| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. MacShane: Let me finish this point; then I will give way.
The charter has a reference to the right to strike in it, but it is limited by national laws and traditions, and that was not put in—this is the point that I have had to make again and again to friends in the TUC, and I wish that my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North , with his trade union connections, would make it as well. It was Germany that insisted on that because the German constitution bans the right to strike for 2 million or 3 million public sector workers. We are not proposing that, I think, in our country, but it is the same reasoning about the single seat, on which—
Mr. MacShane: I said that I would give way to the hon. Gentleman.
The Minister, in an intervention, made a reference to something called Kompetens-Kompetens, which I have pursued for a couple of years now. Does he agree that in fact in Germany, the issue of Kompetens-Kompetens is an extremely important matter, and furthermore, that the adoption of the principles that he has put forward would suggest that the German people would not accept the rulings of the European Court of Justice if they interfered with the German constitution?
Mr. MacShane: Yes, but the German Government and the main German parties are supporting this constitutional treaty, although of course there are debates. The primacy of the ECJ was established in British law in 1972; it is there in the original treaties. If we want a single market and a common rule book, we need an arbitrator, and that is a good argument for lawyers. I have dozens of quotes here; I can quote them if hon. Members like. The chief judge of the European Court of Justice, Mr. Skouris, said:
"I do not believe that the integration of the Charter into the Treaty will alter the allocation of powers between the EU and the Member States".
The Opposition Front-Bench team can produce their own lawyers who say something different.
9 Sept 2004 : Column 953
[Interruption.] No, the right hon. and learned Member for Devizes quoted Mr. Skouris once, in an intervention that he made before all the explanations were written into the treaty, before it got quite technical. This is one of the difficulties—the moment we get technical, the Tory party tends to go away because it has very few arguments.
May I reply to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell)? The Baltic states are now a very important part of the network of 25 states, with special insights on Russia. As he rightly said, there are problems in at least two of them about Russian minorities, but equally they have to respect the collective views of existing EU member states prior to enlargement about tolerance and about treating Russia as a serious partner, with very serious internal problems. That is a completely different issue, but I welcomed their input and, equally, I welcomed the fact that they have to listen to the perspectives of other countries that have a long relationship with Russia as well.
Mr. Dalyell: I thank my hon. Friend.
Mr. MacShane: I completely agree with the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) that we have failed to take the people with us, but may I gently say to him that it does not help for the leader of his party to tell the "Today" programme on 9 June that, under the proposed treaty, Tony Blair would not be at the G8 meeting as Prime Minister because we would have given up our seats on the G8 and the Security Council of the United Nations? That is completely untrue. Only the most profound Eurosceptic in France or anywhere else talks such complete and utter gibberish.
Mr. MacShane: Last year, the right hon. and learned Member for Devizes told us that the new treaty
"for the first time explicitly enshrines the primacy of EU law."—[Official Report, 16 September 2003; Vol. 410, c. 779.]
That is not true. Will he tell that to his constituents? [Interruption.] The quote is from Hansard.
Finally we come to this point. We shall have votes before this referendum. We shall have votes in Parliament on the treaty as we debate it in a Bill to be put before the House later this year. We shall have a vote next year in a general election. Those of us who oppose isolationism will win. Those of us who want us to be in a Britain leading a reform process will win. Those of us who believe that the old treaties and the old constitution are deeply flawed and this new constitution helps Britain and helps Europe will win. I invite all hon. Members, when those votes come, to support those who support Britain, defeat isolationism and speak up for Britain in Europe.
It being Six o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
9 Sept 2004 : Column 954
PETITIONS
Endometriosis SHE Trust
6 pm
Miss Anne Begg (Aberdeen, South) (Lab): As chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on endometriosis, I beg leave to present the petition from the Endometriosis SHE Trust (UK). The SHE Trust has collected more than 2,000 signatures from people asking that the Government review their policy on the care and treatment of endometriosis suffers and give the condition a higher priority for funding. Endometriosis is a chronic cyclical condition suffered by 2 million women in the UK. This devastating condition is often not diagnosed or misdiagnosed, leaving many women suffering excruciating pain.
To the House of Commons,
The Petition of the Endometriosis SHE Trust (UK), formerly known as the SHE Trust,
Declares that endometriosis is the only long-term chronic cyclical condition suffered by women and that this devastating disease should receive higher priority for funding and treatment.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Secretary of State for Health to review the Government's policy on the care and treatment of endometriosis sufferers.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
To lie upon the Table.
