| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
5.7 pm
Mr. Eric Clarke (Midlothian): Coming from a background of industry, especially the mining industry, as you do, Mr. Deputy Speaker--I spent 26 years underground--I do not consider people concerned with the Bill to be numbers. They are colleagues, friends, and even relations. Many have passed away. When such people come to my surgeries, the disgust and anger expressed--especially by friends and loved ones--about the clawback makes me very angry, too.
The effects of an industrial disease or injury, especially of pneumoconiosis, asbestosis and mesothelioma, on the victim and his family are astronomical. The loss of income as a result of injury in employment immediately affects not only the person but his family. The disabling effect on the individual is traumatic. Even an individual's character alters--sometimes not for the better--because he or she can no longer attend to many of the things that used to be done normally, such as pouring a cup of tea or going to the toilet.
Mental anxiety and guilt are felt when the victims blame themselves for their predicament. We cannot compensate those people or their families for the sadness caused. It is said that to give one's life for one's friend is the greatest sacrifice. To give one's life and health for industry is, in my opinion, never compensated for properly and never can be. However, as a society, we must make life tolerable for victims and compensate them financially at least.
My hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) mentioned the difficulty of claiming compensation. An ill person faces the ordeal of clinical examinations and cross-examination in court--in other words, humiliation from start to finish. If, because of delays, all the
settlement is recovered by the Government, why bother? People ask me why they should go through the traumatic experience of appearing in court and being criticised and humiliated. As the Secretary of State admitted, if the settlement does not exceed the clawback amount, the taxpayer has to foot the bill, and the firm that is liable can walk away scot free. The limit of £2,500 has caused people to give up on their genuine claims, because they fear losing even that pittance. It is a pittance in comparison with a life.
There are exemptions to the £2,500 limit. The National Coal Board--later British Coal--had a pneumoconiosis scheme, which was exempt. The hearing loss agreement, the criminal justice compensation scheme and many others do not have the compensation awarded clawed back. Exemption has been sought for asbestos cases, especially mesothelioma. If the Bill comes into force with immediate effect, and the retrospectivity provisions are retained, asbestos cases may be more proactively pursued by the persons responsible for causing the diseases and their insurers, but that will not help mesothelioma sufferers.
Mesothelioma is a category of asbestos damage that is readily diagnosed and cannot be confused with other conditions. The mean time of survival is 44 weeks from the date of diagnosis, and earlier diagnosis is extremely difficult. It therefore has a clearly defined period from diagnosis to death. It is a virulent form of asbestos disease that causes the person to become grossly disabled and bedridden in a short time. It is also notoriously painful, needing substantial administration of pain-killing drugs, including morphine. Against that background, cases have to be progressed with all the difficulties referred to in the Social Security Committee report, in paragraph 54 and the quotation from the Minister.
The Government have recognised the urgency of cases of mesothelioma by dispensing with the period of 90 days for the award of industrial disablement benefit. They have therefore recognised the particular difficulties of the disease and the need for exemption. If the Government allow those responsible for such injuries to seek set-off under clause 8 or to apply for review and appeals--all of which cannot be determined within the mean time of survival--they will cause delays in progressing such cases.
Any obstacle to progressing the cases should be removed. Given the limited survival time, in some cases benefit is awarded only shortly before death, and the Government would be in the absurd and harsh situation of giving benefit and taking it away at the same time or shortly afterwards. The benefit would invariably be taken away from the widow or widower and the deceased's estate. Although the benefit might be substantial for the mesothelioma sufferer or his estate, the cost to the taxpayer would be negligible.
I hope that the provisions on retrospection will be taken into account. The Bill fails to address an absurdity, in clause 3, that occurs in the provisions on appeals, but the problem may be dealt with through regulation. As matters stand at present, judgment may be made in favour of the injured person. If an appeal is not made on the judgment, the consequent payment is subject to compensation recovery unit recoupment. If an appeal is made, additional CRU benefit accumulates after the judgment. Appeals can also take some time--in many cases, as long as, if not longer than, the original action. I ask that benefit be clawed back only for the period up to the original judgment.
Ms Liz Lynne (Rochdale):
The Bill also has my full support: it is modest, but much needed, and it will right some serious injustices; it will also save the taxpayer money. I hope that it receives Royal Assent before the general election, because it is important to get it on the statute book. It will stop state benefit being clawed back from persons who have been injured. If people sue their employers successfully, and the compensation awarded to them is above the £2,500 limit, all the state benefits they receive after the injury is clawed back. That cruel system was introduced by the compensation recovery scheme in 1990. It was bad for victims, bad for health and safety standards and bad for the Treasury and the taxpayer.
The scheme was bad for accident victims because it gave insurers an incentive to drag out cases and put pressure on victims to settle early and for less money. The Secretary of State mentioned the Trades Union Congress, which has estimated that one in 10 compensation claims started in 1989 have still not been settled. Often, the accident victims have settled for less than £2,500 because any excess would be clawed back.
The scheme was bad for health and safety, because it reduced the level of compensation. Most employers ensure that they practise good safety regulations, but some unscrupulous employers might have felt that they did not need to maintain a safe working environment because insurers no longer had to pay out large sums.
The scheme was bad for the Treasury and the taxpayer, because victims often settled for sums below the £2,500 limit and the Treasury got nothing back. Unison gave me an example. In 1990, 40 claims were settled for £2,500; in 1993, 270 were. We can see the changes that the compensation recovery unit brought about. There was no increase in the overall number of cases, so we cannot use that as a reason for the higher figure.
The GMB said that 12 of the 487 cases in 1990 were settled for less than £2,500, but that, in 1994, 56 cases out of 496 were settled for that sum. That is a fourfold increase. A similar increase has been mentioned by other unions, and I know that unions and personal injury solicitors have written in support of the Bill to hon. Members from all parties.
The evidence has been ignored for too long. On 20 March 1995, in answer to a parliamentary question about the number of claims made for less than £2,500 since 1990, I was told that the information was not readily available. If the Government had monitored claims since the introduction of the compensation recovery unit, the injustice would have been sorted out far sooner. It is interesting to note that they did not do so, and that the figures were not available to me or to other hon. Members.
The Bill will address the issue at long last. I do not claim, any more than other hon. Members do, that the Bill is perfect. Earl Russell, my colleague in another place,
pressed for amendments, and various organisations want minor changes. None the less, those organisations are keen for the Bill to become law.
I hope that, in Committee, we shall be able to make improvements, especially by way of amendments to clause 8, so that the compensator will have to provide a breakdown of the gross compensation under the three categories in schedule 2. It would then be easier for victims to assess the offer before them.
Although I want improvements, I welcome the Bill, and I believe that it must become law.
Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Port Glasgow):
I must tell the Secretary of State that it was I who cheered him earlier when he rightly and properly complimented members of Clydeside Action on Asbestos on their sustained campaign on behalf of asbestosis sufferers throughout the United Kingdom, not just those who live near the Clyde.
There is a question that I should like to ask the Under-Secretary of State who is to wind up. It was prompted by a telephone call that I received this morning from the representative of a voluntary association in Northern Ireland. The Minister will see from his copy of the Bill that the fourth paragraph of the explanatory and financial memorandum says:
5.21 pm
"The Bill extends to Great Britain. Corresponding provision may be made for Northern Ireland by Order in Council."
I always like to see the word "shall" rather than the word "may" in such cases. I should be grateful if the Minister would confirm that, when the Bill becomes law, it will be followed immediately by such an Order in Council, for the benefit of all the sufferers in Northern Ireland. The Minister is smiling, but I am sure that he agrees that that is important.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |