|Previous Section||Back to Table of Contents||Lords Hansard Home Page|
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I wish to ask the Minister a question. I am sure that he will not be able to answer it now, but perhaps he will return to it at a later stage. I was very struck by the explanation he gave in his letter. It occurred to me that it suggested unfair treatment as between one child and another. I seriously wonder whether he feels that there is any risk of this approach being in breach of the European Convention. It would be very interesting to find out. Quite honestly, it is quite a disturbing consideration.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I do not believe that we should be at risk in that respect. We have always maintained that we will not have corporal punishment within publicly funded education. It is still open, and a number of schools make use of corporal punishment in the non-maintained sector. That is a matter for them.
The noble Baroness, Lady David, asked for further guidance. There is such guidance in the Children Act, which does not support the use of corporal punishment but leaves the decision to individual institutions. I certainly would not want to go further than that. All I can do is again to apologise to the noble Baroness that she did not receive her letter in due time. As she will see, I signed it some days ago, but these things have a way of falling through the gaps.
I reiterate that it is our policy to continue to prohibit corporal punishment in all state-funded education. Nursery education in exchange for nursery vouchers will be no exception to the rule. I do not believe it would be right or proper to take this matter any further in a Bill such as this, designed purely to extend the provision of nursery education. I appreciate the strength of feeling the noble Baroness has in relation to these matters. However, this is neither the time nor the place to go further than we are going at the moment.
Baroness David: My Lords, I am not convinced by the Minister's letter or indeed his response. I think the least he could have done was to say that there would be guidance. I would not demand it now on the face of the Bill, but I should very much like to have had guidance when the regulations were made. It is far too late to do anything about this tonight. I accept the Minister's apology about the letter. Letters between him and me seem to be fated. Some of my letters to him have disappeared in the past. Of course I accept his apology. Goodness knows whose fault it was, but not his. I shall think about this matter and decide whether to return to it. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I beg to move that consideration on Report be now adjourned. In moving the Motion I suggest that the Report stage begin again not before twenty-five minutes to nine.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the purpose of the regulations is to increase by 2.1 per cent. the amounts of compensation which may be paid under the Act to those who satisfy all the conditions of entitlement on or after 1st August 1996. By so doing we are meeting our undertaking to ensure that the levels of payment match the increases in the retail price index since 1980.
People who suffer from industrial diseases have the right to sue their employer for damages. But certain dust-related diseases take a long time to develop, and many may not be diagnosed until 20 to 40 years or more after exposure. Because of this, sufferers and their dependants can experience considerable difficulty in obtaining compensation from their employers or indeed from a multiplicity of employers as may be the case. By the time that the disease is diagnosed, the employer concerned may no longer exist.
Parliament enacted this legislation in 1979 in order to provide a measure of compensation to those who cannot claim it in the normal way through the courts. It provides lump sum payments to sufferers from certain dust-related diseases or, when the sufferers have died, to their dependants. But it was never the intention of the Act to provide an alternative to taking civil action in the courts.
There are three basic conditions of entitlement, which must be satisfied before a payment can be made: the first is that there is no relevant employer who can be sued; the second is that no court action has been brought by the sufferer or his dependants, nor has compensation been received in respect of the disease; and the third is that industrial injuries disablement benefit has been awarded.
The Department of the Environment does all that it can to administer the compensation scheme in a sympathetic way. While it is necessary to ensure that payment conditions are met, it is also recognised that each case is an individual disaster and my department is as generous as the legislation allows.
Since the Act came into force in 1980, 8,729 applicants have made a claim and approximately 70 per cent. of those have received payment. The total cost to date has been £43.2 million. Payments are in addition to any industrial injuries disablement benefit which may have been awarded.
Of course, no amount of money can ever adequately compensate people and their families for their loss, but at least these regulations allow us to give some practical and material help. I commend the regulations to the House. I beg to move.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, from these Benches we welcome the initiative of the Government. Although the Minister said this is in accordance with previous commitments and undertakings, nevertheless I am certain, as he is, that this modest increase, in line with the cost of living, will be very welcome.
Can the Minister give some indication along these lines? I believe he said that 8,729 people had successfully claimed and that that was 70 per cent. of those who had claimed, or it might have been that of the 8,729 who claimed, 70 per cent. were given assistance. Could the Minister tell us whether, in latter years, there has been an increase, a decrease or a levelling off in the applications? I imagine that in the industries which are, sadly, susceptible to these kinds of disease, both the trade unions and the people who have worked in them will be well aware of their entitlement. But all too often, as the Minister well knows, good intentions by the Government to make available money and allowances go by default because the publicity and the exposure of the fact that these avenues are available sometimes miss their target. So I would be grateful if the Minister could tell us whether there has been a falling off.
The Minister, quite rightly, referred to the great problem of asbestos. I do not share the Minister's view that the aftermath of the asbestos era is coming to an end. I am certain that the awfulness of asbestosis, as well as pneumoconiosis and the other related diseases, will be with us for a very long time to come.
The Minister also pointed out, quite rightly, that access to these funds--totalling £43 million since the scheme started--are not directly connected with any other action that may be taken. The Minister said that they had to be satisfied that there was no employer who could be sued, that no action had been taken, and, in addition that the claimants were entitled to injury benefit. Can the Minister tell us whether there exists in his department a section which ensures that people have their attention drawn to their entitlement?
I presume that the increase in each case of 2.1 per cent. is related either to the cost of living or to some reasonable yardstick. I am sure the Minister will recognise my tone. My tone is inquiring and probing--not condemnatory. Sadly, people suffer these terrible injuries in the main accidentally, through no fault of
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I appreciate greatly what the noble Lord the Opposition Chief Whip has said and the manner in which he said it. He spoke with feeling on these matters, and quite rightly too. He also asked some pertinent questions.
First, he asked what was the yardstick by which the sum increased per year. The answer is that it is the retail prices index. That has been the system by which the sums have increased since the scheme first started, and that is the yardstick by which they have increased this year.
The noble Lord wondered whether there had latterly been an increase in applications. I wondered that too when I was preparing myself for this debate. I was surprised to find that there had been an increase. I thought that this kind of disease was something which people contracted some years ago and therefore would be on the decline. The fact is that most of these cases were contracted some years ago but the lead time being 20 to 40 years means that there are more applications now than there were before.
The increase in the number of claims received was indicative of the increasing incidence of asbestos-related disease. But it also points to a greater awareness of the disease. In 1995-96, there were 917 applications. Of those, 363 claims were paid at a cost of almost £4.1 million.
There is a problem about the awareness of the scheme to which the noble Lord the Opposition Chief Whip quite rightly drew attention. The problem is that claimants can be very heavily penalised financially if they are not aware of the scheme. Late claims are accepted but the amounts which can be paid to dependants are very much smaller than those who claim while they are alive. That may seem to be a curious phraseology. When a person is alive he can claim. When he is dead, of course, he cannot claim but his next of kin can claim. But when she--the wife or other--claims, they are entitled to a much smaller amount of money. It can be unfair for new cases, particularly in mesothelioma cases where death usually occurs within a year of diagnosis. That can have a harsh effect on families. But the Act allows no discretion to pay dependants at the higher sufferers' rates. Ex gratia payments have been agreed only where there has been clear evidence of misdirection of officials.
So publicity about this is quite important. I do not think that as many people know about this as might do. Very often, of course, they do not know about it because they have had no reason to know about it--they may not have realised that they had been so affected.
The noble Lord asked whether there is a section in the Department of the Environment which is responsible for publicising the scheme. The answer is that there is. That is the responsibility of the Health and Safety Finance and Operations Branch in the Department of
There have been 8,729 people who have claimed. As the noble Lord said, 70 per cent. of those have been successful. The reason for increased numbers was the considerable lead time. One hopes that the experiences of people in the 1960s and 1970s, and possibly the 1950s, will not be replicated by those who live today because the conditions are different.
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page