| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
We
have considered further the definition in clause 3. Despite its
breadth, there is sufficient doubt about whether claims management
services for such claims would be covered to justify bringing forward
the amendments. The amendments explicitly allow the Secretary
of State to bring claims management services provided in relation to
industrial injuries disablement benefits within the regulatory net by
allowing an order to be made which defines these as claims for the
purposes of part 2 of the Bill. The order will be subject to the
affirmative procedure. That means that claims management services in
relation to industrial injuries disablement benefits could be regulated
by order under clause
3(2)(e).
The amendment is precisely targeted on industrial injuries disablement benefits, which are benefits of a compensatory nature. It does not extend to welfare benefits more generally, because that would be beyond the scope of the Bill. There is some limited evidence of organisations offering advice on claims for other social security benefits on a commercial basis, but they are most active in the area of industrial injuries benefits. Our debate will serve our consideration of the code of practice. All hon. Members should be assured that it will be taken into account.
I have reflected on the issues raised by the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey. Parliament should have the opportunity to debate the initial exemption order under clause 5 and any subsequent restriction or removal of exemption. We hope to capture almost everyone in the first order, but we are working with an unusually broad definition, so if a small number of organisations emerge that fall within the definition but on which it is not appropriate to regulate, subsequent orders can be used to tidy up anomalies. I would not want to take up valuable parliamentary time on those, but I am pleased to say to the hon. Gentleman that I am delighted to accept amendments Nos. 15 and 16.
Mr. Heald: I thank the Minister for her helpful assurances about advertising, which is an important issue. There have been some dreadful examples of advertising by claims handlers and it is welcome that she is to be so active on that issue.
I welcome the Minister’s announcement about industrial injuries benefits take-up campaigns by commercial claims handlers and the amendment that deals with that. It is welcome that she has agreed to the affirmative resolution procedure for the exemption orders.
I listened to what the Minister said about associate membership of trade unions and the abuse about which we have heard from the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones). She responded by saying that cases of associate membership will be regulated, and that is also a welcome move.
There is a lot to welcome, but as the Minister knows I have said from the outset that there should be a level playing field for trade unions and other forms of claims handler. I concede that she has responded to the particular abuse of associate membership, but as we heard from the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann), there is still concern about organisations such as the BNP trying to convert into trade unions to benefit from the exemption. Over recent years, we have seen a certain desperation in particular sections of trade unions to get at the money in order to survive. Against that background, I am not as confident as the Minister that a purely voluntary arrangement for trade unions—exempting them specially—is the right way forward. I therefore ask my colleagues to join me in the Lobby in support of new clause 1, which is vital if we are to create a level playing field in this area.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
