---

6.4 pm

Dr. Godman: I promise to be exceedingly brief. I am immensely relieved that the Bill is going through, when there are just a few days left in this Parliament. My constituents will be relieved that it is to receive Royal Assent. I have reservations about it, but I shall not voice them now, because I expressed them when speaking to my amendments this afternoon, as well as on Second Reading and in Standing Committee. There are still problems. I am still bothered about delays in appeals. The Minister kindly responded to my concerns.

The Minister said that this is the third stage. The schemes have a remarkable history in our parliamentary democracy, largely because of the lobbying from a number of pressure groups, particularly Clydeside Action on Asbestos. The Select Committee agreed to investigate the modus operandi of the compensation recovery unit. It came up with a first-class report, and now we have the Bill. I have reservations about the Bill, but it demonstrates what can be done when there is good will on both sides of the House. Such good will has been noticeable by its absence during my years here. I give a qualified welcome to the Bill, which will give some relief to many of my constituents and thousands of others in Scotland and elsewhere in the United Kingdom.

6.7 pm

Ms Liz Lynne (Rochdale): I shall not detain the House. I welcome the fact that the Bill will receive Royal Assent before the general election campaign proper. I am delighted that some of my constituents and people across the country will benefit from it. I have always felt it wrong that any amount over £2,500 was clawed back by the Treasury from injured people in receipt of state benefits. The Bill will be to the advantage of those who have been injured, the taxpayer and the Treasury.

18 Mar 1997 : Column 763

The Bill is long overdue. Let us hope that it helps the injury victims whom it is designed to help. As I said on Second Reading, I am worried about clause 8 and would have liked some changes to it, but the Minister is well aware of my reservations on that, and I welcome the Bill.

6.8 pm

Mr. Clapham: I, too, welcome the Bill, but I would not like the House to run away with the idea that there will not still be substantial deductions. On Second Reading, I put some figures to the Minister that were not as clear as they should have been. He suggested that I should clarify the matter. I ask him to consider the case of someone in his 40s with a multiplier of eight years and earnings of £10,000, giving a loss of earnings of £80,000. In addition, he would have his amount for pain and suffering. Such a serious case would be likely to have to wait some time for the medical evidence to be resolved. The five years deduction of benefit could well exceed five years of loss of earnings and may move towards wiping out most of the person's loss of earnings. I gave the Minister an example of a case in which the deduction for loss of earnings was £50,000.

Mr. Roger Evans: I need more facts to be able to answer the hon. Gentleman's point. Surely the point is that, if the deductions will exceed such a sum, it is likely that there will be serious disability benefits of an expensive nature paid on top of loss of earnings benefits. There is a combination of those two benefits. If disability benefits are being paid, there will be a claim at law for damages for those costs as well.

Mr. Clapham: I take the Minister's point. We are talking, however, about a man or woman having to wait a considerable time for the medical condition to reach stability. During that time, benefits continue to mount, and the result can be substantial deductions, leaving a man or woman with a payment for pain and suffering on which they will have to live. Under the present regime, they would have to continue to draw on that benefit for their livelihood until the amount dropped below £8,000.

18 Mar 1997 : Column 764

Although I welcome the Bill, I have grave concerns about it. I hope that, after it has been enacted, we may be able to return to it and deal with some of those concerns.

6.10 pm

Mr. Nick Hawkins (Blackpool, South): I welcome the opportunity to make a brief contribution to the debate, because, like Opposition Members who have spoken, I have taken an interest in this matter based on my work over a number of years in practice at the Bar. As my hon. Friend the Minister knows, I used to do quite a lot of personal injury work. It is of concern to all of us who have worked in that field that there is an anomaly, which the Bill happily corrects after many years, as my hon. Friend the Minister explained.

Will my hon. Friend and his officials bear in mind the fact that there will still be some problem cases? I ask my hon. Friend to confirm that he and his officials are prepared to respond on specific cases where there have been problems. He and his officials will be aware that I have a constituent, Mr. Mullender, who had a great deal of difficulty in dealing with officials at a low level in the Benefits Agency. I hope that, if I write to my hon. Friend with some further details, he will be able to respond.

Mr. Roger Evans: I am, of course, happy to respond to any request.

Mr. Hawkins: The Bill achieves the objects that my hon. Friend the Minister set out. There have, however, been a number of concerns to which, in my role as deputy chairman of the all-party group on insurance and financial services, I would like to draw attention.

The results of the consultation exercise from organisations such as the Association of British Insurers and the Law Society are extremely important. I hope that my hon. Friend will continue to look at them carefully as this welcome Bill becomes an Act.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

18 Mar 1997 : Column 765

Business of the House

6.12 pm

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the business to be taken tomorrow.

The business will be as follows:

Wednesday 19 March--Until 2 pm, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.

Remaining stages of the Police Bill [Lords].

Committee and remaining stages of the Police and Firemen's Pensions Bill.

Consideration of Lords amendments to the Protection from Harassment Bill.

Motion relating to the Northern Ireland Grand Committee.

Motion on the Northern Ireland (Entry to Negotiations etc) Act 1996 (Cessation of Section 3) Order.

Motion on the Northern Ireland (Emergency and Prevention of Terrorism Provisions) (Continuance) Order.

Motion on the Public Order (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order.

Motion on ministerial accountability.

At 10 pm, the question will be put on all outstanding estimates.

Proceedings on the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill.

Remaining stages of the Police (Insurance of Voluntary Assistants) Bill [Lords].

Remaining stages of the Dangerous Dogs (Amendment) Bill [Lords].

The House may also be asked to consider any Lords amendments which may be received.

As all hon. Members can attend, I should remind them that on Wednesday 19 March, there will be a debate on structural funds and cohesion policy in European Standing Committee B. Details of the relevant documents will be given in the Official Report.

I expect to make a further statement tomorrow about business on Thursday.

The House will also wish to know that Prorogation is intended to be at 11 am on Friday 21 March.

[Wednesday 19 March 1997: European Standing Committee B--Relevant European Community Documents: 11382/96, Structural Funds; 12614/96, Cohesion Policy. Relevant European Legislation Committee Report HC 36-xi (1996-97).]

Mrs. Ann Taylor (Dewsbury): I thank the Leader of the House, but I believe that there will be some disappointment that he has made such a limited statement, and that we do not yet have the business for Thursday.

On a minor point, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the private Members' Bills to which he has referred will be taken in the normal way at this stage and that what is being proposed is not that Government time be given for such Bills, but that the House simply be given an opportunity to accept or reject Bills that have reached the appropriate stage?

18 Mar 1997 : Column 766

Many hon. Members will feel that the programme over the next two days is not very balanced, because so much business is to be completed tomorrow. Will the Leader of the House confirm that the only three items outstanding from those that he has announced today are the Crime (Sentences) Bill, which is in another place today, the Crime and Punishment (Scotland) Bill and the Education Bill, all of which may be subject to Lords amendments?

If there is no further clarity today on those issues, hon. Members will be placed in a difficult position. Some may wish to participate in debates on those issues, and there may be votes. It will be difficult for Members to plan and to ensure that they are present in the House if they do not get the longest possible notice. We all accept that this is a difficult situation, but I believe that hon. Members have the right to as much warning as possible. I hope that the Leader of the House will accept that we have been co-operative, but that there may have to be votes on some items of outstanding business.

On a different note, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) is particularly pleased that co-operation has extended to the Government dropping clauses 1 to 19 of the Education Bill. That will allow us to make progress.

---