Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) (Payment of Claims) (Amendment) Regulations 2025

Considered in Grand Committee

17:34:00

Moved by

That the Grand Committee do consider the Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) (Payment of Claims) (Amendment) Regulations 2025.

My Lords, I will also speak to the draft Mesothelioma Lump Sum Payments (Conditions and Amounts) (Amendment) Regulations 2025. The schemes we are debating today provide vital support for sufferers of certain dust-related diseases, often caused by occupational exposure to asbestos and other harmful dusts. Having attended these debates in the past, I am always grateful for the opportunity to discuss these schemes and the wider support for people diagnosed with these diseases, which cause such terrible suffering. I know that many noble Lords have friends and colleagues who have died as a result of these awful conditions. Every year when we gather, it is worth taking a moment to remember those who have suffered and their families. I will begin by providing a brief overview of these two no-fault compensation schemes and of what these regulations seek to amend. The Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) Act 1979—henceforth “the 1979 Act scheme”—provides a single lump sum compensation payment to eligible individuals who suffer from one of the diseases covered by the scheme. This includes diffuse mesothelioma, pneumoconiosis and three other dust-related respiratory diseases. It was designed to compensate people who could not claim damages from former employers that had gone out of business and who had not brought any civil action against another party for damages. To be entitled to a lump sum award, claimants must have an industrial injuries disablement benefit award for a disease covered by the 1979 Act scheme, or would have had an award but for their percentage disablement. The 2008 diffuse mesothelioma lump sum payment scheme was introduced to provide compensation to people who contracted diffuse mesothelioma but were unable to claim compensation through the 1979 Act scheme. For example, they may have been self-employed or their exposure to asbestos was not due to their work. This would include cases we have often discussed in this Committee in years gone by, such as of spouses or other family members who may have washed the overalls of those who worked with asbestos and contracted the disease themselves. The 2008 Act scheme provides support to people with diffuse mesothelioma quickly at their time of greatest need. Regrettably, for adults diagnosed with mesothelioma in England between 2016 and 2020, one-year survival was below 50%. Timely financial support is especially important for such diseases. Although both schemes aim to provide compensation to sufferers within their lifetime, each scheme also allows for claims by dependants if the person suffering from the disease sadly dies before they are able to make a claim. This is in recognition of the suffering these diseases can bring to whole families. These regulations will increase the value of one-off lump sum payments made under these schemes. These rates will apply to those who first become entitled to a payment from 1 April 2025. While there is no statutory requirement to increase the rates of these payments in line with prices each year, we are maintaining the position taken by previous Governments and increasing the value of the lump sum awards by 1.7%, in line with the September 2024 consumer prices index. This also means that the increase will once again be in line with the proposed increases to industrial injuries disablement benefit as part of the main social security uprating provisions for 2025-26. Between April 2023 and March 2024—the latest financial year for which data are available—1,620 awards were made under the 1979 Act scheme and 320 awards were made under the 2008 Act scheme. Expenditure on lump sum awards made under both schemes totalled £30 million in 2023-24. It is clear that these schemes continue to provide vital support to sufferers and their families. According to data from the Health and Safety Executive, there were 2,257 mesothelioma deaths in Great Britain in 2022. That is slightly lower than the 2021 figure and substantially lower than the average of 2,529 deaths per year over the period between 2012 and 2020. The most recent projections from the HSE suggest that annual deaths due to mesothelioma in men will reduce during the 2020s, although for women annual deaths are not expected to start to reduce until the late 2020s. This difference may reflect particularly heavy asbestos exposures in certain industries that mainly affected men, such as shipbuilding, being eliminated first, whereas exposures due to the use of asbestos in construction, which affected many men but also some women, continued after 1970. While these trends offer us some reason to be hopeful, we must do whatever we can to prevent future asbestos exposures and reduce the risks of developing these terrible diseases. I am pleased to say that the HSE continues its vital work to enable employers to take action to prevent and reduce the most common causes of work-related ill health. Following the asbestos awareness campaigns of previous decades, the HSE continues to make a wide range of information freely available through its website. In January 2024, it also launched a duty to manage communications campaign called “Asbestos—Your Duty” to raise awareness and understanding of the legal duty to share information on asbestos with those liable to disturb it. I am sure noble Lords will join me in recognising the continued importance of the compensation offered by the 1979 Act and 2008 Act schemes. Finally, I am required to confirm that these provisions are compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights; I am happy to do so. I commend the increases in the payment rates under these two schemes to the Grand Committee and ask approval to implement them. I beg to move.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her introductory exposition of these regulations, which one can only support wholeheartedly. There could be no more caring and compassionate Minister to introduce them. The Minister has a brilliant record on detail, research and expertise—and no little enthusiasm. She has been steering and informing at the elbow of Prime Ministers with fierce commitment and considerable intellectual mastery for years, and with success. I offer my congratulations on her appointment in an important department. I also thank the department—in particular, Mr John Latham and his committed, diligent team—for its helpful Explanatory Memorandum. I rise to speak because one believes in the principle of the Executive always being held to account and questioned; that is a good, long-standing principle of Parliament. These regulations are of great importance to the post-industrial regions of Britain. Their industries disappeared and shrank rapidly but, distressingly, the human consequences remain. One would have liked these regulations to have been taken in your Lordships’ Chamber, given their importance to communities that have served Britain so well in those recent times. It is good to know that the Government have delivered a 32% pay rise to 112,000 former miners; that is something like an average of £29 per week. Although the Minister always gives information, what is her judgment as to how well the war on asbestos is progressing? Is there any estimate available to the department of the number of deaths caused by asbestos and its associated diseases in the various industries that she has touched on? Do we know how many people’s deaths have been recorded as being caused by pneumoconiosis? I ask this in relation to coal mining and quarrying specifically; it may be that that information is not available immediately but might be in written form at another time. Lord Harold Walker—an engineer, a one-time House of Commons Minister of State and then Chairman of Ways and Means—told me that, in 1968, workers in a Hebden Bridge factory had literally played snowballs with blue asbestos, such was the ignorance at that time. In Blaenau Ffestiniog and Dinorwig in north-west Wales, there were world-famous slate quarries; sadly, the quarrymen were endangering their lives by the inhalation of slate dust. Their work was dangerous in itself, and sometimes they worked in huge, dark, underground, cavernous locations. Poorly paid, they even had to buy their own candles, so it was no surprise when the small hospital ward on site had a year-long bitter strike.

17:45:00

Lastly, these two instruments spring from the historic Employment Protection and Health and Safety at Work Etc. Acts legislated by the then Secretary of State for Employment Michael Foot in the mid-1970s. The Wilson and Callaghan Governments of that time were without a workable, practical majority; it was always touch and go. However, we now have a Health and Safety Executive—a direct consequence of those historic Acts. I had the honour of serving in those three Administrations for Harold Wilson and James Callaghan, each to become a Lord in this House.

The good news is that time is of the essence, and the Prime Minister is giving a reception for Welsh Members of both Houses. I therefore sit down and conclude.

My Lords, it has become a tradition for me to follow my noble friend Lord Jones on this subject. I thank the Minister for her presentation and the proposed uplift. I also pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, for the work that she did when in government and thank my colleagues in the DWP with whom I work as chair of the mesothelioma oversight committee, as I have been doing for a considerable number of years now. That group represents the trade unions, victims, insurers and all interested parties. That quiet work is done and the tragedies carry on. The numbers may be smaller but, unfortunately, there will be a long tail indeed. Some professional people are going to get it—those teaching in schools with asbestos—as will other areas. To inform the Committee—I have said this before—I lost a sister-in-law to mesothelioma in Scunthorpe. We still do not know whether that was because she pushed trolleys around as a nurse in a hospital basement that was full of asbestos or whether it was because she was washing her husband’s uniforms when he worked at the Scunthorpe steelworks. I also lost a very close friend in my union, on the same subject, so this is a personal issue, as well as something that I have been pleased to do for the DWP. That is really all I have to say, except to ask the Minister—my noble friend Lord Jones indirectly indicated the future—what money the Government are thinking of putting into more research on this dreadful disease.

I, too, thank the Minister for her presentation. As she said, we have heard from many other noble Lords about sufferers from these diseases and that they are the legacies of old industries and still very much in evidence among many communities across the country. The diseases are not caused just by such industries; some sufferers still do not know how they contracted them. They are vicious and cause tremendous suffering, so I think, as the Minister said, that this is vital support for the sufferers. We also need to recognise that these are sick people; they may be very old and dependent on this payment. With the rising costs of energy, and so on, I hope that we might, at some stage, look more closely at how adequate these upratings are. I am grateful to hear about the mesothelioma oversight committee, which I had not heard of before, but I would like to know a little more about the profile of this cohort of recipients. We hear a lot about their suffering—they have suffered through no fault of their own—and, as the noble Baroness said, their life expectancy is very short. So that would be helpful to me, but obviously we cannot have that today. The noble Baroness mentioned the number of recipients—I am sorry; I did not manage to write that down—but perhaps we could have something on that, on the age profile and on how many dependants are receiving the payments, as opposed to the actual sufferers. Can we hear a bit more about the life expectancy of some of the sufferers? It may be that we might get a more detailed approach to this payment, perhaps with the help of the mesothelioma oversight committee and other bodies. I believe the Labour Party will conduct a benefit review. I hope there may be an opportunity to look in more detail at some of the cohorts. I have mentioned before that benefit payments are not really related to the cost of living or the cost of healthy eating. In looking at whether these recipients’ payments are adequate, we ought to think about the treatment, the suffering and the conditions that they must endure. I hope that we may have the chance, in a review, to look at the particular needs of these people who are suffering from these terrible, debilitating and terminal diseases. I am sure that we all support the uplift, but I suspect that we all wonder whether it is adequate, so I hope that that will be looked at again.

My Lords, I have stood where the Minister is standing on many occasions to bring forward SIs on this subject. I have always been horrified by the impact and the effects on people’s lives, and by early deaths that have come so quickly after diagnosis. However, quite recently, a letter dropped into my letterbox at home from a legal firm in the north of England, advising me that the lady I had employed as my first PA, 43 years ago, had contracted mesothelioma. That made it a little more personal to me. I was then asked whether I could remember the names of other people I employed at that time, whether I knew where they were and whether I could give a rundown of the buildings that we worked in, in those early days. I did my best to do that, and that put me in touch with this lady, who ended up as the deputy director of HR at the John Radcliffe Hospital—a very able person. She is now coming to terms with what will happen in her life. That has made me more committed to understanding and supporting efforts to help them. I thank the Minister for her clear outline of the purpose of these two statutory instruments. These regulations seek to increase the value of the one-off lump sum payments made under the two compensation schemes—the Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) Act 1979 and the Child Maintenance and Other Payments Act 2008—by 1.7%, in line with the inflation rate. Although we acknowledge that these increases are a positive step forward, particularly for those living with life-threatening conditions due to past exposure to hazardous substances, we must consider whether these adjustments are truly sufficient in the light of the immediate and long-term needs of the affected individuals. The compensation schemes in question provide vital support to individuals who have suffered as a result of working in hazardous environments, particularly from asbestos exposure. Under the 1979 Act, lump sum payments are made to those affected by dust-related issues, while the 2008 Act compensates individuals diagnosed with diffuse mesothelioma, including those who may not be eligible under the 1979 Act. These instruments propose to increase the sum by 1.7%. Although this increase offers some relief to those affected by asbestos-related diseases, it is important to ask whether this adjustment adequately meets the ongoing and growing needs of individuals whose lives have been irrevocably impacted by these conditions. The previous Conservative Government consistently supported, and made increases to, these lump sum payments during their last Administration. Can the Minister commit to further increases in the payments in the future? I am sure she will. His Majesty’s Opposition agree with these measures, but one concern that arises is the long-term sustainability of the compensation schemes. The draft regulations predict a gradual decline in long-term cost, as fatalities due to asbestos exposure stabilise. However, it is important to recognise that asbestos-related diseases continue to have a significant impact on individuals and families, and the effects of exposure can endure for generations. I ask the Minister how the Government plan to ensure that the funds required to support these individuals will remain available as we see a decline in the number of claims over time. What steps are being taken to ensure that the national insurance and compensation systems can continue to meet the needs of those who continue to suffer from asbestos-related diseases? Furthermore, the Government propose that the increase will apply only to claims where the individual first fulfilled the conditions of entitlement on or after 1 April 2025. This raises an important point for consideration. By setting this deadline, there is a risk that individuals currently in the middle of their claim process may miss out on the increase, potentially placing an added burden on those who are already in vulnerable situations. I ask the Minister how this decision was made, and whether there is any flexibility built into the process to accommodate those who may be affected in the interim. The uprating of the compensation scheme is a necessary and welcome action, but we must recognise that these increases may not be sufficient to address the full extent of the challenges faced by those affected by asbestos-related diseases. I hope that the Government will ensure that the long-term sustainability of these schemes is maintained, and that they will remain attentive to the needs of those who continue to suffer as a result of past industrial practices. We on these Benches absolutely support the uplift.

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords for their contributions and their support for these regulations. I always find that this is one of the most moving debates we have in any year, and it gives us an opportunity to remember those who have lost their lives. My noble friend Lady Donaghy described her sister-in-law and her trade union colleague. There are also new cases: I was so sorry to hear about the employee of the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott. One of the reasons why we come back here year after year is in order to honour those who have died because of things that were no fault of their own—in most cases simply going to work or caring for others whom they loved. I loved to hear my noble friend Lord Jones, whom I thank for his inordinately kind words about me. It is a real privilege every year to hear him. I commend him for his faithfulness: he comes here every year to bear witness to what happened to the slate men, the quarrymen and the miners of his homeland of Wales, and to what they suffered. I love the fact that he reminds us every time that the only reason why these things were attacked in the workplace was that trade unions organised and defended people there, and made sure that we had proper legislation, so that people were not being sent into dangerous places and expected just to put up with it. I thank him once again for reminding us what happened at Hebden Bridge and Blaenau Ffestiniog, and so on. We must never forget that history; otherwise, we will be condemned to repeat it. I will try to work though some of the questions that were asked. I commend my noble friend Lady Donaghy on chairing the mesothelioma oversight committee. I am not surprised that the noble Baroness, Lady Janke, has not heard of it. It is typical of my noble friend Lady Donaghy that she does incredibly important work in the background, and always points away from herself, never towards herself. This is another example, and I thank her for the work that she does. In this, as in so much else, I am grateful to her. I will try to go through as many of the cases as I can. My noble friend Lord Jones asked how many cases of mesothelioma there are a year, and for a breakdown. We publish data on mesothelioma deaths in Great Britain, and I will send him a link so that he can see the breakdown of that. Unfortunately, mesothelioma is usually rapidly fatal following the onset of symptoms, but that means that annual deaths give a pretty clear indication of what is happening with the disease. Breakdowns are available by age, by last occupation and by geographical area—that is, where the person was living when they died. The statistics also include analysis of the relative frequency of different occupations recorded on mesothelioma death certificates, which is probably more useful as an indication of what happened in the past rather than of where we are going in the future—or, indeed, of numbers for particular occupations. It is a pattern.

18:00:00

To give some headline numbers, there were 2,257 mesothelioma deaths in Great Britain in 2022, as I think I recorded earlier. Among those, there were 1,838 male deaths that year, compared with 1,883 in 2021. There were 419 female deaths in 2022, compared with 407 in 2021. This is consistent with predictions that there will probably continue to be 400 to 500 female deaths a year during the 2020s.

The Health and Safety Executive already publishes fairly comprehensive information around asbestos-related diseases, including mortality and occupational data, which I can also share with my noble friend. I have a lot more information but there is probably not enough time for me to go through the details. If he is happy, I am happy to write with that information.

It is notable that deaths due to pneumoconiosis have been lower following the pandemic. The HSE reported 54 deaths in 2023 and 50 in 2022. That compares to 130 a year in the 10 years to 2019, so we will see where that goes, but that gives my noble friend some sense of the trends there.

My noble friend Lady Donaghy asked about research. As I think she knows, for some years now, the DHSC has been working actively to try to stimulate an increase in the level of mesothelioma research activity. That includes a formal research priority-setting exercise, a National Cancer Research Institute workshop and a specific call for proposals through the National Institute for Health and Care Research. In addition, the NIHR Leicester Biomedical Research Centre has a long-standing programme of research to develop and improve treatments for mesothelioma, including personalised treatment pathways to identify which patients are likely to get the greatest benefit from different types of drug therapies.

In terms of money—the hard, cold facts—the DHSC invests £1.5 billion a year in research through its research delivery arm, the NIHR, and research expenditure from the NIHR on all cancers was £133 million in 2023-24. I hope that gives an indication of the level of investment going on.

The noble Baroness, Lady Janke, asked about age data. I am not sure I have that information, so I will find out and let her know. She also asked about the amounts. In both schemes, the average amount paid to sufferers was around £15,850, compared with around £10,490 for dependants. However, I think the noble Baroness was asking for the breakdown between dependants and sufferers, and the numbers receiving payments rather than the level, so I might have to write to her on that point as well.

On the question of the uprating, as the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, knows from her time in government, Governments have traditionally gone with the conventional uprating figures, which is CPI. Inevitably that means that upratings for some years are higher than others. The benefit is that each figure compounds the last, so if it has been very high when inflation has been very high, then even a smaller increase is an increase on that higher base. But the Government keep this under review, and I take the point that has been made. The most important thing, particularly for the 2008 scheme, is making sure that the money gets out the door as fast as possible, because for the people suffering from mesothelioma, unfortunately this is not about the long-term costs of living but about how we get as much money as possible to help them in the sadly small amount of time that they have left.

The noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, also made am important point about the future sustainability of the scheme. I am sorry to say that it looks as though we will be dealing with what my noble friend Lady Donaghy described as quite a long tail for some time, so I do not think there is any imminent risk of the schemes becoming unneeded. The scale of deaths that there are still is noticeable.

However, the big challenge is to make sure that, as a society, we are constantly on the lookout for what happens for any future diseases coming down the track. For example, noble Lords may have seen the reports around silicosis. I know that the department has been talking to the Health and Safety Executive, making sure that it is out there—I know that it is—doing research, engaging with employers, making sure that the right guidance is being given out and the right action is being taken, and investigating any cases reported to it. It is incredibly important to make sure that we do not end up with a new scandal.

I am not sure whether I have forgotten to mention anything; I am looking round the Room in case I have forgotten something. I hope that that has given to noble Lords enough. There is just one thing: my noble friend Lady Donaghy mentioned asbestos in schools, which is really interesting. To reassure noble Lords on this point, the DfE expects all local authorities, governing bodies and academy trusts to have robust plans in place to manage asbestos in school buildings effectively, in line with our legal duties and drawing on appropriate advice. The DfE is also increasing investment in the next financial year to £2.1 billion in order to improve the condition of school buildings; that is on top of the school rebuilding programme, which is replacing or refurbishing buildings in the poorest condition—more than 500 schools. When the DfE is notified of a significant safety issue with a school building that cannot be managed with local resources, it will provide additional support on a case-by-case basis.

I shall make one other point in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Janke, about the cost of living. I assure the Committee that the department offers a range of other financial support to people with these diseases. For example, people with pneumoconiosis in these schemes may be getting industrial injuries disablement benefit, which is a specific weekly support for those who have had an industrial accident or developed diseases known to be related to specific types of work; that is of course separate from the general support, such as the personal independence payment or attendance allowance, supporting the additional costs of disabilities.

I assure the Committee that the Government recognise fully the importance of these schemes and are committed to supporting them. Maintaining the value of these payments is a really important thing that we can do here together.

Finally, the continued investment in cancer and the work done by the Health and Safety Executive on prevention and rooting out bad practice are things that we should all be committed to. I pay tribute to the work of the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott. This has never been a political matter—it is a cross-party issue—and we have all gathered together on it year after year in order to commit ourselves to making sure that this does not happen again and to pay tribute to those who have lost their lives and those who have suffered for them. I am grateful for the support here today.

Motion agreed.