Danny Alexander (Shadow Minister and Disability Spokesperson, Work & Pensions; Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch & Strathspey, Liberal Democrat)

I want not to tour through Labour party history, but to join the cross-party consensus on the importance of this clause, and the previous clause and schedule, to the righting of an injustice—in the system for a substantial period—against those unfortunate enough to be victims of mesothelioma.

I should be grateful if the Minister could clarify whether the clause will deal with something of particular concern to those campaigning on this issue. I wish to add to the Minister’s list the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Paul Rowen), many of whose constituents suffer from mesothelioma. I hope that the implications of this clause are that compensation for the condition will be payable not only to the workers who were exposed to the particles that cause the horrendous disease, but to their wives, partners, civil partners and so forth, who may, for example, have taken in the particles while washing clothes or doing other household tasks.

Will the Minister clarify whether the coverage for partners, spouses and so forth will be on the same basis as that for the workers themselves? What would happen if a worker had already passed away, but their partner or spouse were suffering from the condition, which could be attributable to their late husband, wife or partner in respect of employment as defined under schedule 6?

With those few remarks and in a spirit of welcoming what the Government seek to do, I should be grateful if the Minister answered those brief points.

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

The hon. Gentleman fairly draws the Committee’s attention to the work undertaken by the hon. Member for Rochdale on this issue, along with many others in that part of the country.

Untypically, the hon. Gentleman has not fully grasped the specific detail of what we are seeking to do, although not for any unreasonable purpose—he is not seeking to misconstrue the clause. I shall make a couple of comments about his request.

Clause 58 amends the Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) Act 1979, to which I have already referred, so that civil partners, children of civil partners, a person who is living with a sufferer as if they were a civil partner and a person who is living with a sufferer as if they were husband and wife are included within the meaning of “dependant”. The clause makes the 1979 Act compatible with the Civil Partnerships Act 2004, which came into force in December 2005, and was largely unforeseen when the 1979 Act was passed. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley, from a sedentary position, celebrates the passing of the Civil Partnerships Act.

David Ruffley (Shadow Minister, Work & Pensions; Bury St Edmunds, Conservative)

Don’t we all.

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

We all do, as I was about to say.

This important proposal corrects an anomaly in the 1979 Act in which provision for Scottish reputed spouses—a man and a woman living together as husband and wife—was omitted in error. If these changes are not made, there is a risk of challenge to the 1979 Act because of discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation. Whether there is such a challenge or not, the Government wish to bring the Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers' Compensation) Act up to date to fit in with the wider civil rights and equality legislation that came into force last year.

The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey mentioned the work of his hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale, who works closely with my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Jim Dobbin). They are parliamentary neighbours and both work hard on this issue.

The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey mentioned the case of someone who contracts mesothelioma from a particle from a piece of clothing in a household environment. For example, a wife—it is almost always a wife, but I am not trying to make a gender-specific point—may have contracted the disease by inhaling a particle from clothing as she washed it or hang it out to dry. Clause 58 does not capture that but we are looking at the issue in the context of a wider review of how we treat mesothelioma generally, although that is not the purpose of the clause. However, it is part of the considerations at the mesothelioma summit and the work being carried out by the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council. The clause does not, in itself, give legal effect in respect of the specific concerns that the hon. Gentleman raised.

Kali Mountford (PPS (Rt Hon Des Browne, Secretary of State), Ministry of Defence; Colne Valley, Labour)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. I referred to exactly the issues that he raises in my maiden speech, and we have moved on some distance since then. Sadly, we have now lost the constituents to whom I referred then and still time moves on. He acknowledged how speedy we must be in resolving these matters, but I hope that he also realises that people need resolution now. I accept what he says about the March time scale, but the matter must be settled before more people are lost.

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

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, which is why the Secretary of State announced interim measures in July and a longer-term review, the consultation on which closed a week ago. Last week, with my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone, I met the entirely reputable and determined solicitors Thompsons, who made similar points. I acknowledge that even the time scale of March next year does not meet our collective impatience for an immediate resolution of the issue, but we are determined to get it right, for all our constituents who have lived with the disease or who, unbeknown to them, have the disease gestating within them.

Danny Alexander (Shadow Minister and Disability Spokesperson, Work & Pensions; Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch & Strathspey, Liberal Democrat)

I echo from the Opposition Benches the point made by the hon. Member for Colne Valley. It is critical that the matter is dealt with as quickly as possible. Will the Minister give us any indication of the time scales? Does he envisage  legislation going through this Session in which it will be appropriate to include additional powers that are needed to address the point that he raises? In that way, the legislation can be got through this Session and we will not need another Queen’s Speech before moving the matter forward in the way referred to by the hon. Lady.

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

We are determined to find a speedy remedy to this issue in any way possible. That is why we amended the Compensation Bill in the light of the Barker case, to right what we thought was a wrong judgment. We cannot pre-empt—the hon. Gentleman will accept that this is a fair comment—the outcome of the consultation that we have had from July to November, but if the outcome is that legislation would be needed, we will try to implement that speedily. There are, however, other things that we can do with the insurance industry and others to see whether a voluntary code would work.

My final point is that sufferers and relatives of those who have died from mesothelioma and related illnesses are right to be utterly impatient. At some point, they would lose faith in a voluntary code and a set of voluntary operations if we did not make such provisions work, so we are determined to make them work. Those comments are not intended to pre-empt in any way the outcome of the consultation and the deliberations ahead of the summit next March.