?

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, obviously, having only just come into government, we have only just begun to look at this, but there are things in the report that the department was already doing that we can therefore develop. For example, the review pointed to the need to develop a digital service we have that is aimed at employers and supports employee health and disability. We are looking at other ways to make that more visible and easier to reach, because employers often want to engage people but need help in understanding the barriers so they can work out how to get better at this. We can start learning from that already, but we will move on to this as fast as we can.

European Social Charter

Lord Wigley Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd September 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

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

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, is it the intention of the Government—is it their aspiration—that they will be in a position to sign?

Employment: Disabled People

Lord Wigley Excerpts

Monday 6th March 2023 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

As my noble friend will know, all employees have the legal right to request flexible working provided they have worked for the same employer for at least 26 weeks. As she will know, under the Equality Act, employers must make reasonable adjustments to ensure that workers with disabilities are not substantially disadvantaged when doing their jobs. This could include a flexible working arrangement; for example, a change to the timing, hours or location of work. I assure her that in December 2022 the Government responded to a consultation that considered changes to this legislation to provide employees with better access to flexible working arrangements.

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, given that a major challenge to the UK’s economic recovery is a significant labour shortage, not least because activity rates for the over-50 age group remain low, is it not in everyone’s interest that those labelled as disabled people should be looked upon for their abilities rather than their disabilities, and helped into the active workforce by the availability of every positive assistance that the state can provide?

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

The noble Lord is right. This is why we have the disability action plan, which, as I said to the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, is distinct from the strategy. A new disability action plan will be consulted on and published this year. It will set out the action that the Government will take this year and in 2024 to improve disabled people’s lives. The noble Lord is right that ensuring that the voice of disabled people is properly heard is a priority for the Government. We will run a fully accessible public consultation on the plan this year.

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

Lord Wigley Excerpts

Monday 6th March 2023 Grand Committee

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

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Jones (Lab)]

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

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

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

Mesothelioma Lump Sum Payments (Conditions and Amounts) (Amendment) Regulations 2021

Lord Wigley Excerpts

Wednesday 10th February 2021 Grand Committee

[Lord Wigley (PC) [V]]

My Lords, while I welcome the mesothelioma order, I speak primarily to the pneumoconiosis order, which, as some colleagues may well remember, is close to my heart after the struggle we had between 1974—my first full year as an MP—and 1979 to get the 1979 Act on to the statute book. It was of huge significance for me and my constituency, in which were located many of the slate quarries, working in which had caused many constituents to suffer from silicosis and pneumoconiosis. The Act covered many other industries in which dust caused industrial lung diseases. I also had the Turner and Newall Ferodo factory in Caernarfon—and the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, referred to the Turner and Newall dimension.

As time is limited, I will ask three brief questions. First, of the cases in which payments have been made in the past 12 months, how many arose from the slate quarrying industry? I realise that it would now be a small minority for two reasons: the scale of the industry has decreased, and many sufferers have either died or have already received benefits. Secondly, can the Minister give any indication as to how many applications have been turned down in the past year, and in those cases, what the main factors were leading to that refusal? Thirdly, and finally, on mesothelioma, can the Minister, who has referred to the impact of Covid on these schemes and referred specifically to lung health checks, please give some clarification as to whether the work of the rapid access clinics, which are vital for early identification of the disease, has been negatively impacted by coronavirus? The Minister has mentioned that time is of the essence. Indeed, it is a vital consideration. I realise that the noble Baroness may not have answers readily at hand, so if necessary, perhaps she could write to me on these matters and put a copy in the Library.

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

Lord Wigley Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd March 2020 Grand Committee

[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.