APPENDIX 4
Memorandum by the Scottish Ministerial
Monitoring Committee
1. We understand that a more comprehensive
report is to be submitted on behalf of our English Monitoring
Committee colleagues and so will confine ourselves to a relatively
brief addendum report on behalf of the Scottish Monitoring Committee.
2. The Monitoring Committees were set up
by the Minister (then Helen Liddell) at the Department of State
for Trade and Industry to oversee and report back to the Minister
on the operation of the Handling Agreements for coal health Claims
(COPD and VWF) and to make recommendations to the Minister from
time to time in regard to problem areas. Regular meetings are
held to review progress of the compensation Schemes in Scotland
(around six meetings per year) in the presence of the Monitoring
Committee members who are presently Nicky Wilson, President/Secretary
NUM (Scotland area); Rachel Squire, MP for Dunfermline West; David
Hamilton MP for Midlothian.
3. In addition to the regional Monitoring
Committee meetings, there are between three and four national
Monitoring Committee Meetings per annum which are attended by
all the representatives of the Monitoring Committees and by the
Minister himself (presently Nigel Griffiths MP), with the Department
and representatives of Capita and the claimant's group also present.
4. The role of the Scottish Monitoring Committee
is perhaps of a different nature to that of other Monitoring Committees
in England and Wales because the operation of the Handling Agreements
and negotiations between the parties are subject to oversight
by Judges in the group litigation procedure South of the Border.
There is no such procedure in Scotland. The Handling Agreements
themselves were negotiated by NUM (Scotland Area) as lead negotiators.
They are based upon the terms of the Agreements applicable South
of the Border.
5. From time to time, issues arise that
are peculiarly Scottish because of differences in the law between
the two jurisdictions. These appear to arise most frequently in
regard to the handling of posthumous claims. The Monitoring Committee
in Scotland has always encouraged a positive approach to these
issues, because we are aware that the settlement with the Department
of Trade and Industry is a negotiated Agreement and requires a
positive co-operative approach in order to ensure that the interests
of miners in Scotland are properly reflected in the agreements.
6. An initial period during which there
was a good atmosphere and spirit of co-operation has gradually
given way to a more difficult phase with the parties being those
who represent miners interest on the one hand, and the Department
at the other, increasingly at loggerheads over issues such as
the proper amount to be paid for a Loss of Society (bereavement)
claim and the treatment of cases in which the miner died before
16 July 1992. There is evidence that the handling of these issues
by the Department has been less open in recent months than it
would have been previously; our recommendations in regard to the
means of resolving these problems have not been followed.
7. This is a matter of regret and calls
into question the role that we have as Monitoring bodies and advisers
to the Minister. Our function is not to "rubber stamp"
the process. In order to have a positive role it is necessary
that we are in receipt of all relevant paperwork and offered invitations
to all relevant meetings at which important points of principle
and issues are likely to be discussed with the Minister. Whilst
we do not say that the Minister should follow all of our recommendations
in every case it seems to us that recommendations made should
be considered by the Minister and if he disagrees with them then
he should meet with us and be able to account for his views and
also take account of the views that are expressed to him by Monitoring
Committee personnel. This has not happened and increasingly, Monitoring
Committees are not kept properly informed and so are not able
to advise the Minister as they should. Indeed even when advice
is given as in the episode relating to the attempt to introduce
a compulsory Fast Track Procedure in the Autumn of 2004, it is
not heeded and so it required a special meeting at which a number
of different coalfield interests were represented to persuade
the Minister to a different view.
8. Overall, it can be seen that the difficulties
in dealing with a large volume of claims and addressing the need
to conclude those claims fairly and quickly have been largely
tackled in a way that has given confidence to coalfield communities,
whose representative bodies have contributed to the process. The
parties deserve credit for that and for the way that they have
gone about their business in difficult circumstances. Our concern
is that as the claims begin to run down in number, and as we move
towards the end of these processes, problems will multiply if
we cannot reinstate the spirit in which the early difficulties
were overcome.
| 
