My Lords, Amendment 10 has already been dealt with in the debate we have just had, so my remarks will concentrate entirely on Amendment 31, which is grouped with it.
Earlier in our proceedings, I recalled that in 1965 the Sunday Times reported on how an epidemiological investigation by Newhouse and Thompson, undertaken for the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, had shed light on the origins and nature of this terrible disease, finally laying to rest the scepticism of some pathologists who had until that time disputed its existence and its long period of hibernation.
More than three decades earlier in 1930, the Merewether report had warned of a latency for asbestosis of some 25 years. No one can reasonably claim, therefore, that the industry, Government or employers did not understand the risks that workers faced. Yet, staggeringly, this vicious disease has had Cinderella status when it comes to research spending. It is not hyperbole or overstatement to assert that it is nothing short of a national scandal that a disease predicted to kill a further 56,000 British citizens between 2014 and 2044 receives not a penny of state funding for medical and scientific research into understanding its nature and identifying cures. What other disease that kills 2,400 British people every year has to rely entirely on what money can be scraped together from voluntary organisations such as the admirable British Lung Foundation?
In 2011, the British Lung Foundation invested £1 million in research. Here I must pay tribute to those four insurance companies that voluntarily supported that scheme and provided that money. The rest of the voluntary sector invested £400,000. By contrast, the Government invested nothing at all. This is scandalous when we are dealing with a disease that kills so many people and when we compare it with the fabulous sums of money that the noble Lord, Lord James, referred to in the previous group of amendments—billions of pounds being invested compared with £1.4 million given voluntarily, without a penny piece of state funding, for research into this shocking disease.
Back in 1965, the Sunday Times also reported, on the back of stories emerging from London, Belfast, Newcastle, Leeds and Liverpool, some of which have been referred to in our earlier debates, that research would be conducted to examine causes and find cures. That was 50 years ago and we are still waiting for a research base that matches the scale of the problem. Fifty years later there is still no cure, and most people
die within two years of diagnosis. The UK mesothelioma mortality rate is the highest in the world. The number of deaths is roughly double the number due to cervical cancer, for example.
My amendment seeks simply to open a debate about the lack of funding for mesothelioma research. Paradoxically, if we could find a cure, it would not only eliminate horrendous human suffering, it would also eliminate the need for the millions of pounds of compensation that we are debating during these Committee proceedings. So there are humane and altruistic reasons for supporting funding of mesothelioma research, but for the Government and the insurance industry there are straightforward financial considerations too. As well as adequate compensation, we should be prioritising much more of our time and money to finding a cure to prevent the ravages of this fatal disease. Of course it would be impossible to eradicate all asbestos from our homes, schools, hospitals, factories and offices, and it is welcome that there is a general desire to act justly to those who have been afflicted with mesothelioma. But the one certain way to prevent deaths from mesothelioma will be to find a cure. That will not happen without adequate resources and that, in turn, requires political will.
I said that mesothelioma has a Cinderella status. Let me illustrate what I mean. Contrast £1.4 million spent on mesothelioma research with the £22 million for bowel cancer, the £41 million for breast cancer, the £11.5 million for lung cancer, the £32 million for leukaemia. Indeed, there are 17 other forms of cancer for which far more research resources are reserved than for mesothelioma. Mesothelioma is quite literally at the bottom of that list.
In 2011 the voluntary sector invested £5 million in myeloma research and £5.6 million on malignant melanoma, the cancers immediately above and below mesothelioma in the table of mortality figures. Yet, even with such limited funds, there have been some exciting developments. I think that some of my noble friends will refer to these. They include the creation of the world’s first mesothelioma tissue bank for researchers, a transatlantic collaborative study of the genetic make-up of mesothelioma and work on overcoming resistance to drugs used to treat the disease. It shows what can be done with the right investment. We have an opportunity in the course of the proceedings of this Committee to create a sustainable fund for mesothelioma research to help ensure that future generations do not have to suffer in the same way that so many have in the past.
At Second Reading, I gave the Minister a letter, which was then circulated in your Lordships’ House, and has been signed by 20 noble Lords and Baronesses from right across your Lordships’ House. Subsequently a letter supporting the same points was published in the Times. This letter underlines the breadth of support throughout the House for the principles that underpin this amendment. Not necessarily the detail—I fully accept that this could be rewritten between now and Report stage, that it can be modified and changed. It is the principle that I am primarily interested in at this Committee stage and that is the point that I will be most pressing the Minister on.
This proposal enjoys the support of many Members of your Lordships’ House, the British Lung Foundation and the victim support groups. The proposal involves a small administrative or membership fee to those companies in the scheme and would raise £1.5 million a year. It would have no implications for the public purse, although I hope that the Government will consider providing at least match funding—it is, after all, receiving millions of pounds from the new scheme. I hope that the Minister, when he comes to reply, will tell us what money his Government will pledge for research and what progress he is making with the Department of Health, the Medical Research Council and the Treasury in putting together a scheme that will address this issue. Such an initiative will bring justice and hope to those who are blighted by a disease that was none of their making.
The Minister met with me on Monday, as I said earlier, and again I am grateful to him for the patience and courtesy that he always shows in dealing with this and the proceedings of the Committee. We discussed the detail of this amendment. One aspect that I know that the Minister does not like is the £10,000 levy that would be paid by all insurance companies. The Minister feels that if there were such a scheme it would better if it were tied to market share or turnover, rather as the levy for compensation is, in the context of the Bill as a whole. I accept that this approach would be in line with the way in which the compensation clauses of the Bill work and I would be very happy to modify the amendment to accommodate that point. A proportionate levy would be equitable and wholly acceptable to me. When the Minister comes to reply, will he indicate whether he would like to bring forward a modified amendment on Report to reflect that kind of change on that kind of basis?
6 pm
There is then the vexed question of hypothecation. I have drawn to the Minister’s attention, and I also draw it to the attention of the Committee, the precedent of Section 123 of the Gambling Act 2005. It contains a provision for a hypothecated industry levy. That counters the suggestion that I have heard that it is somehow impossible to hypothecate in legislation. That the Section 123 power may not yet have been exercised is entirely irrelevant. The fact that the levy provided for in the Gambling Act has not so far been used is neither here nor there. In that case, the idea was to have a back-up in case voluntary systems proved inadequate. It may simply be that it has therefore not been necessary to impose a formal levy so far, and that, too, is a very helpful precedent when considering what we want to do in this amendment. It is a power that Parliament has, rightly, chosen to place on the face of legislation, and in this instance we should do precisely the same. Ultimately, it will then be a question of political will.
Then there is the much invoked Human Rights Act. The Minister in charge of the Gambling Act 2005—the late Lord McIntosh of Haringey—felt able to make a statement under Section 19(1)(a) of the Human Rights Act 1998 that the Bill was compatible with the convention rights, despite it containing a clause, which eventually became Section 123, providing for the imposition of a
hypothetical industry levy very similar in nature to the proposal in my amendment. It would be very helpful if the Minister could explain how the human rights situation might differ between Section 123 of the Gambling Act and my own amendment.
The Minister has also said that a government department cannot raise funds for activities outwith the department’s remit. I should be grateful if he could explain in rather greater detail to the Committee why that is the case. I have sought the opinion of a barrister—one who specialises in drafting legislation—and he says that that is simply not the case because there is no such thing as a single government department in law and, anyway, anyone can do anything that Parliament says they can do. After quite a long time in either this place or the other place, I hope that that is the purpose of Committees precisely such as this. Provided that the clause is clear about who can do what there is no bar on any Minister doing, anything to raise money for a statutory purpose may be permitted.
Finally, there is the question of joined-up government. Perhaps the noble Lord can tell us about the conversations that he has rightly had with his noble friend Lord Howe about the possibility of the Department of Health being included in the legislation as the agency through which funds could be channelled for research. What were the grounds on which that department declined to participate in such a partnership? I understand that that was the subject of a meeting between the Minister and his noble friend Lord Howe earlier this year.
Given that there is a valid precedent in law in the form of the Gambling Act, a solution to any human rights objection—that is, a proportionate levy—and a clear power for government departments to raise money outwith their remits, what exactly are the outstanding objections to the proposal? Surely it is the principle contained in this amendment, with which I know the noble Lord will have some sympathy. Surely, if he does have sympathy with that principle, he should now help us all to overcome any of these objections, rather than raising objections. Accepting this amendment or something like it—the principle of it—would finally remove mesothelioma’s Cinderella status and offer hope to some of those 56,000 British citizens who will die of this disease if no cure is found. I beg to move.