House of Commons Hansard Debates for 25 Feb 1997 (pt 17)

Mr. Worthington: A range of diseases are associated with asbestos, of which mesothelioma is one. If the Minister is not willing to exempt the whole range of asbestos-related diseases, will he examine the special circumstances of mesothelioma before the Committee stage--I shall not be able to serve on that Committee--and consider whether a case could be made to exclude it from the provisions?

Mr. Evans: I am happy to examine that argument. If the hon. Gentleman or any other hon. Member wishes to discuss the matter further, I shall be delighted to do so.

The hon. Member for Midlothian made one slip of the tongue, as a result of which I hope to encourage him. He referred to people dying as a result of asbestosis and to widows suffering recoupment of benefits. Fatal accident damages are excluded under the 1990 scheme for compensation recovery.

The hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms Lynne) argued--we may return to the issue in Committee--that the Bill should provide for some form of breakdown of the defendant's offer. I am reluctant to be persuaded by that argument, as parties to a personal injury action do not need to agree upon anything other than the fact that both sides are prepared to go away for X thousand pounds, with costs to be taxed if not agreed. The parties may disagree totally about liability, contributory negligence and the medical issues, but they know that they are agreed upon whatever sum proves satisfactory to both parties. Once we start going beyond the process that is already embodied in the court rules of exchanging in the process of negotiations what each party's contentions are for particular heads of damage, we are likely to promote confusion rather than a speedy settlement.

I am conscious that time is passing, so I shall deal with several specific points. The hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) gave an example, and I would be grateful if he will explain later the figures that he cited. I suggest that he is not necessarily correct in his example, as I understand it. Let us suppose that his case is the worst sort and takes a full five years to settle, resulting in a loss of earnings of £80,000. The loss of earnings benefit specified in schedule 2 can be set off against that. At common law, if the loss of earnings goes beyond the five-year period, or there is handicap in the labour market, there may be further damages for reduced earnings in the future, and Smith and Manchester damages for handicap in the labour market. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman needs to worry about that.

I shall conclude with the important question whether the legislation should be brought into effect in April.

Mr. Eric Clarke: I am concerned about the delay in the appeals procedure and the compensation recovery unit taking back money. As I have said, that process could take much longer than the original case.

Mr. Evans: I apologise to both the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman), who also raised that important point. They are right to be concerned about delays in the appeals process regarding compensation recovery. Happily, the

25 Feb 1997 : Column 194

number of appeals even under the existing scheme has proved far fewer than anticipated or feared. The Bill will simplify, and one hopes speed up, the appeals process. I shall write to both hon. Gentlemen and provide the statistics on those delays. I will be happy to examine the issue further in Committee.

Several hon. Members asked whether the measure might be introduced before October or retrospectively. I follow the argument of the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson): if the way in which it has been done since 1990 is wrong, should it not be possible to compensate those who have suffered unfair losses according to the new scheme?

However, it would be difficult to unscramble cases settled over that period when we do not know the basis of settlement. For example, we do not have the information to answer his question as to how much pain and suffering damages have been eroded in specific cases, let alone in total. There may well, of course, be a small fraction of cases, in which a judge has determined the case, where there is a definitive breakdown, but those are a few cases out of a hundred. They are the exceptions. It is just not practical or possible to unscramble them. I regret that that must be my answer.

Dr. Godman: The Under-Secretary of State speaks like a lawyer.

Mr. Evans: I am a lawyer. I have practised on personal injuries at the Bar. I have seen these tragic cases while acting for people who have suffered from them. Every hon. Member who made the point that we are talking not about statistics but about human blood is absolutely right.

This is not quite "no retrospection". When the accident occurred is immaterial. We will catch claims if they are in the pipeline. The difficulty with introducing that before October is that the regulations have to be made, and there have to be the usual consultation procedures. Perhaps the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) will offer to speed that up. I shall talk to him about that afterwards if he wishes. The second issue is the administration of the CRU. It is the Government's view that it is not practical to speed it up at this stage.

I commend the Bill to the House for a Second Reading.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

SOCIAL SECURITY (RECOVERY OF BENEFITS) BILL [LORDS] [MONEY]

Queen's recommendation having been signified--

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 50A(1)(a),

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Social Security (Recovery of Benefits) Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise--

(1) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenses of the Secretary of State incurred in consequence of the Act, and
(2) the payment into the Consolidated Fund of sums paid to the Secretary of State under the Act and estimated by him to relate to payments out of money provided by Parliament.--[Mr. Peter Ainsworth.]

Question agreed to.

25 Feb 1997 : Column 195

6.33 pm

Mr. John McFall (Dumbarton): We agree with the provisions of the Bill, and it is a welcome measure, but I would like the Minister to explain why the amendment was tabled. What is its aim? Who has he consulted? What are its implications?

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. George Kynoch): This amendment removes the privilege amendment that was inserted in another place.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 278, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedules 1 to 18 agreed to.

Bill, as amended, reported; read the Third time, and passed, with an amendment.

25 Feb 1997 : Column 196

Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) (Scotland) Bill [Lords]

Read a Second time.

6.35 pm

Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Port Glasgow): On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am sorry to take up your time and that of the House, but are you able to confirm that, during this procedure, I can ask the Minister a question relating to a clause in the Bill?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Yes, on clauses.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of bills), That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House.--[Mr. Peter Ainsworth.]

Question agreed to.

Further proceedings postponed, pursuant to Order--[20 February].