Diffuse Mesothelioma Payment Scheme

Andrew Bingham Excerpts

Wednesday 11th February 2015 Westminster Hall

[Steve Rotheram]

The case the hon. Gentleman highlights is similar to cases Members raised in Committee and on the Floor of the House when the issue was debated. It is for the Minister to respond to the question of what will happen to those diagnosed before the 2012 threshold.

The arbitrary nature of yesterday’s ruling caused great distress to a small group of about 250 claimants who already receive payments from the scheme. Will the Minister comment on the unjust nature of the anomaly created by Lord Freud? Instead of sticking to yesterday’s written statement, the Minister should stand up today and announce that he will backdate the increase to include victims who have successfully claimed at the lower, 80% rate during the scheme’s first eight months.

It is obvious that Lord Freud has had to take the action he has, because, as the Opposition predicted, the number of claimants has not reached the inflated figure the insurance companies came up with to make the compensatory package look punitive—the number is far smaller. Lord Freud admits:

“The number of claimants has proven to be below the level anticipated.”—[Official Report, 10 February 2015; Vol. 592, c. 42WS.]

Yes—a whopping 70% lower. He might put this down to the fact that insurers are only now tracing an increasing number of policies, but if we start with an overestimate of the number of claimants, we cannot simply put any decrease down to the fact that the industry has only belatedly got its act together and started tracing compensators for remedy.

It should not be forgotten that, over the life of this Parliament, pressure from mesothelioma campaigners has pushed the Government to increase compensation rates from the initial derisory offer of 70%, to 75%, then to 80% and now to 100% of the level of civil claims. I pay tribute to those resolute campaigners. The Labour party consistently called for an increase during the passage of the Bill, so I am delighted to see that increase come to fruition.

The scheme is funded by a levy on insurers that provide employers’ liability insurance. Throughout the passage of the Bill, the Government gave assurances that the levy would be set at a rate equal to 3% of the gross written premiums on employers’ liability insurance policies. Ministers told us that the insurance industry could afford to fund the scheme through a levy of 3% of GWP without having to pass on the costs to its customers through additional premiums. The expectation in the original impact assessment was that the levy on the industry would raise £338.7 million over 10 years.

In a ministerial statement on 28 November 2014, the Government announced that the levy would raise £32 million in the first year. That in fact represents a levy equivalent of just 2.2%, not the 3% originally agreed to and promised. That was due to the fact that the employers’ liability market accounted for GWP of £1,418 million in 2013—an increase of 4.8% on the previous year. From that figure, it is clear that a 3% levy would net £43.6 million, not the £32 million cited in the ministerial statement. The Department for Work and Pensions does not contest those figures, and it verified them at a meeting involving Lord Freud and the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford. I guarantee that, if the converse had happened and the take from the insurance pot at 3% had been lower than anticipated, the Government would not have argued to increase that percentage. Why, then, are they letting the insurance industry get away with a lower yield because the market has increased?

The issue is a cause of major concern, because the Government explicitly promised that the 3% target would be met in year 1. The importance of the additional 0.8% differential cannot be understated. If the Government chose to act, the additional £11.6 million difference could enable payments to be made to sufferers of other asbestos-related diseases, who are currently not covered by the scheme, or in respect of those diagnosed before the scheme was in place, such as the constituent of the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil). The additional £11.6 million could provide much-needed investment in medical research—something I will say more about shortly.

The Minister was not in his current post during the passage of the Bill; his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning), was. The right hon. Gentleman declined, in Committee, to enact Labour’s proposal for the 3% levy to be enshrined in law. Instead, he gave Members a cast iron guarantee:

“I say to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston, that I met Lord Freud, my fellow Minister in the Department for Work and Pensions, this morning. Three per cent. is 3% and we have no intention of moving away from it.”––[Official Report, Mesothelioma Public Bill Committee, 12 December 2013; c. 117.]

He was unequivocal. What do they say about actions speaking louder than words? If the Government do not commit to ensuring that the insurance industry will meet the 3% levy target, they will leave themselves open to legitimate criticism from mesothelioma campaigners that they are on the side of the insurers, not the victims, and are letting insurers walk away from that cast iron guarantee. That is why we pushed for the 3% to be enshrined in law.

I should be grateful for answers to some questions. Why are the Government set to renege on the promise that they made to mesothelioma victims and Members of this House about the 3% levy? Given the present understandable uncertainty about whether the 3% levy figure will be met, will the Minister confirm whether the Government intend to amend the 2014 Act to enshrine it in law? If applications to the scheme increase steadily, as more people become aware of it, and claims exceed 3% of gross written premiums, will the industry pay out from the windfall that it gets from the underpayment it currently presides over? What work is the Minister doing with hospitals, colleges, surgeries and GPs to make those diagnosed with mesothelioma aware of the scheme, to encourage increased take-up? How much is his Department spending on promoting the scheme to sufferers?

I will remind the House—as if this were needed—of what a terrible disease mesothelioma is. Thankfully, it is not a common cancer, but according to Cancer Research UK it is responsible for 2% of all cancer deaths in the country. The latest statistics showed that there were 2,570 known cases, which was a rise on the previous 12 months, with 2,429 subsequent mesothelioma deaths in the same year. A victim is likely to live less than a year after contracting mesothelioma. The disease is commonly associated with men who have worked in heavy industry, such as the construction industry, which is why I am proud of the lead that my union, the Union of Construction, Allied Trades and Technicians, has taken on the issue.

[Andrew Bingham (High Peak) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman is making a good case. As he says, mesothelioma is an asbestos-related condition usually associated with heavy industry, but the incidence in my very rural constituency is higher than the national average. I just wanted to point out that it does not necessarily occur only in big cities and industrial centres.

[Steve Rotheram]

I absolutely agree, and was not painting a picture in which only males or people working in heavy industry are affected. Women who never worked and who were housewives have contracted mesothelioma, because they washed clothing with asbestos dust and particles on it, which they breathed in. I was not trying at all to underestimate the impact on the rest of the country.

There cannot be a debate on mesothelioma without talking about research. When the 2014 Act was being considered, the late Paul Goggins tabled amendments on that very matter, which I moved. The Government contended in the House of Lords on 9 December 2014, at column 1710, that funding for mesothelioma research is available, but no good research proposals have been forthcoming.

There are two points to make. First, it is estimated that at present £1.4 million is spent on mesothelioma research. That can be compared with research spending of £22 million for bowel cancer, £41 million for breast cancer, £11.5 million for lung cancer and £32 million for leukaemia; we can quickly see that mesothelioma is at the bottom of the research pile. Lord Alton of Liverpool previously made it clear that there are 17 other forms of cancer for which far more research resources are reserved than for mesothelioma.

Secondly, the Government’s position on the quality of forthcoming research proposals is contradicted by the recent announcement that Aviva and Zurich have commissioned the British Lung Foundation to undertake £1 million of mesothelioma research. That is of course welcome, but is not a statutory requirement. It is voluntary, and future moneys may not be guaranteed, but it shows that the industry believes that quality research proposals exist and that it is only the Government who are not willing to back the scientific community to lead on the matter.

I come back to the point about excess moneys raised from the full 3% levy being utilised for the benefit of the victims. Should an additional £11.6 million be available in the pot, even if claimants were paid out at 100% of their claim, as they now will be, there would still be about £5 million left, which could be devoted to research. Why is that not happening? Under section 13(2)(b) of the Mesothelioma Act 2014 the Government can use the amount recovered from scheme payments under the recovery of benefits legislation to help pay for the costs of the scheme. Now that the costs of the scheme can be covered completely by a 3% levy, there is no need for the subsidy. It is currently estimated that nearly £5 million will be recovered from payments. That money should be used to fund medical research, not to subsidise the insurers unnecessarily.

I have several questions for the Minister. I would appreciate it if he replied today, but if he cannot answer them all, perhaps he would write to me and the shadow Minister on each point. The written statement released by the Department yesterday says:

“Following discussion with the insurance industry, I have agreed to introduce some additional administrative safeguards to ensure that we can all be confident that the scheme continues to act as we intended and remains a scheme of last resort.”—[Official Report, 10 February 2015; Vol. 592, c. 42WS.]

What assurances can the Minister give sufferers and their families that that will not lead to increased restrictions and a higher threshold for proof of employer negligence? Why did he meet only with the insurance industry and not with victims to discuss possible amendments needed in the scheme? Why was the need for additional safeguards not picked up during the passage of the Bill through both Houses? Are the Government still lending the insurance industry a full £17 million, even though the take-up of the scheme is lower than expected?

Lord Faulks told peers,

“The Government fully recognise the need to stimulate an increase in the level of research activity and continue actively to pursue measures to achieve this.”

What measures are the Government taking to increase the amount of research? In the same House of Lords debate, Lord Faulks went on to say:

“It is absolutely not the case that there is insufficient funding for research. As I have said more than once, the case is that, at the moment, there is not a suitable number of applications for research.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 9 December 2014; Vol. 757, c. 1710-1712.]

What specific number would constitute a “suitable number” of research applications? Has that figure been met?

Finally, there has also been a question of whether insurers have made a profit out of the system because the levy target of 3% has not been met. Lord Faulks agreed to look into that. Can the Minister update Members?

For the public and the mesothelioma victims support community to have confidence in the scheme, it is vital that in the first instance the commitments that this House made to the victims should be met without any hiccups or backtracking. Failure to enforce the 3% levy and to commission the necessary research, with adequate and proportionate funding, would be a dereliction of duty and undermine the entire scheme. We owe it to the victims of this cruel disease to get things right.