| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
3 Feb 2009 : Column 999W—continued
The figures take into account monies recovered under the LOROS costs.
John Mann: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change which 20 firms of solicitors are handling the most unresolved claims under the coal health compensation scheme; and how many unresolved cases each such firm is handling. [252852]
Mr. Mike O'Brien [holding answer 29 January 2009]: The following tables shows the 20 claimants’ representatives handling the most unresolved claims for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and vibration white finger (VWF) under the coal health compensation schemes.
The table also indicates the number of claims that may potentially be ‘struck out’ under the COPD scheme. These are claims which are denied or withdrawn, or have failed a hard cut-off.
| COPD | ||
| Claimant’s representatives | Total outstanding claims | Potential for strike out |
| VWF | |
| Claimant’s representatives | Total outstanding claims |
John Mann: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change what estimate he has made of the amount to be paid by his Department to solicitors in costs under the coal health compensation scheme in the next 12 months. [252853]
Mr. Mike O'Brien [holding answer 29 January 2009]: The Department estimates that the sum to be paid to claimants’ solicitors under the coal health compensation scheme for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease is £1,047.2 million, of which £28 million is due to be paid in 2009.
The estimate for the vibration white finger scheme is £192.43 million, of which £6 million is due to be paid in 2009.
John Mann: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change how many unresolved surface worker coal health claims for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease there are relating to men who are (a) still alive and (b) dead. [252140]
Mr. Mike O'Brien [holding answer 28 January 2009]: As at 26 January 2009, 5,842 of the 591,767 claims registered under the British Coal Respiratory Disease Litigation (BCRDL), have been identified by claimant representatives as being from those who worked on the surface in coal preparation plants. 2,334 of these claims are from living miners; the remaining 3,508 are from families of deceased miners. Resolution of the issue of liability for these cases is subject to the outcome of the trial of a sample of four cases, due to be heard in November 2009. From these cases, we aim to identify generic issues that allow the issue of British Coal’s liability to compensate to be resolved one way or the other.
John Mann: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change how much his Department and its predecessors have paid Nabarro Nathanson in fees for cases relating to industrial disease claims in the mining industry since 1995. [252143]
Mr. Mike O'Brien [holding answer 28 January 2009]: From April 1999 to October 2008, BERR and its predecessors spent £28.7 million plus VAT in relation to Nabarro’s fees across all mining-related industrial disease claims. But note this excludes all counsel costs, expert fees, cost draftsman’s fees and foreign lawyer’s fees.
John Mann: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change on behalf of how many individual miners Beresfords Solicitors have submitted claims under the coal health compensation scheme. [252883]
Mr. Mike O'Brien: Government records show the total number of miners represented by Beresfords Solicitors under the coal health compensation schemes is 85,382 claims.
Industrial Injuries
John Mann: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change if he will estimate the number of miners who developed beat knee while working in the mining industry. [252141]
Mr. Mike O'Brien [holding answer 28 January 2009]: It is not possible for the Department to estimate the number of miners who developed beat knee. However, the Department received nearly 15,000 claims for beat knee as a result of litigation which was not pursued beyond 2005. The Department currently faces litigation for osteoarthritis of the knee and meniscal damage but not for beat knee which is a separate condition.
International Renewable Energy Agency
Harry Cohen: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change for what reasons the Government has not supported the proposal for an International Renewable Energy Agency; what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the work of the International Energy Agency in the area of renewable energy; and if he will make a statement. [252132]
Mr. Mike O'Brien: We have fully supported the proposal for an International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA). During 2008, we participated in the process for establishing the IRENA and we have also participated at the Founding conference on 26 January and the first session of the Preparatory Commission of IRENA on 27 January 2009.
To achieve our climate change and energy goals, we need to accelerate rapidly the deployment of renewable sources of energy and have greater co-ordination. IRENA has the potential to make a significant contribution to this work.
We have been very keen on joining and have been in close contact with the German Government on the details of the new organisation. For example, we have been talking to Germany about how IRENA can contribute to the roll-out and deployment of renewables and how we can help to get other countries such as Canada, China, Japan, India and the US to join. We are also talking about how we can make sure that IRENA works closely with, and avoids overlap and duplication with, other international bodies and organisations, such as the International Energy Agency (IEA) and the
renewable energy and energy efficiency partnership (REEEP), of which the UK is already a member.
Members: Correspondence
Sir Gerald Kaufman: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change when he plans to reply to the letter to him dated 3 November 2008 from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Mr. D.J. Fraser. [246529]
Joan Ruddock: I apologise for the delay in responding. This was due to departmental reorganisation. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change replied on 20 January.
Sir Gerald Kaufman: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change when he plans to reply to the letter of 27 October 2008 from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton on Mrs. Doreen Henley, transferred to him by the Prime Minister. [247852]
Joan Ruddock: I apologise for the delay in responding. This was due to departmental reorganisation. The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, North (Edward Miliband), replied on 28 January.
Sir Gerald Kaufman: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change when he plans to reply to the letter of 3 November 2008 from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton, with regard to Mr D J Fraser. [250870]
Joan Ruddock: I replied to my right hon. Friend on 17 January. My officials have been in contact with my right hon. Friend’s office which has confirmed the response has been received.
Warm Homes Act 2000
Mr. Dai Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change what assessment he has made of paragraphs 34 and 35 of the adjudication of the High Court on 17 October 2008 in respect of a case brought by Help the Aged and Friends of the Earth on enforcements of the Warm Homes and Energy Conservation Act 2000, in terms of the duty placed upon the responsible Secretary of State under section 3 of the Act. [245457]
Joan Ruddock: Paragraphs 34 and 35 of the judgment refer to section 3 of the Warm Homes and Energy Conservation Act 2000. Provisions like that section are commonly included in Bills, and therefore in Acts of Parliament, without any intention that they should have a substantive legal effect. The explanation for their inclusion relates to the procedure of the House of Commons where a provision of a Bill introduced in that House may give rise to public expenditure. This is not a matter that is specific to the Warm Homes and Energy Conservation Act 2000, but raises wider issues relating to parliamentary procedure and Bill drafting practice generally. The Government are considering those issues in the light of the judgment.
Treasury
Banks
Mr. Amess: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what meetings (a) he, (b) Ministers in his Department, (c) special advisers and (d) officials in his Department have had with each UK bank since September 2008; what was discussed; who was present at each meeting; what agreements have been reached between his Department and each bank at each such meeting; and if he will make a statement. [252995]
Ian Pearson: Treasury Ministers and officials have meetings with a wide variety of organisations in the public and private sectors as part of the process of policy development and delivery. As was the case with previous Administrations, it is not the Government’s practice to provide details of all such meetings.
Banks: Iceland
Mr. Pickles: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the Financial Services Authority was first informed of risks associated with investing in Icelandic banks. [252483]
Ian Pearson: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave him on 11 November 2008, Official Report, column 1083W.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |