Diffuse Mesothelioma Payment Scheme

Debate between Steve Rotheram and Mark Harper

Wednesday 11th February 2015 Westminster Hall

[Mr Harper]

I take the hon. Lady’s point that I was not the Minister at the time and was not present at those sittings. She asked me a written question following the written statement in November, and I made it clear in my answer that the 3% figure was the maximum percentage of the active employers’ liability insurance market to be levied on the insurance industry to recoup the costs of the scheme. I made it clear that the figure was a cap, rather than a set rate, and that the levy rate was based on the estimated costs of the scheme, extrapolated from the first seven months of the operation. The scheme is demand-led and calculations for the levy are done afresh each year. An upturn in applications to the scheme would result in a higher levy rate in future years, so the levy rate is kept under continual active review.

[Steve Rotheram]

The Minister has used the words “levy” and “cap” interchangeably on numerous occasions, which is confusing. During the passage of the Bill, it was clear that we talked about a levy. The right hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning) was the Minister at the time, and he talked about a levy. When is a levy a cap?

[Mr Harper]

No, I do not think we are at cross purposes at all. It is a levy, but it is capped at 3%. The amount of the levy is set, based on the costs of the scheme. The costs are calculated and then the levy rate is calculated to recover the costs, and it was agreed that the cap would be 3%. That is the position that I made clear in my answer to the written question from the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston. It is a levy that is capped at 3%. The deal was that the insurance industry would absorb the costs of the scheme and not pass them on to employers through employers’ liability premiums if they remained below 3%, which is why the 3% cap was set.

[Steve Rotheram]

The Minister is trying valiantly to justify what he has picked up. It is not what was intended for the scheme and it is not what was said during the passage of the Bill. I understand that the cap is a maximum, but it was calculated according to what the industry said it could afford. The industry said 3% of this huge figure—about £1.4 billion or £1.5 billion—was the levy it would draw down. That was the amount that the industry thought would be needed for claimants, and that is why we get the figure of 80%, by the way. It was 80% because the industry thought it would be swallowed up by the 3% levy. I am sorry, but the Minister cannot have it both ways.

[Mr Harper]

The commitment that the industry made was not in terms of what it could afford. It was about what the industry was going to absorb and not pass on to employers more generally. It was important that the costs of compensating sufferers of the disease did not fall on employers generally. We wanted the costs to fall on the insurance industry. It is worth reminding people that the insurance companies that pay the levy today are not necessarily the insurance companies that took the premiums for the policies in the first place. That is part of the problem, because of the long latency of the disease.

Governments have created all the schemes—the 1979 scheme, the 2008 scheme and this one—because of the long period between when someone has exposure to asbestos and the diagnosis of the disease. The impact of the disease over a very long period of time led to all the issues with employers not being in business—that generated the 1979 scheme—and the inability to trace either employers or their insurers. All such issues relate to that long period of time, which is why it is important that the costs are borne by the insurance industry, although they are not necessarily the same companies that took the premiums in the first place. That is why it was important for the Government to work on this in an agreed and proportionate way, so that we could get the scheme in place to ensure the benefits go to the victims of the disease. If the matter had got bogged down in a big argument and legal disputes, there would not be a scheme and there would not be any compensation for people. Both Lord Freud and my predecessor as Minister wanted to make sure that the scheme came into force, so that it could start benefiting victims of this disease.

Let me respond to a couple of questions that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton specifically put about the written ministerial statement yesterday, which I think was generally welcomed by colleagues, including my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford. Lord Freud made it clear at the beginning of that statement that we are going to monitor the progress of the scheme and the extent to which the assumptions about claim rates are borne out.

During the first months of the scheme, the number of claims is much lower than at other times. However, partly because the Employers’ Liability Tracing Office has been doing an increasingly good job of tracing insurance policies—meaning that sufferers of this disease can more easily, and rightly, pursue compensation from those from whom compensation is due—the costs of the scheme are lower than had been thought. Therefore, we thought it was right to increase the tariff from 80% of average civil claims to 100% from the date of the announcement. The regulations to bring the scheme into effect will become law next month, but as is usual in government the uprating will apply from the date of the announcement, in the same way that the scheme in the first place applies from the date it was announced, which was 25 July 2012.

That is a general rule in government. I know that it is always difficult, because when a scheme is set up there always has to be a starting point and obviously some people will always be on the wrong side of that starting point. However, it is a general rule in government that we have to start things from when we announce them, and not backdate them. [Interruption.] I hear the shadow Minister, sighing, but if she ever has ministerial responsibility—for various reasons, I hope that she will not have such responsibility—I think she will very quickly understand the logic of not backdating things, and if she does not then the conversations she will have with others in her party will soon persuade her of the wisdom of that approach.

I want to be clear, although I think it was made clear in the written ministerial statement yesterday, that the announcement yesterday means that the scheme will start from yesterday for those already diagnosed, even though that is ahead of the legislation coming into force. Again, that is the same argument that the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) made—I probably mispronounced the name of his constituency, although I always try to pronounce it correctly—when he referred to the starting point of the scheme. I know that he has tabled a number of written questions about this subject on behalf of his constituents, but I am afraid that that has to remain the position.

Both the hon. Members for Liverpool, Walton and for Stretford and Urmston, as well as my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford, talked about increasing the take-up of the scheme. We have been working with stakeholders, including the Asbestos Victim Support group, Macmillan nurses and other groups, to ensure they have information about the scheme, so that they can notify those victims who have been newly diagnosed. We will continue to consider what more we can do. For example, if someone searches for information about this subject on the internet, as is common now, we have made sure that the scheme will come high up on the search list, so that people can locate it. If anyone has any ideas about how better to communicate that information, I am very happy to listen to them. We think that we are doing a good job, but I guess that one can always do better at communicating.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Harper]

Given what the hon. Gentleman says, and it is obviously the reason why he has tabled written questions, his constituent is not eligible for this scheme. What I do not know without looking at the specific facts of the case—obviously, if he has not already done so, he can either write to myself or Lord Freud with those facts—is whether they will be eligible for one of the other existing statutory schemes. If the hon. Gentleman writes to us, we can then look into the case to see whether his constituent is eligible for the other schemes.

[Steve Rotheram]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Harper]

Of course—briefly.

[Steve Rotheram]

I will be very brief, before the Minister finishes his remarks. Given that the expectation, even from the industry, was that the cost of the scheme would equate to 3%—I do not think that is arguable; hence the levy—does he believe that some of the residual amount, or underspend, should be invested in research? It is really important that research is top of the agenda.

[Mr Harper]

There are two separate questions there. I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman’s characterisation—I suppose it depends where you start from. His understanding was that the 3% was an amount that was going to be levied to generate an amount of money, some of which would be used for the compensation and then, effectively, others could choose to spend it, but that is not my understanding and not the Government’s understanding of the scheme.

However, his general point—I am trying to answer his question about research funding—is that there is a clear view that there should be more research in this area. I will undertake to go away and look at the gap in the general debate between—

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Steve Rotheram and Mark Harper

Monday 8th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Steve Rotheram (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)]

11. What steps he has taken to accelerate the processing of personal independence payment applications.

[The Minister for Disabled People (Mr Mark Harper)]

The hon. Gentleman will know from my earlier answer some of the things we have done, including increasing the number of health professionals employed by the providers and opening more assessment centres. He will know that the latest set of statistics published in September showed that from March to July we more than doubled the number of cases cleared, and our performance continues to improve.

[Steve Rotheram]

Actually, the latest DWP figures show that of nearly 530,000 applications for the personal independence payment, only 206,000 decisions on eligibility have been made. That means 323,000 disabled people, with 1,000 in Liverpool, Walton alone, have been left in limbo, facing additional costs to cope with ill health or disability. Given his earlier answers, why is the Minister prepared to leave disabled people bottom of his list of priorities?

[Mr Harper]

I do not think the hon. Gentleman is listening. I very clearly said—and I have said it a number of times here—that fixing delays to the PIP process is not at the bottom of my list; I have been very clear that it is at the top of my list of priorities. I have said that from the time I started doing this job and we have made considerable progress. We will be able to set out the up-to-date position when I give evidence to the Work and Pensions Select Committee chaired by the hon. Gentleman’s colleague, the hon. Friend Member for Aberdeen South (Dame Anne Begg). I have been invited to give an update at the end of January and I will be delighted to do so.

Asbestos Removal

Debate between Steve Rotheram and Mark Harper

Tuesday 9th September 2014 Westminster Hall

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Mr Mark Harper)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram) for having secured this debate, which enables us to discuss an important subject. I can answer a number of his questions, but if he thinks that there is anything that I have not answered, I will of course be happy to write to him.

The responsibility for the management and control of health and safety risks, including from exposure to asbestos, ultimately lies with those who create the risk. As the hon. Gentleman correctly said, the duty holder will be those who either own or control buildings that contain asbestos or materials that contain asbestos, and they have a duty to manage safety. Duty holders include retail stores and other businesses used by members of the public. People need to identify where asbestos-containing materials are present, and they need to ensure that such materials are either properly maintained, enclosed and repaired, as appropriate, or removed, where necessary.

The HSE’s advice on asbestos is clear. If the material containing asbestos is in good condition and is not vulnerable to damage, it should be left in place because the risk to those who work in or use the facilities will be lower than if an attempt is made to remove the material. If the material is in good condition, removal is better done at the end of a building’s life, when the building will not be reoccupied. If the material is not in good condition, however, or if it is likely to be damaged or disturbed, leading to the release of asbestos fibres, it should be removed.

Those decisions should be taken on a case-by-base basis because they depend on the specific situation of the building, the location of the asbestos-containing materials, the likelihood of their being disturbed and, of course, the future plans for the building, such as whether it will be refurbished or whether it is coming to the end of its life. Those duties fall on the duty holder. That is the HSE’s approach, and the current regulations, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, and the legislative framework on the risk, and on dealing with the risk proportionately, was reviewed relatively recently by the Government’s chief scientific adviser, who thought that the legislative framework is proportionate to the risks from asbestos. The framework is good.

In the case of Marks & Spencer, which was mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, there were two stores being refurbished in Reading and Bournemouth in 2006. As he said, the work required the removal of asbestos-containing ceiling tiles. Marks & Spencer took the decision to remove the asbestos and engaged licensed contractors, who were asked to work overnight in enclosed areas so that small areas could be completed, thereby enabling the shops to open the following day.

However, the way the work was planned did not allow the contractors to remove the asbestos in accordance with minimum standards. As the hon. Gentleman said, there was a prosecution for failings under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, which led to significant fines for Marks & Spencer and for some of the other companies involved. The prosecution was brought by the HSE, and it is right that there were significant penalties because asbestos, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said in his brief intervention, causes the deaths of a significant number of people in the United Kingdom—many from exposure over a considerable period. The best estimate, which I think he suggested, is about 5,000 a year, so the issue is serious. Duty holders must take appropriate steps.

On Marks & Spencer’s continuing work on the issue, I should say that licensed contractors undertaking asbestos removal must notify the enforcing authority. Since 2011, the HSE has received 112 notifications of such work that were identifiably related to Marks & Spencer stores and has inspected on 14 occasions. In those cases, it has found that no enforcement action needed to be taken, meaning that the work was being conducted in accordance with the appropriate risk controls.

The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton mentioned retail premises generally. It is worth saying that the retail sector takes this issue seriously. The Retail Asbestos Working Group deals with managing asbestos-containing materials in the retail sector, recognising that retail environments involve circumstances and conditions that present challenges in terms of public access and dealing with removing and managing the risk from asbestos. A range of organisations are involved in putting together guidance, and the guidance includes a foreword by the head of construction at the Health and Safety Executive, demonstrating that it sets out what steps retail premises of all sizes should take. I mention that because the hon. Gentleman specifically referred to training and the sorts of work done by retail premises.

The guidance makes it clear that there is a range of training. Some of it involves those undertaking licensed asbestos work for high-risk situations, but it also goes right down to information and training for shop assistants who put up notices and decorations, maintenance contractors who carry out daily repairs and other contractors who enter such premises to undertake work that might expose them to asbestos. The guidance is clear that training must take place across a range of staff in the retail environment. I hope that that at least gives the hon. Gentleman some confidence that retail businesses are aware of the requirements.

It is also worth saying generally, so that the hon. Gentleman and others are aware of what the regime looks like, that where it is decided that the proper management of the risk from asbestos-containing materials involves removing the asbestos, licensed contractors must be engaged and the enforcing authority must be notified 14 days before work starts. That will either be the HSE or local authorities, which can then plan visits to monitor the work done.

In the year 2013-14, the HSE received 37,553 notifications and did 1,318 inspections, meaning that 91% of all those holding a licence were visited in that year. Those reviews are taken seriously, so evidence of unsafe or poorly managed work can result in formal enforcement action, which may lead to stopping the work or, in the most serious cases, to prosecutions. Licences can also be reviewed.

It might be helpful for the House to know that there are 415 contractors licensed to remove asbestos as of April this year. Licences are for a fixed period of up to three years. To give an example of the quality assurance involved in the process, 188 licences, including renewals, were granted in 2013-14, while 25 were refused, and 91% of those licensed contractors would have been visited by the Health and Safety Executive at one or more sites where they were removing asbestos. Over the past five years, the HSE has issued 1,715 improvement notices, 552 of them under the duty to manage asbestos, and taken out 129 prosecutions, 24 of them under the duty to manage the risk from asbestos. The HSE is absolutely focused on the importance of monitoring asbestos removal, and it takes robust enforcement action.

[Steve Rotheram]

The Minister is being helpful in identifying the legislative framework in which the industry must work. Is he therefore concerned that asbestos materials with a risk rating of 18-plus have been left in what have been described as fallow areas within stores for years, even up to a decade? Surely that flouts what he said at the beginning about the HSE guidance that damaged asbestos should be removed as soon as reasonably practicable.

[Mr Harper]

Let me address that point directly, as the hon. Gentleman spent some time on it. The general principle that I set out was that the guidance is clear about when asbestos is best left in situ and when it should be removed. My sense, not being an expert, is that judgments about the condition that the asbestos is in and when it is best left there are a technical question.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned some specific surveys that had come into his possession. If it is helpful, I will ask officials to advise me on the issue of where retailers or others have identified damaged asbestos, to use his phrase, in situ and the decision is taken to leave it while containing it. I will ask for advice on that and write to him. It might be helpful if he shared some of the specific reports that he mentioned. I would be happy to ask some of the HSE’s technical experts to look at them and see whether that asbestos properly falls into the category of situations in which it is best and safest to leave it where it is, or the category in which action should be taken. It sounds more like a technical, case-specific question, but I am happy to ask the experts to look at those reports and come back to me. Then I will report back to the hon. Gentleman what their professional judgment is.

[Steve Rotheram]

That would be a partial solution. What I am trying to understand is whether the Minister thinks the situation is acceptable, given the framework that he has outlined and the fact that HSE’s guidance says to remove asbestos. I am talking about broken pieces of asbestos, not a hole in the wall. I am talking about dust being left. It is obviously dangerous; it is 18-plus risk-rated asbestos. Surely best practice would be to get rid of the asbestos as soon as reasonably practicable. Does the Minister think that a decade is a suitable time scale?

[Mr Harper]

I was clear in what I said; the HSE advice, which I think is sensible, is also clear. If the material is not in good condition—from the hon. Gentleman’s description, it sounds as though that is the case—and it is likely to be damaged or disturbed, leading to the release of asbestos fibres, it should be removed. Duty holders have a responsibility to do so, and to ensure that their workers, shoppers and others are not exposed to that risk.

On judgments in specific cases, as I said, I take the hon. Gentleman’s word for it; he has read the reports and I have not. Clearly judgment must be made on a case-by-case basis, which is why I said that it would be helpful, just to get a flavour of the issue, to have experts look at the reports that he mentioned to see whether the HSE’s guidance is being complied with and, if not, whether action can be taken.

It is a shame that the hon. Member for Strangford has left the Chamber, as I was just about to address his intervention on the campaigning idea. He and the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton mentioned training and education. The HSE has well advanced plans to run another campaign this autumn particularly targeting at-risk tradespeople, such as plumbers, joiners, builders and electricians, who are aware that asbestos is dangerous but are often ill-informed about how to deal with the risk.

The campaign will include the distribution of 200,000 free asbestos safety kits, information and a web app to help people work more safely with asbestos, as well as a national and regional media campaign that will cover Scotland and Wales as well as England. Northern Ireland— this is particularly relevant to the hon. Member for Strangford—will make its own arrangements, but the HSE will provide advice about the campaign and share relevant information so that it can be run across the whole United Kingdom.

To return to the point made by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton about a toolbox, I should say that everyone involved in the sorts of trade affected, whether they are licensed contractors or tradespeople who may be exposed to risk, should be properly educated about the risk and the steps that they need to take to ensure that they do not expose themselves to the known risks from asbestos. We want to reduce the annual death toll resulting from historical exposure to asbestos. I hope that that is helpful, and I think that I have set out clearly what work we can do after this debate to take forward the hon. Gentleman’s points.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Steve Rotheram and Mark Harper

Tuesday 22nd May 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Harper]

The hon. Gentleman is right to focus on transparency. It is one reason why Ministers in this Government are much more transparent about those whom we meet than Ministers in previous Governments were—[Interruption.] It is no good the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) laughing; this Government are much more transparent about the meetings that Ministers have. Transparency is the key; that is where we have identified the problem and this is what we are going to solve with our proposals. As I said, it is important to get it right and get the job done, and that is exactly what we are going to do.

[Steve Rotheram (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)]

8. What his policy is on upholding the principle of accountability in a reformed House of Lords.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Steve Rotheram and Mark Harper

Tuesday 1st March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Steve Rotheram (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)]

4. What estimate he has made of the cost to the public purse of holding constituency boundary reviews every five years.

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr Mark Harper)]

Our current estimate of the costs of undertaking a boundary review under the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011 is £11.2 million. We are currently working on that estimate to update it to take into account all the changes made to that legislation in the later stages of its progress through Parliament.

[Steve Rotheram]

Although it appears that the Deputy Prime Minister has calculated the cost of the changes in pound notes, he does not have a clue about the social cost of his plans, which will lead to the fragmentation of communities as new constituencies cut through historical, political and cultural boundaries simply to achieve his arbitrary arithmetical norm. Does the Minister not wish that he had simply decoupled that part of the Bill to secure his miserable little compromise?

[Mr Harper]

The reason why I gave the hon. Gentleman an answer in pounds was that his question was about the cost to the public purse, and I was answering that question.

[Steve Rotheram]

But what is the real cost?

[Mr Harper]

I do not agree with the premise of the hon. Gentleman’s question. There is a 10% margin, plus or minus 5%, within which the independent boundary commissions can take account of factors such as local ties and local government boundaries, but it has to be right that constituencies should be more equal in size. In the part of the world that the hon. Gentleman represents voters have more weight in the House of Commons than they should, compared with those in other parts of the country, and that is simply not right.