---

Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) (Payment of Claims) (Amendment) Regulations 2008

It is obvious from the remarks that have been made by all noble Lords that the whole Committee is extremely grateful to the Minister for explaining these regulations to us. One of the problems of speaking last, even in a short debate such as this, is that much of one’s thunder has already been stolen. On these occasions I have a regular question for the Minister who is to respond, which I will come to in a minute. The horrendous diseases to which these regulations refer are all ailments of the lung occasioned either by mining or by the inhalation of asbestos fibres, which may or may not be accompanied in the case of pneumoconiosis by tuberculosis. I was rapidly looking through last year’s Hansard of this debate when the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, was speaking because I seem to remember being told some years ago that the claims were only fractionally greater than the successful payments in these cases of the diseases we are discussing today. Perhaps the Minister could confirm that. I seem to remember that in the year in question there was something in the order of 2 per cent in it. As we have heard, the regulations uprate the statutory compensation scheme by 3.9 per cent to maintain alignment with other social security benefits, which we will deal with later. Although the Government do not have to increase the rates of payments, they said shortly after coming into office that they would do so. So, here we are again and I and thousands of sufferers appreciate very much their so doing. However, it occurs to me that with the Child Maintenance and Other Payments Bill currently going through Parliament, with Part 4 covering mesothelioma which of course fits into this series of diseases, the department could well have proposed altering the Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) Act to add these uprating regulations, which never do anything else, to the Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order, which does exactly the same job for the full range of other social security benefits. It would not be beyond the wit of the draftsman to change both the parent Act of these regulations and the Social Security Administration Act to achieve this objective. I might even be tempted to do it myself, given the unlikely nod and wink from the Minister. Whatever the response to that suggestion, my track record of favourable responses from Ministers in the DWP is far from first class. Like the noble Lord, Lord Jones, and my noble friend Lord Lyell—although I would not be quite as specific as they were in referring to particular diseases covered by the regulations—I would be grateful to know how many claims there were last year. Although I appreciate that, for many of the diseases we are considering, people may suffer for many years—pneumoconiosis, for example, may last for 40 years—the trouble is that it is identified only at the very last moment; at that point, there can be death within months. I would therefore expect the number of claimants to decrease over time. Has that decrease yet manifested itself? I note that last year, the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Drefelin, who spoke for the DWP on a similar order, referred to the, "““dangerous effects of asbestos, and that awareness and knowledge came into play only after large numbers of people had been exposed””.—[Official Report, 27/2/08; col. GC 140.]" There is a latent period, as I have said. In the debate in another place last week there was a question about why pleural thickening was compensable when pleural plaques were not. Although I am advised that the former can kill whereas the latter are symptomatic, I would be grateful for the Minister’s answer—not least because the subject of pleural plaques exercises the minds of some Members of another place and one or two noble Lords with regard to the Child Maintenance and Other Payments Bill. Finally, I am pleased to repeat that I support the regulations.