Jim Murphy (Minister of State (Work), Department for Work and Pensions; Renfrewshire East, Labour)

I beg to move amendment No. 110, in schedule 6, page 77, line 19, at end insert—

‘1A A person is not a relevant employer in relation to a person disabled by a disease to which this Act applies if the disabled person has had no period of employment with him which is a qualifying period of employment.’.

Again, we have come to this amendment a little earlier than I anticipated, but I and my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, East, are as one in our delight that we are making such good progress.

The Pneumonoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) Act 1979 provides for lump-sum payments to be made to people with certain dust-related diseased caused by their work. To qualify for a payment, a person must be unable to take civil action against their employer because that employer is no longer in business. In the Act, that is called the “relevant employer condition.” It became clear within months of the Act coming into force that applying the relevant employer condition meant that most claims would be rejected. The changes that we are making to the 1979 Act will incorporate in legislation a more practical version of the relevant employer condition than officials have been applying since 1980. There will be five circumstances in which an employer will not be regarded as a relevant employer, therefore enabling a person to bring a claim. Without the amendment, those relevant employer disregards that we wish to introduce will not apply in cases in which all periods of employment with the employer ended more than 20 years before the qualifying date.

Alison Seabeck (PPS (Rt Hon Geoff Hoon, Minister of State), Foreign & Commonwealth Office; Plymouth, Devonport, Labour)

Plymouth ranks third in the UK in terms of deaths from mesothelioma, and we believe that the amendment is useful. The dockyard is a single employer, but there was also a myriad of other employers, some of which have gone out of business as the dockyard has declined. This change is very important.

Jim Murphy (Minister of State (Work), Department for Work and Pensions; Renfrewshire East, Labour)

My hon. Friend is correct, and we know about Plymouth’s traditional role in the shipbuilding industry. Although I do not recall it, I lived in Plymouth much earlier in my life, because my father worked in the shipyards. I believe that it is the  furthest city in the UK from Glasgow—which is an interesting and relevant point. Things got so bad that we had to find the furthest point from home.

My hon. Friend, along with many other right hon. and hon. Friends in the Government, is determined to ensure that there is a fairer deal for mesothelioma sufferers. The time that it takes to apply for, process and receive a payment is still, on average, longer than the post-diagnosis life expectancy for mesothelioma sufferers. No one can tolerate that as the status quo. Certainly we in government do not, and I do not think that it is a matter of party political disagreement.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) for the points that he has raised and the dogged determination that he has shown as chair of the all-party group on coalfield communities and that the other members of that group have shown. Technically, it is an all-party group, but I think that all those I met who represent mining communities were Labour Members of Parliament. However, there is consensus that we must go further in supporting people with mesothelioma to get a fairer deal.

In mesothelioma cases, when all employment with the employer began not more than 15 years before the qualifying date, claims for payments of compensation under the 1979 Act might be turned down in some cases in which an extra-statutory payment is currently made. That is not acceptable to the Government, and I do not believe that it would be acceptable to any member of this Committee.

Let me pick up on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions announced in July this year a number of interim measures to ensure faster compensation for those with mesothelioma, as well as his intention to put in place a long-term solution to ensure that, wherever possible, sufferers of mesothelioma receive compensation while alive. He committed to consulting stakeholders on a long-term solution, and the formal consultation period ended on 23 November. We are analysing the responses and next March we will host a mesothelioma summit with stakeholders to discuss the options for action. We have also asked officials to carry out a review of the current industrial injuries disablement benefit scheme, and intend to publish a consultation paper early in 2007.

Finally, I want to make a wider point on the amendment. I have paid tribute previously to the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mrs. McGuire), and I am a close friend of someone who was a colleague of ours, the former Member of Parliament for Clydebank and Milngavie. He played a pivotal role in previous Parliaments on the issue of mesothelioma, and again it is appropriate for me to put on record his determination and the way in which he kept this issue at the forefront of people’s minds in Parliament. Often in Parliament, we think that history began when we arrived in this place. Sometimes we all suffer from that. As I said, we have announced a review of the industrial  injuries disablement benefit scheme, and of course there are related issues involving mesothelioma and other matters.

I also want to put on record the continuing admiration of Labour Members for a gentleman by the name of Jim Griffiths, who introduced the first industrial injuries disablement benefit. I think that he was from Carmarthen in Wales.

Wayne David (Caerphilly, Labour)

Llanelli.

Jim Murphy (Minister of State (Work), Department for Work and Pensions; Renfrewshire East, Labour)

Yes. Jim Griffiths spoke no English until the age of five and went on to serve as the first Secretary of State for Wales. It is no longer fashionable to celebrate post-war political leaders, but Labour Members pay tribute to the work that he did and we continue.

Jeremy Hunt (Shadow Minister (the Disabled), Work & Pensions; South West Surrey, Conservative)

Mrs. Thatcher.

Jim Murphy (Minister of State (Work), Department for Work and Pensions; Renfrewshire East, Labour)

That is the point I was making—it is no longer fashionable to celebrate them, unless Polly Toynbee has become a post-war political leader.

Jim Griffiths was Minister of National Insurance in Attlee’s Government. Today, workers throughout the country are still benefiting in a very important way from his determination. It is appropriate, on the 60th anniversary of the industrial injuries disablement benefit, that we ensure that that legacy is kept contemporary by acknowledging the changing nature of industrial injury. I am referring to differences to do with gender, the changing of industry and the effect that that has had on industrial injuries.

Wayne David (Caerphilly, Labour)

May I acknowledge how warmly the Minister’s comments are received, certainly by Labour Members? He aptly referred to Jim Griffiths, the MP for Llanelli and a miners’ leader before the second world war, who experienced first hand the impact of industrial disease on the community of which he was part. It is apt and fitting that the Minister should have referred to him in the way that he did. If it is introduced, this Bill will be a continuation of the ethos to which pioneers of the labour movement such as Jim Griffiths aspired. We warmly welcome the Minister’s comments.

Jim Murphy (Minister of State (Work), Department for Work and Pensions; Renfrewshire East, Labour)

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. Perhaps more poignantly, Jim went on to be the deputy leader of the Labour party. I do not think that anyone in the Committee is currently seeking that post, but there is poignancy there—and a lesson, because Jim ended up being deputy leader in opposition, a sober reminder for us all.

Given all those wider comments, and the additional tribute that my hon. Friend quite fairly paid, I ask the Committee to support the amendment.