The House divided: Ayes 162, Noes 301.
AYESAfriyie, Adam
Ainsworth, Mr. Peter
Amess, Mr. David
Ancram, rh Mr. Michael
Arbuthnot, rh Mr. James
Baldry, Tony
Barker, Gregory
Baron, Mr. John
Bellingham, Mr. Henry
Benyon, Mr. Richard
Binley, Mr. Brian
Blunt, Mr. Crispin
Bone, Mr. Peter
Boswell, Mr. Tim
Bottomley, Peter
Brady, Mr. Graham
Brazier, Mr. Julian
Brooke, Annette
Browne, Mr. Jeremy
Browning, Angela
Burns, Mr. Simon
Burrowes, Mr. David
Burt, Alistair
Chope, Mr. Christopher
Clappison, Mr. James
Conway, Derek
Cormack, Sir Patrick
Cox, Mr. Geoffrey
Davey, Mr. Edward
Davies, David T.C. (Monmouth)
Davies, Philip
Davies, Mr. Quentin
Davis, rh David (Haltemprice and Howden)
Djanogly, Mr. Jonathan
Duddridge, James
Duncan, Mr. Alan
Dunne, Mr. Philip
Ellwood, Mr. Tobias
Evans, Mr. Nigel
Fallon, Mr. Michael
Featherstone, Lynne
Field, Mr. Mark
Francois, Mr. Mark
Fraser, Mr. Christopher
Gale, Mr. Roger
Garnier, Mr. Edward
Gauke, Mr. David
George, Andrew
Gibb, Mr. Nick
Goodman, Mr. Paul
Goodwill, Mr. Robert
Gove, Michael
Gray, Mr. James
Grayling, Chris
Green, Damian
Greening, Justine
Greenway, Mr. John
Grieve, Mr. Dominic
Gummer, rh Mr. John
Hague, rh Mr. William
Hammond, Mr. Philip
Hammond, Stephen
Hancock, Mr. Mike
Hands, Mr. Greg
Harper, Mr. Mark
Heald, Mr. Oliver
Heath, Mr. David
Heathcoat-Amory, rh Mr. David
Hendry, Charles
Herbert, Nick
Hoban, Mr. Mark
Hollobone, Mr. Philip
Holloway, Mr. Adam
Horam, Mr. John
Howarth, Mr. Gerald
Hughes, Simon
Hunt, Mr. Jeremy
Jack, rh Mr. Michael
Jackson, Mr. Stewart
Jenkin, Mr. Bernard
Jones, Mr. David
Kawczynski, Daniel
Key, Robert
Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Knight, rh Mr. Greg
Lait, Mrs. Jacqui
Lancaster, Mr. Mark
Lansley, Mr. Andrew
Leigh, Mr. Edward
Letwin, rh Mr. Oliver
Lewis, Dr. Julian
Liddell-Grainger, Mr. Ian
Llwyd, Mr. Elfyn
Loughton, Tim
Luff, Peter
Mackay, rh Mr. Andrew
Maclean, rh David
Main, Anne
Malins, Mr. Humfrey
May, rh Mrs. Theresa
McCrea, Dr. William
Miller, Mrs. Maria
Milton, Anne
Murrison, Dr. Andrew
Neill, Robert
Newmark, Mr. Brooks
Öpik, Lembit
Paice, Mr. James
Paisley, rh Rev. Ian
Paterson, Mr. Owen
Pelling, Mr. Andrew
Penning, Mike
Penrose, John
Pickles, Mr. Eric
Randall, Mr. John
Redwood, rh Mr. John
Rennie, Willie
Robertson, Hugh
Robertson, Mr. Laurence
Rogerson, Mr. Dan
Rosindell, Andrew Rowen, Paul
Ruffley, Mr. David
Russell, Bob
Sanders, Mr. Adrian
Scott, Mr. Lee
Selous, Andrew
Shapps, Grant
Shepherd, Mr. Richard
Simmonds, Mark
Simpson, Mr. Keith
Spelman, Mrs. Caroline
Spink, Bob
Spring, Mr. Richard
Steen, Mr. Anthony
Streeter, Mr. Gary
Stuart, Mr. Graham
Swayne, Mr. Desmond
Swire, Mr. Hugo
Syms, Mr. Robert
Taylor, Mr. Ian
Turner, Mr. Andrew
Tyrie, Mr. Andrew
Vaizey, Mr. Edward
Vara, Mr. Shailesh
Villiers, Mrs. Theresa
Walker, Mr. Charles
Wallace, Mr. Ben
Walter, Mr. Robert
Waterson, Mr. Nigel
Webb, Steve
Whittingdale, Mr. John
Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann
Wiggin, Bill
Willetts, Mr. David
Wilshire, Mr. David
Wilson, Mr. Rob
Winterton, Ann
Winterton, Sir Nicholas
Wright, Jeremy
Yeo, Mr. Tim
Young, rh Sir George
Tellers for the Ayes:Angela Watkinson and
Mr. David Evennett
NOESAbbott, Ms Diane
Ainger, Nick
Ainsworth, rh Mr. Bob
Alexander, rh Mr. Douglas
Allen, Mr. Graham
Anderson, Mr. David
Anderson, Janet
Armstrong, rh Hilary
Atkins, Charlotte
Austin, Mr. Ian
Austin, John
Bailey, Mr. Adrian
Baird, Vera
Balls, Ed
Banks, Gordon
Barlow, Ms Celia
Barron, rh Mr. Kevin
Battle, rh John
Bayley, Hugh
Beckett, rh Margaret
Bell, Sir Stuart
Benton, Mr. Joe
Berry, Roger
Betts, Mr. Clive
Blackman, Liz
Blackman-Woods, Dr. Roberta
Blears, rh Hazel
Blizzard, Mr. Bob
Borrow, Mr. David S.
Bradshaw, Mr. Ben
Brennan, Kevin
Brown, Lyn
Brown, rh Mr. Nicholas
Brown, Mr. Russell
Browne, rh Des
Bryant, Chris
Buck, Ms Karen
Burden, Richard
Burgon, Colin
Burnham, Andy
Butler, Ms Dawn
Byers, rh Mr. Stephen
Byrne, Mr. Liam
Campbell, Mr. Alan
Campbell, Mr. Ronnie
Cawsey, Mr. Ian
Challen, Colin
Chapman, Ben
Chaytor, Mr. David
Clapham, Mr. Michael
Clark, Ms Katy
Clark, Paul
Clarke, rh Mr. Charles
Clarke, rh Mr. Tom
Clwyd, rh Ann
Coaker, Mr. Vernon
Coffey, Ann
Cohen, Harry
Cook, Frank
Cooper, Rosie
Cooper, Yvette
Corbyn, Jeremy
Cousins, Jim
Crausby, Mr. David
Creagh, Mary
Cruddas, Jon
Cryer, Mrs. Ann
Cummings, John
Cunningham, Mr. Jim
Cunningham, Tony
Curtis-Thomas, Mrs. Claire
Darling, rh Mr. Alistair
David, Mr. Wayne
Davidson, Mr. Ian
Dean, Mrs. Janet
Denham, rh Mr. John
Devine, Mr. Jim
Dhanda, Mr. Parmjit
Dismore, Mr. Andrew
Dobbin, Jim
Dobson, rh Frank
Donohoe, Mr. Brian H.
Doran, Mr. Frank
Dowd, Jim
Drew, Mr. David
Eagle, Angela
Efford, Clive
Ellman, Mrs. Louise
Engel, Natascha
Ennis, Jeff
Field, rh Mr. Frank
Fisher, Mark
Fitzpatrick, Jim
Flello, Mr. Robert Flint, Caroline
Flynn, Paul
Follett, Barbara
Foster, Mr. Michael (Worcester)
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings and Rye)
Francis, Dr. Hywel
Gapes, Mike
George, rh Mr. Bruce
Gerrard, Mr. Neil
Gibson, Dr. Ian
Gilroy, Linda
Goggins, Paul
Goodman, Helen
Griffith, Nia
Grogan, Mr. John
Gwynne, Andrew
Hall, Mr. Mike
Hall, Patrick
Hamilton, Mr. David
Hamilton, Mr. Fabian
Harman, rh Ms Harriet
Havard, Mr. Dai
Healey, John
Henderson, Mr. Doug
Hendrick, Mr. Mark
Hepburn, Mr. Stephen
Heppell, Mr. John
Hesford, Stephen
Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia
Heyes, David
Hill, rh Keith
Hillier, Meg
Hodge, rh Margaret
Hodgson, Mrs. Sharon
Hoey, Kate
Hood, Mr. Jimmy
Hoon, rh Mr. Geoffrey
Hope, Phil
Hopkins, Kelvin
Howarth, rh Mr. George
Hoyle, Mr. Lindsay
Hughes, rh Beverley
Humble, Mrs. Joan
Hutton, rh Mr. John
Iddon, Dr. Brian
Illsley, Mr. Eric
Ingram, rh Mr. Adam
James, Mrs. Siân C.
Jenkins, Mr. Brian
Johnson, rh Alan
Johnson, Ms Diana R.
Jones, Mr. Kevan
Jones, Lynne
Jones, Mr. Martyn
Jowell, rh Tessa
Kaufman, rh Sir Gerald
Keeble, Ms Sally
Keeley, Barbara
Keen, Ann
Kelly, rh Ruth
Kemp, Mr. Fraser
Khabra, Mr. Piara S.
Kidney, Mr. David
Knight, Jim
Kumar, Dr. Ashok
Ladyman, Dr. Stephen
Lammy, Mr. David
Laxton, Mr. Bob
Lazarowicz, Mark
Lepper, David
Levitt, Tom
Lewis, Mr. Ivan
Linton, Martin
Lloyd, Tony
Love, Mr. Andrew
Lucas, Ian
MacDougall, Mr. John
MacShane, rh Mr. Denis
Mactaggart, Fiona
Mallaber, Judy
Mann, John
Marris, Rob
Marsden, Mr. Gordon
Marshall, Mr. David
Marshall-Andrews, Mr. Robert
Martlew, Mr. Eric
McAvoy, rh Mr. Thomas
McCabe, Steve
McCafferty, Chris
McCarthy, Kerry
McCarthy-Fry, Sarah
McDonagh, Siobhain
McDonnell, John
McFadden, Mr. Pat
McFall, rh Mr. John
McGovern, Mr. Jim
McGuire, Mrs. Anne
McIsaac, Shona
McKechin, Ann
McKenna, Rosemary
McNulty, Mr. Tony
Meacher, rh Mr. Michael
Merron, Gillian
Michael, rh Alun
Milburn, rh Mr. Alan
Miliband, Edward
Miller, Andrew
Moffat, Anne
Moffatt, Laura
Mole, Chris
Moon, Mrs. Madeleine
Moran, Margaret
Morden, Jessica
Morgan, Julie
Morley, Mr. Elliot
Mountford, Kali
Mullin, Mr. Chris
Munn, Meg
Murphy, Mr. Denis
Murphy, Mr. Jim
Murphy, rh Mr. Paul
Naysmith, Dr. Doug
O'Brien, Mr. Mike
O'Hara, Mr. Edward
Olner, Mr. Bill
Osborne, Sandra
Owen, Albert
Pearson, Ian
Plaskitt, Mr. James
Pope, Mr. Greg
Pound, Stephen
Prentice, Bridget
Prentice, Mr. Gordon
Prescott, rh Mr. John
Primarolo, rh Dawn
Prosser, Gwyn
Purchase, Mr. Ken
Purnell, James
Raynsford, rh Mr. Nick
Reed, Mr. Andy
Reed, Mr. Jamie
Reid, rh John Riordan, Mrs. Linda
Robertson, John
Robinson, Mr. Geoffrey
Rooney, Mr. Terry
Roy, Mr. Frank
Ruane, Chris
Ruddock, Joan
Russell, Christine
Ryan, Joan
Salter, Martin
Seabeck, Alison
Sheerman, Mr. Barry
Sheridan, Jim
Short, rh Clare
Simon, Mr. Siôn
Simpson, Alan
Skinner, Mr. Dennis
Slaughter, Mr. Andrew
Smith, rh Mr. Andrew
Smith, Ms Angela C. (Sheffield, Hillsborough)
Smith, Angela E. (Basildon)
Smith, Geraldine
Snelgrove, Anne
Soulsby, Sir Peter
Southworth, Helen
Spellar, rh Mr. John
Starkey, Dr. Phyllis
Stewart, Ian
Stoate, Dr. Howard
Strang, rh Dr. Gavin
Stringer, Graham
Stuart, Ms Gisela
Sutcliffe, Mr. Gerry
Tami, Mark
Taylor, Ms Dari
Taylor, David
Timms, Mr. Stephen
Tipping, Paddy
Todd, Mr. Mark
Touhig, Mr. Don
Trickett, Jon
Truswell, Mr. Paul
Turner, Dr. Desmond
Turner, Mr. Neil
Twigg, Derek
Ussher, Kitty
Vaz, Keith
Vis, Dr. Rudi
Walley, Joan
Waltho, Lynda
Wareing, Mr. Robert N.
Watson, Mr. Tom
Watts, Mr. Dave
Whitehead, Dr. Alan
Wicks, Malcolm
Williams, rh Mr. Alan
Winnick, Mr. David
Winterton, Ms Rosie
Wood, Mike
Woodward, Mr. Shaun
Woolas, Mr. Phil
Wright, Mr. Anthony
Wright, David
Wright, Mr. Iain
Wright, Dr. Tony
Tellers for the Noes:Jonathan Shaw and
Huw Irranca-Davies
Question accordingly negatived.
Amendments made: No. 15, page 9, line 8, at end insert—
‘(6) The first order made under section 5 may not be made unless a draft has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, each House of Parliament.
(6A) An order under section 5 which has the effect of removing or restricting an exemption from section 3(1) may not be made unless a draft has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, each House of Parliament.’.
No. 16, page 9, line 9 , leave out ‘an’ and insert ‘any other’— [Simon Hughes.]
Amendment made: No. 11, page 2, line 38, at end insert—
‘(5) The Secretary of State may by order provide that a claim for a specified benefit shall be treated as a claim for the purposes of this Part.
(6) The Secretary of State may specify a benefit under subsection (5) only if it appears to him to be a United Kingdom social security benefit designed to provide compensation for industrial injury.’ .—[Bridget Prentice.]
Amendment made: No. 12, page 8, line 44, at end insert—
‘(3A) An order under section 3(5) may not be made unless a draft has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, each House of Parliament.’. .—[Bridget Prentice.]
Amendments made: No. 7, page 9, line 16, leave out ‘section 1’ and insert ‘sections 1, 2 and [Mesothelioma: damages]’.
No. 8, page 9, line 22, at end insert—
‘(3) Section [Mesothelioma: damages] shall be treated as having always had effect.
(4) But the section shall have no effect in relation to—
(a) a claim which is settled before 3rd May 2006 (whether or not legal proceedings in relation to the claim have been instituted), or
(b) legal proceedings which are determined before that date.
(5) Where a claim is settled on or after that date and before the date on which this Act is passed, a party to the settlement may apply to a relevant court to have the settlement varied; and—
(a) a court is a relevant court for that purpose if it had, or would have had, jurisdiction to determine the claim by way of legal proceedings,
(b) an application shall be brought as an application in, or by way of, proceedings on the claim, and
(c) a court to which an application is made shall vary the settlement to such extent (if any) as appears appropriate to reflect the effect of section [Mesothelioma: damages].
(6) Where legal proceedings are determined on or after that date and before the date on which this Act is passed, a party to the proceedings may apply to the court to vary the determination; and—
(a) “the court” means the court which determined the proceedings,
(b) the application shall be treated as an application in the proceedings, and
(c) the court shall vary the determination to such extent (if any) as appears appropriate to reflect the effect of section [Mesothelioma: damages].’. .—[Bridget Prentice.]
Amendment made: No. 9, page 9, line 24, at end insert—
‘(2) But section [Mesothelioma: damages] (and section 15(3) to (6)) shall extend to—
(a) England and Wales,
(b) Scotland, and
(c) Northern Ireland.’. .—[Bridget Prentice.]
Amendment made: No. 10, in title, line 2, after ‘duty;’, insert
‘to make provision about damages for mesothelioma;’.— [Bridget Prentice.]9.15 pm
Bridget Prentice: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
As the House knows, the Bill is part of a much wider set of initiatives that have been taken across Government. We are determined to tackle practices that can stop normal activities taking place because people fear litigation or have become risk averse. We want to stop people being encouraged to bring frivolous or speculative claims for compensation. The provisions of the Bill help us to do that.
Clause 1 will provide reassurance to the many people and organisations anxious about possible litigation, such as those in the voluntary sector, about how the law works. It will serve a valuable purpose in improving awareness of this aspect of the law and in ensuring that normal activities are not prevented because of the fear of litigation and excessively risk-averse behaviour. I want to confirm for the avoidance of any doubt that clause 1 is not intended to change the law in relation to statutory duties that are not expressed in terms of a duty of care, and which thus do not depend on whether the employer should have taken particular steps to meet a standard of care.
Mr. Julian Brazier (Canterbury) (Con): Conscious of the fact that Hansard is now usable by lawyers in a court, can the Minister confirm what she implicitly confirmed in Committee but has never said explicitly—that the court should take account of the clause where an activity is organised by a voluntary organisation or is perhaps a sporting or educational activity? The clause uses the word “may” because desirable activities can be wide-ranging. Should not the court take account of the clause where an activity is in a core area such as that which the Minister described?
Bridget Prentice: I can confirm to the hon. Gentleman that the court would be expected to take into account all the issues surrounding the activity. As I explained in notes that I sent to hon. Members, one of the reasons why we used the word “may” rather than the word “shall” is that all the different matters that the court must take into account should have equal status.
Clause 2 will provide reassurance on how the law works and encourage the giving of apologies and offers of treatment and redress without reducing the protection which is currently available to claimants.
Lembit Öpik: The Minister will recall that in Committee we had a fairly extensive debate about whether we should change clause 2 so that instead of referring to
“An apology, an offer of treatment or other redress”
it would have referred to, “An apology, an offer of, or provision of, treatment or other redress”. At the time, I had the impression that she was going to accept that amendment on Report, yet the Government did not table it, nor was the matter discussed during the proceedings that we have just completed. Why did the Government take that decision? Can the Minister assure people who, for example, offer treatment in a situation where an accident victim is incapacitated that they will not automatically leave themselves open to some kind of litigation?
Bridget Prentice: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and sorry that we did not reach that part of the debate. In Committee, he cited the example of a car accident in which one of the people involved is unconscious and the other person is a doctor, and asked whether the doctor should not do what he can to look after the injured person. I considered that carefully in discussions with officials, parliamentary counsel and others and those discussions confirmed that that area is sufficiently covered by section 5 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005, which will come into effect next April. It provides that if a person acts in connection with the care or treatment of a person who lacks capacity in respect of the matter in question and it is in his or her best interest for that treatment to take place, the person providing the care or treatment does not incur any liability that he would not have incurred if the injured person had been able to consent. That does not prevent a claim from being made if the person has been negligent in providing the care or treatment, but in respect of the provision ofthat care or treatment, it is sufficiently covered under section 5 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. I hope that that sufficiently reassures the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik).
Lembit Öpik: I am grateful to the Minister and pleased that she has researched the matter. She knows that a number of organisations, including St. John Ambulance, are very concerned about the issue. For the avoidance of doubt, is she saying that the forthcoming implementation of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 will provide a degree of protection to individuals who offer some form of medical assistance to individuals who are too incapacitated formally to give their assent and that the risk of litigation when carrying out an act in good faith, which is believed to be in the best interests of the patient, will be minimised?
Bridget Prentice: I can confidently give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that the Mental CapacityAct 2005 will cover people in those circumstances—and rightly so.
Regarding part 2, all Members who contributed to our debates have been unanimous in their support for the regulation of claims management services. The Bill sets out a framework for such regulation and I hope that our debates on Second Reading, in Committee and again today have clarified a number of outstanding concerns. I am pleased to report that we now have a Bill that will deal appropriately with the inappropriate practices of some claims companies.
I have explained that the definition of claims management services is wide in order to avoid loopholes, but it will be targeted only at sectors with the greatest risk of consumer detriment. Those sectors will be brought into the regulatory net—and, of course, removed, if appropriate—by the order of the Secretary of State, subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, as agreed this evening. We published a draft order last week, seeking views on the sectors that we propose should be included, such as personal injury, housing disrepair, employment, criminal injuries compensation and claims for the mis-selling of financial products.
I
am pleased that hon. Members agreed to the Government amendments, which
will allow us to bring claims management services in respect of
industrial
injuries disablement benefit within the regulatory net. That represents
a minor but none the less important addition to the Bill that will help
to ensure that consumers do not suffer at the hands of claims
management
companies.
Mr. Hollobone: Does the Minister appreciate that companies with a good reputation in this field, such as the National Accident Helpline based in my Kettering constituency, genuinely welcome this part of Bill? In common with the Government and the Opposition, they want disreputable claims management companies to go out of business, but it is important to acknowledge that there is a legitimate need for claims management companies that provide a good service for people.
Bridget Prentice: I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman has been assiduous in his support for the company in his constituency, which sent me a letter asking for clarification on a number of issues. I am very happy to provide it and I will shortly reply to those points. I commend the hon. Gentleman’s work in looking after the company in his constituency.
Lembit Öpik: This will be my third and final intervention in the entire debate on the Bill. I am grateful for the Minister’s response to the issues I raised about the thresholds for regulation in respect of small companies. Sadly, I was not in my place, but I followed the debate from elsewhere. I am not asking the Minister to make any specific commitments, but my constituent, Graham Owen, raised a point that probably applies to many companies that consequentially end up doing work of the type that the Minister described. I hope that she will enter into a dialogue with some of the smaller companies to see what is reasonable and what will help them to stay in business without compromising the intent of the Bill.
Bridget Prentice: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we will take into account the position of the smaller companies, so that the decision is a balanced one.
The new provisions on mesothelioma that we have added today will make a real difference to the claimants and their families who are suffering as a result of that horrible disease. This is one of those times in Parliament when Members in all parts of the House can be justly proud of the fact that we have made serious changes to a Bill that will directly affect people in a positive way. Politicians sometimes get a bad reputation—often through their own fault—but on this occasion I am pleased that Members in all parts of the House have been supportive in ensuring that these amendments have been added to the Bill, and I am proud that they have been included. We will continue to work with others on this area. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions will shortly bring other matters relating to it before the House, and we will ensure that the victims obtain their compensation as quickly and as easily as possible.
I thank
colleagues in all parts of the House for the constructive spirit in
which they have debated the Bill. There are a number of hon. Friends to
whom thanks are due, but I hope that they will not mind if I say that I
thank in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and
Penistone (Mr. Clapham), who has worked assiduously on this issue. I am
pleased that we
have gone some way towards realising his demands on behalf of the
victims of this terrible disease. I also thank both Chairmen of the
Standing Committee and all its members, and Members from all parts of
the House who have contributed to what has been a thorough and useful
examination of this important Bill. I thank in particular the hon.
Members for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) and for North
Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes), as well as the other Members
who have made a valuable contribution to our debate.
I also thank the organisations that have helped us to put the Bill together, such as the Association of British Insurers, the TUC, the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers, the various voluntary and other organisations that have been helpful, and of course my right hon. and noble Friend Baroness Ashton, in whose name this Bill stands. I also thank the officials and parliamentary counsel, who deserve a particular vote of gratitude from the House for having been able, in the end, to get the mesothelioma amendments together in such a way that they were acceptable, so that we could debate them today, and so that we can make them law before the end of this parliamentary Session.
I commend the Bill to the House.
9.27 pm
Mr. Heald: The Bill has been improved during in its passage through Parliament. I join in the thanks to the two Chairmen of the Committee, and I also thank the Minister, who has been courteous and has responded on many points, the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) who spoke for the Liberal Democrats, and all the Members who have taken part in deliberations on the Bill. Perhaps I should also thank the usual channels for ensuring that we kept in order and got through what we had to get through in Committee.
We are pleased with the amendment obtained by my noble Friend Lord Hunt that adds clause 2 to the Bill. It allows offers of treatment, rehabilitation and apologies without admissions of liability. That builds on the principles that the Association of British Insurers and the Citizens Advice Bureaux set out in their initiative, “Care and Compensation”. That should mean that there will in the future be more focus on early settlement of claims and treatment to get victims healthy and back to work as soon as is practicable.
We are pleased that the Government have been able to listen to pleas to help the victims of mesothelioma, and with the Minister’s assurance that that will be underpinned with rules of court and that she will do what she can with her colleagues to speed that through. The lack of joined-up government on the case of Barker v. Corus was clearly unfortunate and I shall revert to the matter of how much money was spent. Matters were pursued in the wrong way.
However, in Committee, we supported clause 1, which restates the law of negligence. I hope that it will be possible to follow up the impetus that the amended clause 1 will give with some advertisement of exactly what the law of negligence means and an attempt to educate some of the public authorities—scouts, guides and others who take part in the desirable activities that we have spent much time discussing.
Landowners, occupiers and leisure park owners had hoped for some further discussion of what clause 1 means for them because there has been a reasonably sensible and robust attitude to occupiers’ liability in the courts. They therefore hoped for some assurance from the Under-Secretary that clause 1 will not change that and that they will not be subject to further cost and burdens in dealing with an unpredictable liability. Much land has natural features and it should not be necessary to erect signs, fences and unsightly and expensive clutter around them. It was hoped that we would hold a little more debate about that to ensure that the law is not being changed. The Under-Secretary’s general comments suggest that it is not.
We hope that the voluntary code for unions will work, despite our reservations. We will watch closely to ensure that it does—the Under-Secretary need not worry about that. We still believe that it is a pity that the regulator will not be an established regulator such as the Financial Services Authority. However, the Government could reassure us by announcing the appointment of a senior figure, with knowledge of that world, to work with a major trading standards office. There has been speculation that someone of the calibre of Mr. Mark Boleat may be available for the role. That would be most welcome. When can we expect the announcement? Have I missed it?
Overall, the Bill has some useful provisions to help tackle the perceived compensation culture. It is a modest measure—and there is a big agenda to tackle—but it is greatly improved.
9.32 pm
Simon Hughes: The Bill started as a measure of one part, grew to one of two parts and ended up as one of three parts. It is none the worse for that—indeed, the third addition is broadly welcome.
Like others, I am grateful for the constructive way in which everybody has participated. It is fair to say that, although part 1 was controversial, it probably reflects the broader majority view across the House. Although some have concerns about adding to lawyers’ opportunities, we must none the less hope that they will be restrained.
I say to the hon. Member for Canterbury(Mr. Brazier) that counsellors’ advice to Ministers, which I was kindly shown, on the “may” or “shall” option was persuasive. Perhaps he will be slightly reassured by that, although I am happy to try to persuade him outside later.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |