Employment Rights Bill

Debate between Ian Lavery and Andy McDonald

2nd reading
Monday 21st October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)]

I refer the House to my declaration of interests.

The Employment Rights Bill is most welcome. It has been described by some on the Conservative Benches as a horror show. It is definitely not a horror show. It is described as a trade union Bill. I remind Opposition Members that it was the Conservative Government who introduced the Trade Union Act 2016, among many other anti-trade union pieces of legislation. One of the best things in this Bill is the repeal of much of what was in the 2016 anti-trade union legislation. This is the first time in my time as a Member of Parliament that there has been any repeal of anti-trade union legislation. I have to say that, like many other trade unionists and many other people in the workplace, I welcome that fact. Labour recognises that the relentless attacks on the trade union movement—the battering of ordinary working people from pillar to post—cannot and should not continue.

[Andy McDonald]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023 was a deliberate attempt to undermine people in the workplace? It was completely ignorant of the fact that the unions provide minimum service levels throughout some of the most difficult circumstances. Does that not tell us a lot about the previous Conservative Government?

[Ian Lavery]

Thanks for that intervention. Of course it says a lot about the previous Conservative Government. We on the Labour Benches should always remember and never forget what the Conservatives do whenever they are cornered or in difficulty: they revert to type and attack the trade union movement. That is what they do and have always done. You have seen some of the contributions here this evening. [Interruption.] Do you want to intervene? [Interruption.] Oh, so are you just going to continue to chunter? And when I give the opportunity of saying something responsible—

Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill

Debate between Ian Lavery and Andy McDonald

Consideration of Lords amendments
Monday 22nd May 2023 Commons Chamber

[Andy McDonald]

Does my hon. Friend agree that, given the significant amount of industrial unrest over the last several months and, indeed, years, where people do not think they are listened to, the introduction of this legislation will deepen their resolve? They will show by their actions that they will not tolerate an attack on their freedoms and their basic employment and human rights.

[Ian Lavery]

It is extremely important that people understand that once we see nurses, doctors, teachers and key workers facing the sack, there will be resistance in this country. I kid you not, there will be resistance in this country like we have never seen before, because these are basic human rights. We cannot instruct ordinary hard-working people; key workers; the people who got us through the pandemic; the people who put the Great in Great Britain. We cannot, under any circumstances, allow this legislation to sack individuals.

Lords amendment 4 refers to the work notice. My friend, the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens), eloquently made the point about the notification of a work notice. If someone has not had notification of a work notice, how could they ever be accused of breaching it if they are not aware that they have it? This is pretty simple stuff. I am not a barrister or a solicitor, but I understand it. And you know what, Mr Deputy Speaker, the Members on the Government Benches understand it, too. There is no doubt about that. When those people are asked the following day, “Why weren’t you here? You had a work notice,” and they reply, “I didn’t have one”, they will be told, “You did. How did you not understand that?” They can be sacked for that. Under this legislation, they can be sacked for not adhering to something that they did not even know they were part of. How bad is that?

Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill

Debate between Ian Lavery and Andy McDonald

Committee stage
Monday 30th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Andy McDonald]

My right hon. Friend is right. People’s response has not been to lie down and accept the Government’s bidding; they have no choice but to stand up for themselves. Labour will have no truck with this terrible attack on working people, and once in government we will not only repeal this appalling legislation but, under the expert stewardship of my hon. Friends on the Front Bench, bring in the new deal for working people to tackle in-work poverty head on. The real impact of this Bill will be that any employee who disobeys an order to work during a strike could be fired. That is simply unacceptable in a free society. I was staggered at some of the comments from Conservative Members that they did not think that was the impact of the Bill. It clearly is.

[Ian Lavery]

I tried to intervene on the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Dr Mullan), who I believe was a GP, and my question would have been: if a doctor, nurse, transport worker or fire and rescue service rescue worker had voted for industrial action and was then instructed by their boss to cross a picket line and was compelled to work, what would that do in terms of the duty of care from the employer to the employee and the wellbeing and mental health of those individuals?

[Andy McDonald]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. This is about targeting people. People will be selected for treatment under these work notices, and trade unionists will be singularly picked out to add to the humiliation and distress. It is a dreadful tactic.

Transport for London Bill [Lords]: Revival

Debate between Ian Lavery and Andy McDonald

Monday 16th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Ian Lavery]

I fully agree with my hon. Friend. Gold-diggers with money to burn will buy the properties, and will not use them at all.

[Andy McDonald]

We talk about outer-London MPs, and there are no more outer-London MPs than those from the north-east and Scotland. This is not just a matter of London votes for London laws; it is a matter for everybody. What we have been seeing in this capital city are safety deposit boxes in the sky, with nobody living in them. Those properties could provide proper housing for the population of London, rather than investments. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is indicative of the way the Government are going? I do not know whether it is true, but I strongly suspect that a contractor might be able to get away without even putting proper finishes on such properties, because nobody is ever going to live in them.

[Ian Lavery]

I thank my hon. Friend. That is the point that I have been making from the outset. The essence of communities in the capital city and elsewhere across the country is affordable properties. Nobody would disagree that we also need private properties. The right balance is needed, and the right balance is different in different areas. But if a huge swathe of properties without the proper finishes is bought up by property developers who live across the globe, what will that contribute to the local economy? Nothing. It will lead to the development of ghost towns in this wonderful city. That is something we must all try to avoid.

The main point of contention, as I mentioned, is clause 5, which refers to limited partnerships. Clause 5 would give Transport for London a new power which would enable it to enter into limited partnerships with private developers and to incur unlimited liabilities. That is a huge gamble with public funds. It is a casino-type economy, which we cannot afford when the economy generally is not at its best. Not only that, but if the Bill is passed, Transport for London could undertake wider activities than it is permitted to undertake now.

[Andy McDonald]

My hon. Friend rightly focuses on clause 5. Does he agree that the reason there is such freedom in the arrangement, as opposed to the return that is going to be made, is self-evident? If somebody is given the maximum possible return, it is because of the freedoms that that delivers. There is a lack of transparency and a lack of accountability in that arrangement which is utterly dangerous. Does my hon. Friend agree?

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Lavery]

I thank the Minister for that intervention. I am not criticising limited partnerships but the potential for bad limited partnerships, and I am wondering whether it is in the best interests of people in the capital city for transport in London to become part of these limited partnerships. She mentioned the donations that the Labour party has received from limited partnerships. I wish I had done my homework to find out exactly how much the property developers, rather than limited partnerships, have donated to the Conservative party.

[Andy McDonald]

Is there not also a concern about the stamp duty arrangements that are made on these potential transfers down the track? As I understand it, if those are transferred to the limited liability partnerships there will be an exemption from stamp duty. Does my hon. Friend share my concern that before this debate is out we should hear from the Minister the assessment made of the loss of stamp duty as opposed to the returns that will be got on this deal?

Trade Union Bill

Debate between Ian Lavery and Andy McDonald

Tuesday 10th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Ian Lavery]

This individual, who runs a private health organisation the length and breadth of the UK, was asked if she had read the Bill. She said, “Not really.” She was then asked, “Have you read most of the Bill?” “Not really.” “Do you understand what facility time is?” “Not really. What is facility time?” She did not even understand life and limb cover, which is integral to trade union law, whereby if there is a problem that is a life and limb issue, trade union representatives will break off industrial action to ensure that people are safe. And, let me say, she was the best witness we had.

[Andy McDonald]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the existence of facility time is beneficial to the good running of any public authority or business, and that eroding it will cause immense difficulties in terms of productivity if union representation cannot be provided for union members in the workplace?

[Ian Lavery]

Absolutely. Many, many papers have been presented by professors, doctors and other experts with regard to facility time. There have been many battles on industrial relations problems over many, many years—decades and decades—resulting in a decent industrial relations policy that allows for facility time. Facility time could involve, for example, discussions on health and safety, avoidance of industrial disputes or avoidance of the progression of court cases. It is not about people sitting in an office on the telephone organising disputes—quite the opposite; it is about trying to avoid these disputes.

Benefit Claimants (North-east)

Debate between Ian Lavery and Andy McDonald

Wednesday 7th January 2015 Westminster Hall

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Riordan. I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) on securing this debate. She spoke with great passion, authority and personal conviction, and we should listen to her.

At the start of the day in the Main Chamber, the Speaker’s Chaplain leads the main prayer in which we undertake to

“seek to improve the condition of all mankind”.

That sentiment is hardly likely to chime with my constituents who have had recourse to the benefits system or who have suffered sanctions.

The creation of the welfare state by the great post-war Labour Government ranks among our nation’s greatest achievements. It was created with the conviction that in a wealthy nation such as ours, nobody should fall into the depths of deprivation and extreme poverty. British citizens fund vital public services with their taxes, with the understanding that when people lose their jobs or fall on hard times there will be a safety net and a network of support to assist them and help them back to employment. We expect anybody who uses those services to be treated with dignity and respect.

There is a consensus among the public that the existence of such a system is right and civilised. However, under the Government, we have witnessed policies that seek to redefine the role of the welfare state and the status of those who depend upon it. Our society includes those who, through luck, hard work or talent, are unlikely to ever need to depend upon the state. Those people are often entrepreneurs or committed and hard-working individuals who work in businesses and create wealth and jobs. It includes those who have the potential to make great contributions to our society, but require support to achieve what they are capable of, and it includes a small minority who need more than just a gentle nudge to engage with employment and contribute towards society. It also includes vulnerable people who live at the margins of our society, and who have not been as fortunate as others and are in need of our support, compassion and love. The Government, however, have lumped together all those who have to use benefits. The notion that has permeated this Government’s welfare reforms has been that joblessness is the personal and moral failure of the unemployed to which there is an “all stick and no carrot” solution, plunging them into destitution. It is almost a case of, “If we make people’s lives more difficult and more unbearable, somehow there will be a positive outcome.”

Since the existing regime was introduced, 1.4 million jobseeker’s allowance sanctions have been imposed. My constituents are sanctioned more than any others in the north-east, with more than 1,000 sanctions applied against JSA claimants in Middlesbrough between April and June last year, 300 more than in any other constituency. Ministers would have us believe that each of those sanctions was a just act that punished workshy people for failing to demonstrate that they were looking for employment. Every hon. Member present knows, however, that that is often not the case. We are inundated with stories from our constituents who describe a punitive regime that punishes benefit claimants for things beyond their control. The human cost is unacceptable.

One case is that of a single mum who works part-time as a lunch-time supervisor at a primary school while undertaking training to become a classroom assistant. She is in receipt of in-work benefits. Despite her asking for the interviews to be arranged outside her working hours, they were constantly arranged during them, meaning that she faced sanctions. She failed to attend one interview that was due to take place on the day that her father died. In the distress of the moment, she forgot the appointment, but when she rang the jobcentre the next day to apologise and explain that her dad had died, it was not accepted as a valid reason for missing her appointment. She was sanctioned for a month.

Another case is that of a 19-year-old homeless boy with no family, a baby and no support network, who has little in the way of formal education and limitations in his ability to communicate. He failed to complete a particular form correctly, which was beyond his capacity. He was duly sanctioned and left destitute. He then stole food from a supermarket in the hope and desire that he would be sent to prison, so that he would have something to eat and somewhere to sleep.

The number of such cases is shaming and a damning indictment of the Government and their policies. The Government refuse to explain the increase, but numerous sources have reported that it is being driven by unofficial targets imposed on jobcentres by the DWP. That is unacceptable. Introducing targets or expectations for jobcentres on sanctioning benefit claimants is a perversion of the values of the welfare state. People’s benefit entitlements ought to be decided on the basis of need, not on an arbitrary target set in Whitehall.

[Ian Lavery]

One important issue that has not been discussed in the debate is the coalition decision to withdraw the independent living fund, which hundreds if not thousands of disabled people in our area, the north-east, depend on. Does my hon. Friend agree that that decision should be reviewed? The independent living fund is there to help disabled people. If it is withdrawn, disabled people will end up in abject poverty.

[Andy McDonald]

My hon. Friend makes an absolutely valid point. That the circumstances of people dependent on such a vital source of income should be reduced—we saw on the television last night the people protesting outside this place—is an absolute horror and brings shame upon us all.

In conclusion, with the vulnerable being penalised along with hard-working people who do all that we expect of them, either the Government must concede that, on their watch, the safety net that marks us as a civilised society has become no longer fit for purpose, or they must admit to their audacious abandonment of the principles of the welfare state.

Sanctioning of Benefit Recipients

Debate between Ian Lavery and Andy McDonald

Thursday 3rd April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

I wonder whether it is a sign of the times that more Members sat in the Chamber to debate badgers than are present to debate the poor and the vulnerable.

I will begin by placing on the record my belief that personal responsibility and compliance are extremely important for individuals seeking employment. However, the current regime seeks to penalise those who offer responsibility but are, for various reasons, disproportionately sanctioned. In many cases, that means abject poverty not just for them, but for the people around them. I am totally convinced that this period in our history will be looked at by generations to come with horror. It is possible that people will think that MPs acted in a barbaric fashion. We are living through an era in which being disabled, poor or disfranchised basically attracts state punishment rather than help. That is a sad indictment of these times.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful point. Is it not incumbent on Members to look on those who are vulnerable and on the margins with respect and to offer them support rather than condemnation and punishment?

[Ian Lavery]

Absolutely. This year is the 180th anniversary of the Poor Law Amendment Act 1834. The Poor Law contained some incredibly harsh ideas, but they seem to have found fertile ground and taken seed among a new generation of coalition MPs. The Act was based on a royal commission that was largely the work of Nassau Senior and Edwin Chadwick and that took some extreme yet strikingly familiar views. One was that poverty was essentially caused by the individual, rather than by the economic and social conditions. It was therefore claimed that the pauper claimed relief regardless of his merits; that large families got the most, which encouraged irresponsible marriages; that women claimed relief for illegitimate children, which encouraged immorality; and that labourers had no incentive to work. It was recommended that workhouse conditions should be less desirable than those of an independent labourer of the lowest class. It was a fight to the bottom. There was no attempt 180 years ago to improve the working conditions of the lowest class. They wanted people to work in a worse position, below even that of the lowest of the working class. That attitude pervades today. Mark Twain once said:

“History doesn’t repeat itself, but it does rhyme.”

Have we really regressed almost 200 years socially?

Undoubtedly, welfare reform is causing misery for people up and down the country. It is an ideological crusade to shrink the state, led by people who I believe simply do not care about what happens to the individuals or the consequences for communities as a whole. The approach of the Department for Work and Pensions to sanctions has been characterised by the chaotic approach to universal credit and the personal independence payment. Statistics showing that nearly 60% of decisions on sanctions have been overturned have now been removed from the DWP website. This is a regime that is targeting the most vulnerable people in our society—the very people, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher) correctly says, we should be helping.

Even in the worst cases of non-compliance with the DWP rules, who actually suffers when sanctions are applied? When crimes under the law are committed, it is the perpetrator who is punished, but when DWP rules are broken, the people around that person are also punished. No thought is given to the family, the partner or anybody else associated with the individual being sanctioned. It may well be that it is one person who is sanctioned, but it results in a broad swipe at everyone in a household, family or circle of friends who have the obligation of the state transferred to them. The situation has been described as torture by hunger. Should this be happening in a civilised society? Should we be engaging in sanctioning people and forcing them to go to food banks? These are people who generally need assistance in life. The reality is that for every person sanctioned for the things the right-wing press prints on its front pages, there are thousands more who are forced into degradation as the victims of circumstance, officious advisers and cruel policy.

Let me describe one or two cases. A man in my constituency visited my offices in desperate need. He had been sanctioned after missing an appointment with a work training provider. He had a problem with his heart and he had had to visit hospital—he was sanctioned for being in hospital. The sanction was later overturned, but not before he was driven almost to starvation and the local food bank after visiting my office in a desperate state. All he had eaten for three days was field mushrooms and eggs borrowed from a neighbour. I am not sure that anyone in this House wants to see that sort of thing happen. As politicians, that is not what we are here to do.

The benefits of a man from the south-east who had been blind since birth were stopped because he was not replying to letters. The DWP was failing to send him letters in Braille or any other accessible format. He did not reply because he did not even know he had them. This man had worked for most of his life, but because of the DWP’s error he was forced to turn to a payday loan to survive. The chaotic system forced him into hunger and poverty.

So out of control is the situation that a website now documents the cruel, arbitrary and ridiculous reasons why people have had their benefits stopped. I urge hon. Members to look at it, but I have some examples:

“You get a job interview. It’s at the same time as your job centre appointment, so you reschedule the job centre. You attend your rearranged appointment and then get a letter saying your benefits will be stopped because going to a job interview isn’t a good enough reason to miss an appointment.”

Another example is:

“You get a job that starts in two weeks time. You don’t look for work while you are waiting for the job to start. You’re sanctioned.”

How ridiculous and how absurd is this system?

“You apply for three jobs one week and three jobs the following Sunday and Monday. Because the job centre week starts on a Tuesday it treats this as applying for six jobs in one week and none the following week. You are sanctioned for 13 weeks for failing to apply for three jobs each week.”

It is an outrageous situation.

There is of course a clear link between benefit delays or changes and people turning to food banks. As many hon. Members have mentioned, more than 650,000 people now use food banks, and there is a strong link between that and benefit sanctioning. Serious questions need to be asked about whether people are being deliberately sanctioned to massage the employment figures, because at any one time 100,000 people may be in the churn of those sanctioned. At such a time, they are not figures in the unemployment statistics; they are cases in a fiddling of the unemployment statistics. The Minister may wish to target that point.

In my last minute, I want to mention the pressure on staff in DWP offices. The failure to impose enough sanctions means that many of them receive performance improvement plans or notices to improve, which might ultimately result in their losing their employment.

In conclusion, as a society, we will be judged harshly by history for punishing the poor, the disabled and the vulnerable, as well as for not doing enough to stop the determined drive of Government Members to drag us back to the Poor Law of 1834, the shameful establishing of IDS UK—in dire straits.

Mesothelioma (Insurance Premiums)

Debate between Ian Lavery and Andy McDonald

Wednesday 29th January 2014 Westminster Hall

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

It is an honour to open this important debate and to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

It would be remiss of me to start my speech without paying tribute to my right hon. Friend the late Paul Goggins, who was such an assiduous advocate for mesothelioma sufferers and their families. I attended his funeral the week before last at Salford cathedral with many other colleagues, and had a conversation with the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan), in which he reflected on Paul’s innate decency and many wonderful qualities. He summed up Paul’s parliamentary contributions by saying that his arguments were well marshalled and his responses well mannered. I will strive for those high standards today, but I fear I will never be able to emulate such a brilliant parliamentarian.

In essence, this is a mercifully simple matter, but perhaps a few moments spent establishing the background are warranted. We are here to address provisions in the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012—LASPO—that relate to mesothelioma cases. The relevant background is that changes were made by LASPO to the way in which the generality of legal cases were funded.

I practised for many years as a solicitor with Thompsons, and before arriving in this place in December 2012, headed up a specialist unit looking after those who suffered catastrophic injuries, including brain and spinal chord injuries, and sadly, on too many occasions, cases resulting in fatalities. I also had the privilege of representing members of the armed forces who sustained serious injuries in the service of their country. I never did represent those suffering from asbestosis or mesothelioma, but I had the privilege of working alongside some wonderful colleagues who devoted their professional, and often significant parts of their personal, life to the service and representation of those suffering from this most dreadful of diseases and their families. I pay tribute to the tireless work of my former colleague, Ian McFall, who is not only an international authority in the field of mesothelioma litigation, but has been, and continues to be, a wholly committed advocate of the cause.

With the move away from legal aid support for personal injury cases, and with such state support being removed altogether, the era of the conditional fee agreement came into being. I cannot count the number of conversations I had while in practice over many years, in which I tried to explain that the description of so-called “no win, no fee” agreements was wholly inadequate. The basis of conditional fee agreements, as they are properly termed, was that if a claimant was unsuccessful, he or she would not face a bill for either their costs and disbursements or those of their opponent. Any risk was principally borne by the claimant’s lawyers. Their reward was that when they succeeded for their clients, they benefited from an uplift on their costs—a success fee paid for by the unsuccessful defendant. All that was designed to take account of other cases that were unsuccessful.

The structure was underpinned by insurance: in the event of the claimant not succeeding, wholly or in part, that insurance would provide cover for the unrecoverable disbursements and the defendant’s costs. In the absence of suitable pre-existing, before-the-event legal expenses cover, that policy would be arranged on an after-the-event basis, known as ATE. The insurance premium was borne by the unsuccessful defendants in cases where the claimant won. In successful cases, the defendant bore a success fee and the ATE premium.

All that changed with LASPO. In short, from 1 April 2013, in return for a 10% uplift on the damages paid, the principle of recovering success fees and ATE premiums was extinguished, and those cost items would now be paid by the claimant; that represented a significant erosion of a claimant’s damages. It was argued in this place that mesothelioma cases should not fall foul of those provisions, and that those cases should be exempt. It was entirely right to have those exemptions in that Act in section 44, which concerns success fees, and section 46, which relates to after-the-event insurance premiums, and the reason for that was eloquently summed up in recent times by Paul Goggins:

“An amendment was passed in the House of Lords that exempted mesothelioma sufferers. Hon. Members from both sides will recall our vigorous debates in the House of Commons over the issue and the strong sense that it was repulsive that people who are given a diagnosis of mesothelioma and know that they might have only months to live might have to give up 25% of their damages to pay a success fee to their lawyers and would therefore have to shop around to get the best deal from those who might represent them. The idea was repulsive.”––[Official Report, Mesothelioma Public Bill Committee, 12 December 2013; c. 93.]

The idea remains repulsive, and no case has been made for changing the position. A claimant in these dire circumstances should be focusing on the quality of representation and nothing else. The exemption, securing 100% recovery, allows that to happen.

Section 48 made it clear that there would be a review, in that sections 44 and 46 could not be brought into effect in cases of diffuse mesothelioma until such time as the Lord Chancellor had

“carried out a review of the likely effect of those sections in relation to such proceedings, and…published a report of the conclusions of the review.”

The Government will doubtless point to the consultation launched in July 2013 on mesothelioma claims. The relevant part is chapter 4, which runs to three pages and asks:

“Do you agree that sections 44 and 46 of the LASPO Act 2012 should be brought into force in relation to mesothelioma claims, in the light of the proposed reforms described in this consultation, the increase in general damages and costs protection described above, and the Mesothelioma Bill?”

With respect, that can hardly be properly described as a review, but more importantly, that chapter dealt with one of many matters consulted on, including fixed costs, secure gateways and new protocols, all of which were abandoned. It simply cannot be properly described as a review; equally, what happened subsequently was not by any means a report.

What we have had is an announcement, by way of a written ministerial statement from the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Mr Vara), who announced that the Government

“have concluded that they intend to apply sections 44 and 46 of the LASPO Act to mesothelioma cases”.—[Official Report, 4 December 2013; Vol. 571, c. 56WS.]

That cannot by any stretch of the imagination amount to a credible review or report as specified by section 48. Statute says that those things simply have to happen before the relevant sections can apply to mesothelioma cases.

To have introduced a new regime in April 2013 with the exceptions, and then to consult on whether the exceptions should still apply, alongside a host of other matters in relation to mesothelioma claims, in July 2013 was simply ludicrous. There were just three months between the introduction of the new regime in April and the July review; that was simply far too soon for any proper assessment to have been made of the likely effects of sections 44 and 46 on mesothelioma claims. No one can tell at this stage how much clients will be charged by solicitors under LASPO. The situation is developing as the market adapts. The same can be said of the cost of ATE insurance. The Government are jumping the gun. They need to pause and commit to a genuine process of review.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on bringing this very timely debate to the Chamber. With regard to the section 48 review, it is generally thought that it is pure poppycock and nonsense, although probably not in legal terms. Would it not be better to abandon the section 48 review and instigate a thorough review of the effects of sections 44 and 46 on mesothelioma claims?

[Andy McDonald]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. His intervention is apposite. There is only one respect in which I would slightly disagree with him: he says that the review is poppycock, although perhaps not in the legal sense, but we may find that there are legal consequences to it. I am of the view that it does not withstand scrutiny as a proper process. No doubt we will return to that.

Making these changes at this pace makes it abundantly clear that the Government had made their mind up way before April 2013 that these exemptions would not last any time at all. Thereafter, to try, in some tortured way, to create a link between the mesothelioma scheme as laid out in the Mesothelioma Bill and the provisions in LASPO is simply to conflate unconnected matters. If there was one American blues artist who epitomised the approach of the Government on this issue, it would be the inimitable Muddy Waters.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Lavery]

My hon. Friend has hit the nail on the head with that important point, which she raised during the progress of the Bill.

The second issue is the fact that the section 48 review did not ask respondents to make the case for the mesothelioma exemption. It asked if respondents agreed with the Government that the exemption should be lifted in the light of the consultation reforms, plus the CFA reforms and the Mesothelioma Bill. Had the Government asked for the case to be made, the recent legal ombudsman’s report on no win, no fee arrangements would have been most pertinent. The report states that the CFA agreements are not simple to understand and contain unclear terms and conditions, and that there is evidence of some lawyers failing to make clear the financial risks of CFA agreements and trying to pass on the risk to customers. That is precisely the situation that the Lords feared and would not tolerate for dying mesothelioma sufferers.

As it stands, the review is not based on the effects of sections 44 and 46 on mesothelioma claims. It is based on a reiteration of the Government’s intention to apply the CFA LASPO reforms to mesothelioma claims. That can hardly be described as a review. Members of Parliament should ask the Government to abandon the so-called review and seek a proper, fuller one.

[Andy McDonald]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the whole premise of the review is fatally flawed? It includes the question:

“Do you, agree that sections 44 and 46…should be brought into force in relation to mesothelioma claims, in the light of the proposed reforms described in this consultation”?

Those did not proceed; they were abandoned. Does not that put the skids under the entire project?

[Ian Lavery]

I fully agree with my hon. Friend about that—it is question 15 of the section 48 review. It is even more reason for us to seek agreement to the abandonment of the review, and to get to grips with the real problems cutting across the Mesothelioma Bill. MPs should ensure that the outcome of a proper section 48 review is brought before Parliament and not introduced via a commencement order, as the Government probably intend. [Interruption.] Someone has turned my telephone on during the debate, Mr Hollobone: I am sure I switched it off before. I apologise for that.

The legal aspect of the matter seems extremely complicated, and I make an appeal to politicians from across the Chamber. The legislation is not really what I or many other Labour Members wanted, but it is progress. It will mean that individuals can get some form of compensation through the scheme. We must put individuals at the heart of things—the sufferers: people who are losing their lives, and families who will lose loved ones within 18 months. Such things should be cleared pretty quickly, so that families will not be bogged down in legal problems, and will fully understand the compensation procedures they want to embark on. Even if there was 100% compensation for mesothelioma it would not be enough; there cannot be enough compensation for the loss of a breadwinner, father and husband, or mother and wife. There cannot be enough compensation for the loss of someone so important in family life.

Mesothelioma Bill [Lords]

Debate between Ian Lavery and Andy McDonald

Monday 2nd December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright), who spoke so passionately about the situation in the north-east. Mesothelioma is a tragedy. It is a global tragedy, but in the UK alone it cuts short the lives of some 2,500 people annually. The disease has a devastating impact on all it touches, both the victims and their loved ones. It is a fatal disease, with life expectancy of between nine and 15 months following diagnosis. It is a horrendous disease, described earlier as being like a tree growing inside the sufferer, with branches reaching out. We cannot begin to understand what that must mean for them. The people of the north-east suffer greatly from the disease, as a result of the region’s history of heavy industry, including shipbuilding, coal mining and steel manufacturing.

This horrendous disease, as a number of Members have explained today, is a form of cancer caused by exposure to asbestos. It is a long-tail disease, meaning that people exposed to asbestos decades ago are only now discovering the consequence of their employers’ negligence. One of the huge problems with mesothelioma is the latency period. Someone can work in industry, perhaps for many different employers, and be in contact with asbestos either unknowingly, as was generally the case, or knowingly, as was the case in the tales recited by hon. Members on both sides of the House about young workers throwing snow balls of asbestos. Whether someone was throwing snow balls of asbestos as a young man or woman or whether they were unaware that they were coming into contact with it, the result is the same: mesothelioma 30, 40 or 50 years later.

There are individuals who feel absolutely fine and have worked all their lives—this disease mainly hits hard-working people—but then 30 years later they begin to get that feeling, like a tree growing inside them, and start to wonder where it is coming from and what has caused it. They think about their occupation and what could have created the problem, because many people were in and out of different occupations. When someone realises they have a condition, they don’t think, “This must just be mesothelioma,” but when the doctor explains that they are suffering from that disease, that really is the end of their days.

Mesothelioma is not like many other types of cancer that the NHS has proved tremendously successful in treating. The NHS can identify many different cancers at early stages and survival rates are much higher, but that does not happen with mesothelioma. When the doctor tells someone that they have the disease, they are basically saying in round about terms that their life expectancy has been cut drastically. Several Members mentioned different life expectancy rates, from between nine and 15 months to two years. Let us just say that the maximum is two years, and that is for working hard in industry and being subjected to asbestos unknowingly or knowingly.

The payments scheme will be funded by the industry through a levy on currently active insurers in the UK employers’ liability market. The scheme is intended as a fund of last resort. Claimants who are unable to trace their employer or their employer’s insurer can apply to the fund. Successful applicants will receive 75% of the average compensation. That is important to note, and I will touch on that in a few moments.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend touches on the very important issue of the 75% payment. Does he understand the thinking behind saying that someone is going to receive only 75% of the damages they are entitled to, with a 75% loss of their earnings but 100% being recouped by the Department for Work and Pensions? Where is the equity in that proposal?

[Ian Lavery]

There is no equity; 75% of average compensation is totally unacceptable for the individuals concerned. Huge amounts of finance will be involved, by the way—we are not talking about pennies.

The Labour party has a history of fighting for those with mesothelioma. I could spend all day and night putting on record my thanks to Members of Parliament, members of the public and organisations such as the GMB and Unite unions that have worked tirelessly to get compensation for those with asbestos-related prescribed diseases. The Labour party’s history in this area is fantastic. In February 2010, we launched the original consultation; in 2008, we introduced the mesothelioma payment scheme; and in 1979 we introduced the Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) Act 1979, which has been tremendously successful for many people suffering from, in the main, coal dust-related incidents in the north-east and across the coalfields of the UK.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Lavery]

Yes, they are being killed.

Why should 75% be acceptable? Someone has said that 80% would be a better figure; of course it would, but it is absolutely vital to have 100% compensation for somebody who has very little lifetime left. Claimants to the scheme have to meet the same standards of evidence and burden of proof that apply in a court action, but those with a successful civil claim will get paid 100%. Why should there be a difference?

Employers’ liability insurance is one of two compulsory insurances in the UK; the other is motor insurance. Insurers collected premiums in full and invested them for decades. The insurance companies used these finances for generations. They put the money in the bank and paid themselves dividends. People made themselves rich while at the same time stashing away the policies—hiding them, burning them, and getting rid of them. The only people who will suffer as a result are those who are set to die 30 or 40 years later due to the latency period and the activities of the insurance companies, which had the money but decided not to keep it for future generations in case something like this occurred. They paid out nothing on the untraced policies that they lost or destroyed. This could have saved the insurance companies billions of pounds, yet we are debating whether to pay these people and their families three quarters of what they are due.

Somebody said that the Minister is an honourable man who looked after honest, hard-working people, and I really do not doubt that. I appeal to him by saying that we cannot give people three quarters of what they are due and think we are being fair—that does not square the circle.

[Andy McDonald]

I think my hon. Friend shares my puzzlement that we are talking about 75% being awarded to people under this scheme, welcome though it is, because it is better that we compensate people in full. Yet when this Government go to the European Union they go into bat for an 100% uplift in bankers’ bonuses. For goodness’ sake, does that not tell us everything we need to know about the values that are at play?

[Ian Lavery]

I thank my hon. Friend. I will cover that during the next 30 minutes of my speech.

The regulatory impact assessment estimates that approximately 6,000 mesothelioma sufferers lost about £800 million in compensation due to untraced insurance. If we add the cost to victims of other asbestos-related diseases, the deal cooked up between the Government and their friends in the insurance industry represents a saving to insurers of some £1 billion. On average, the 75% figure means that individuals will lose up to £43,000 in each claim and that victims are absorbing 25% of the ongoing costs due to insurers losing or destroying their policy records.

Secondly, there is the exclusion of other diseases. Why is this about mesothelioma only? The employers’ liability insurance for which the employers paid premiums covered them for claims arising from all “bodily injury or disease”, not just asbestos-related disease, and certainly not just mesothelioma. By limiting the scheme to mesothelioma, the Bill excludes 50% of all victims. Those suffering from asbestos-related lung cancer, asbestosis and pleural thickening have been cast aside. Among other industrial prescribed diseases that might be considered—I pick this one out of the air—is baker’s asthma, a disease that is crippling for people who work in the baking industry, whereby they suffer the same conditions although it does not have such drastic problems with regard to latency and shortened life expectancy. There are all sorts of different diseases, including baker’s asthma and other asbestos-related diseases, that should be covered by the Bill. It is a decent Bill, but we do not want a decent Bill: we want a good Bill.

If the Bill included 50% of asbestos victims, that would represent just 20% of the total cost. It is not acceptable that the scheme is limited to just mesothelioma. The Government’s justification for excluding other diseases is to say that proving causation is simpler for mesothelioma, because asbestos is its only known cause. However, there is already a successful precedent, namely the Turner and Newall Asbestos Trust, which administers payments of claims for not just mesothelioma, but other asbestos-related diseases. The Bill should be extended to cover all long-tail latent industrial diseases prescribed under the Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) Act 1979.

The third issue is the cut-off date, which has been mentioned by many Members. The cut-off date of 25 July 2012 is unbelievable, especially given that the consultation began in February 2010. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) that the cut-off date should be 1969, which was the date of guilty knowledge.