Ryan Franklin
6.1 pm
Mr. Robert Walter (North Dorset) (Con): Baby Ryan Franklin died at the hands of his father in May 2002, aged two. His body lay in a mortuary for a further 18 months, awaiting a second post mortem, which never took place—until a trial resulted in his father, Lee Khair, being convicted of his manslaughter. The child's mother, my constituent, Cathy Franklin, of Blandford, was outraged that she could not lay her baby to rest and has collected a petition, with 1,000 signatures, demanding a change in the law, as well as many hundreds of e-mails.
To the House of Commons,
The Petition of Cathy Franklin and others,
Declares that after the death of Ryan John Franklin his family was unable to bury him for nearly two years while time was made available for two post mortems to be carried out, and that the delay to his burial was the cause of great suffering.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons pass legislation to make provision for post mortem arrangements in cases of violent death; and to limit to three months the time allowed for a second post mortem to be carried out before the body is released for burial.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
To lie upon the Table.
9 Sept 2004 : Column 953
9 Sept 2004 : Column 955
Miners' Compensation
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Joan Ryan.]
6.3 pm
Jeff Ennis (Barnsley, East and Mexborough) (Lab): I am delighted to have the opportunity to sponsor today's extremely important Adjournment debate. I thank hon. Members, especially my hon. Friends, for being in the House at this late hour to give me their support.
I suppose that I ought to begin by declaring my personal interest in this matter: both my grandfathers were former miners who unfortunately passed away suffering from lung-related mining diseases. I guess that anyone who was brought up like me in a mining village, such as Grimethorpe, would probably have to declare a similar interest.
Whenever I speak in the House on either of the two mineworkers' compensation schemes, I always begin, and rightly so, by congratulating the Government on having the courage of their convictions to implement what, after all, are the biggest industrial compensation schemes of their type in the world. Money is flowing into the pockets of former miners and their families in mining communities, and it is making a big difference.
Indeed, in my constituency, if we look specifically at the Department of Trade and Industry statistics for chronic bronchitis and emphysema up to the end of June 2004, we see that more than 6,200 claims were submitted from ex-miners still alive and more than 6,200 claims from deceased miners' families, totalling almost 12,500 claims. I think that those figures reflect the current national statistics for CBE claims, because roughly 50 per cent. come from miners who are still alive, with 50 per cent. from deceased miners' families.
Of the 12,500 claims submitted in Barnsley, East and Mexborough, there have been 3,942 full and final settlements and 2,137 interim payments, with 1,091 full and final offers outstanding. A total of more than £34.5 million has already been paid out for just CBE, which is excellent news for my constituency.
We start from the premise of a good news story for mining communities as far as the Government are concerned. Six years after both schemes were agreed, they have paid out more than £2 billion. Many ex-miners and their families have received compensation and they were satisfied with the outcome in many cases. However, there is no doubt that there are enormous difficulties with delivering such gigantic schemes, so it is not surprising that problems have arisen.
In my contribution to this important debate, I shall focus almost exclusively on putting forward the case for a minimum payment to settle CBE claims, as I did in my early-day motion, ominously numbered 666, which was tabled on 24 February 2004 and said:
"That this House notes with sadness that solicitors dealing with Miners Compensation Scheme cases for chronic bronchitis and emphysema (CBE) are currently receiving an average fee of £2,143 per case whilst at the same time almost half the former miners so far compensated have received final settlements of less than that amount, and that over 3,100 former miners have received less than £200; and calls upon the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to undertake an urgent review to consider implementing a minimum compensation payment to former miners suffering from CBE of £1,500."
I am pleased that more than 70 hon. Members from across all political parties have so far signed the early-day motion.
The main reason why I am putting forward the principle of a minimum compensation payment is primarily that it makes common sense and would drastically speed up the current process, which can be time consuming and wasteful. Of about 610,000 claims registered at the Department of Trade and Industry, only between 130,000 and 140,000 have been settled in the six years since the scheme began. That means that almost 500,000 claims are still in the system, yet only about 5,000 claims are settled each month. That implies that it could take a further nine or 10 years to settle all the claims.
Approximately two thirds of the offers that have so far been accepted were for less than £5,000. Information that I retrieved from the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Nigel Griffiths), in January 2004 allows us to examine that statistic more closely. Many of the settlements were for less than £1,000. As the figures go back to January, they will have increased by this month, but at that time, 21,418 miners had received less than £1,000 as a full and final settlement. Some 9,475 miners had received less than £500 and 3,413 had received less than £200. When all the claims have been finally dealt with, low-value settlements could represent a significant proportion of the total, which raises an important question.
How can an ex-miner whose health has been damaged as a result of working in the coal industry be offered less than £200, no matter what the other contributory factors are? The Department of Trade and Industry itself knows that there is a problem with turning offers into settlements, as it is repeatedly raised in its six-monthly reports to court. At the end of 2003, there were 23,133 outstanding offers, of which nearly 4,000 had been with solicitors for more than a year. As I have already said, there are more than 1,000 outstanding claims in my constituency alone.
The huge influx of claims immediately before the 31 March 2004 deadline reinforces the argument that every effort should be made to turn offers into settlements and free up valuable resources. How many outstanding offers will there be this time next year or the year after? When low offers or settlements are made, the main consideration is often what proportion of the respiratory disease is the fault of the employer—in this case, British Coal—and how much is due to other factors such as smoking, which the Under-Secretary of State will know is one of the biggest considerations. The DTI believes that the calculations are fair and accurate, and entirely in keeping with the handling agreement. However, claimants and solicitors rightly argue that derisory offers do not reflect the levels usually agreed in similar common law cases.
The felony is compounded by the fact that for every CBE claim that a solicitor takes on he receives in excess of £2,100 in fees, even for cases such as three outlined in "Miners' Health Compensation", an excellent document published by the Coalfield Community Campaign in June 2004. Those cases highlight the problem facing the Government. For example, in the first case, an ex-miner with 13 years' experience of the coal industry in Derbyshire was found to have chronic
9 Sept 2004 : Column 957
bronchitis. His unapportioned award was assessed at £5,304, but using the handling agreement calculator, the recoverable proportion, after taking his smoking into account, was just 0.31 per cent. of the total, resulting in an offer of £17.64. I remind the House that, on average, the solicitor receives £2,100.
Secondly, the widow of an ex-miner with 35 years' experience in the industry was offered just £77.76 because of her husband's history of smoking. Finally, an ex-miner who worked in Seaham colliery in County Durham for more than 50 years died at the age of 78. He was a non-smoker, but because most of his service was completed before 1954, his widow was offered £146.50, even though he worked down the pit for 50 years. That case highlights two main causes for concern about the scheme. Many families find it difficult to understand why it only covers employment after 1954. An added complication is that in Scotland it covers employment from 4 June 1949, while in England and Wales it only covers employment from 4 June 1954, which many former miners and their families cannot understand.
The three cases that I have quoted underline how derisory the offers are, compared with some of the awards made through the courts under common law, where injuries are often far less serious but result in much higher compensation levels. It was never the intention that the handling agreement should result in payments lower than in a normal court of law. A minimum payment would restore fairness and clear the system of stalled claims.
Regardless of the mechanical nature of the handling agreement calculations, compensation must be seen to be fair. Damage to the lungs, according to organisations such as the British Lung Foundation, is a serious matter, and if British Coal is proved to be in any way responsible, very small amounts of compensation will not be seen as acceptable. A sensible approach would be to make a minimum offer of £1,500 to claimants who are unlikely, on the basis of medicals and other evidence submitted, to be entitled to any more compensation after years of costly administration.
I am aware that the British Coal Respiratory Disease Litigation Solicitors Group—the group of solicitors acting on behalf of the miners—has been in discussions with the Department of Trade and Industry about a minimum settlement based on a top-up from a proportion of the solicitors' fees, which are enhanced every year by inflation. I am also informed that some solicitors are offering top-ups from their fees to help settle cases more quickly. I hope that in his response to my contribution, the Minister will enlarge on that. In principle I am not against the solicitors helping, but the Government should initiate a universal agreement so that everyone is treated equally. The system is weighed down by the huge influx of claims submitted before the March deadline, and something must be done. If one of the justifications for a minimum payment is to reduce transaction costs and lift the burden on resources, both the Government and their contractors, and the solicitors, stand to benefit and both should therefore help to cover the costs.
9 Sept 2004 : Column 958
It is recognised that there may be difficulties in introducing a minimum payment at this stage, with so many claims already settled. An ex gratia payment from the Government would be money well spent. I know that is a difficult concept to consider, but I ask the Minister to carefully consider implementing it. The issue is one of social justice, and the Government have always believed in promoting policies that support the principle of social justice.
There is a moral and practical case for a minimum payment of £1,500 for all ex-miners who have suffered from chronic bronchitis and emphysema as a result of working in the coal industry. I urge the Minister to give that his urgent consideration.
6.17 pm
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |