Mesothelioma Lump Sum Payments (Conditions and Amounts) (Amendment) Regulations 2010

My Lords, I too, thank the Minister for explaining the detail of these important regulations and giving much of the background, particularly the numbers of those affected under the schemes. I am also grateful to the department, particularly Susan Parker, who explained how the compensation scheme worked—in particular the fact that sufferers do not face a long wait before receiving a pay-out. From these Benches, we fully support the regulations which increase the rates of payments made under both the 1979 Act and the 2008 scheme. The diseases we are talking about are, as we have heard, very serious respiratory diseases brought on by people working with asbestos, living near an asbestos-producing factory, or perhaps even living with someone who worked with asbestos. As the Minister said, these diseases do not always manifest themselves until 20, 30 or 40 years later, and when the most serious—mesothelioma—is diagnosed, the prognosis is grim, as the noble Lord, Lord Freud, has testified. These diseases are not confined just to the industrial heartlands of the country, but are found across the UK—for example, in workers who many years ago produced brake linings in the car industry. The incidence of mesothelioma is expected to peak in about five years’ time, which was something of a surprise to me, since the dangers posed by asbestos itself have been known about for a long time now. I pay tribute to the Health and Safety Executive, which has done a great deal to make sure that the working environment is now much safer than it was when these devastating diseases, caused by exposure to asbestos dust, were contracted. The HSE often gets an unwarranted bad press and we should pay tribute to its work in this as well as other areas. While on the subject of the use of asbestos, I do not know whether the Minister can confirm that, although its use has been banned in this country for some time, it is still being used in many countries in the developing world. I hope that information on the dangers to health is being shared, perhaps through embassies. Legislation was introduced in 1979 to help those diagnosed as suffering from a dust-related industrial disease by a lump sum payment, in addition to any industrial injuries disablement benefit. This was, as we have heard, because many employers could not be sued since they were no longer in business, so compensation was very difficult to obtain. I gather that the DWP is at the moment consulting on improving support for people who need to trace employers’ liability insurance policies to obtain compensation for an accident or industrial disease. Although the Association of British Insurers and the Lloyd’s Market Association have committed since 1999 to a voluntary code of practice for tracing employers’ liability insurance policies, there are still believed to be more than 3,000 people who are left without help. I believe the Government now propose to establish both an employers’ liability tracing office and an employers’ liability insurance bureau to oversee this process. Perhaps the Minister would confirm this. Could the Minister also tell me whether retired members of the Armed Forces, who contracted mesothelioma while serving, are covered by these regulations? The 2008 mesothelioma scheme, which, as we have heard, pays out a lump sum to those ineligible for the original 1979 scheme because they contracted the disease through environmental exposure, is wholly funded from compensation recovery. It is good news that the level of civil damages received is higher than expected at this point and that, therefore, all payments are being increased to the 1979 level from 15 April so that the amounts are equalised to all sufferers, however they contracted the disease. It is also good news that awards to dependants will be increased by up to £5,000 by way of a lump sum. It is worth making it clear that the 1.5 per cent uprating we are talking about in relation to the regulations under the pneumoconiosis Act is a draw-down from next year’s uprating, and is not an uprating in its own right, so to speak. It will therefore not be consolidated into the base level for future upratings. I do not envy the job of whoever is the Minister in having to explain next year’s uprating. In closing, I reiterate that we fully support these important orders and send our sympathy to all those suffering from these terrible diseases and their dependants.