Diffuse Mesothelioma Payment Scheme

Debate between Ian Lavery and Steve Rotheram

Wednesday 11th February 2015 Westminster Hall

[Ian Lavery]

Again, there are all these anomalies. If we look at the other types of compensation deal with insurers, trade unions and law firms, we see that the vast majority would pay compensation dating back to what is classified as the date of guilty knowledge, not a date that has just been plucked out of the air. As I said, mesothelioma goes back for generations. We should be looking to compensate people—never mind the cut-off date of July 2012. There was even a document for a consultation that began on, I believe, 25 February 2010. Is that not a date of guilty knowledge in itself? Why can compensation not be paid to victims going back to at least 2010?

Everyone who has spoken has mentioned the real issue at the moment, which is medical research. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton mentioned Dr Moore-Gillon, who has said that mesothelioma is

“not an attractive area for researchers…If you’re a bright person with a PhD making a career in cancer research and you are told you can work on a mesothelioma project for a year, you’re looking for a new job in 12 months. Instead, you can hook into breast cancer research and be employed for 20 years.”

[Steve Rotheram]

On that point, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. A leading researcher has done some positive work using adult stem cells, which, once they are adapted and injected into a vein, target cancerous mesothelioma cells. Unless additional funding is put forward to develop that research to clinical trials, we will simply be paying compensation to people who have this terrible disease instead of doing what we should be doing—giving them a cure. I am sure that everybody who has mesothelioma would rather have a cure than the compensation.

[Ian Lavery]

I do not think I could have put it better myself. We debated medical research long and hard in the Mesothelioma Bill Committee, but we have not really made any progress. I urge the Minister to think about the fact that we really should put mesothelioma right up there with other cancer-related disease so that we can, as my hon. Friend has said, try to cure and prevent that horrible disease, rather than just thinking that it is right to pay compensation 30 or 40 years later.

Finally, I want to ask for clarification on a point that I am genuinely unsure about. When it was agreed that 80% of the compensation would be paid, the DWP stated that 100% of any benefits that had been paid with regard to mesothelioma would be clawed back. I am not sure whether that has changed, but I would welcome the Minister’s view on that. If it is still happening—the insurance companies and everybody else has come up with 100% compensation, and that is fine—for the period where people receive 80% compensation, compared with 100% clawback from the DWP, surely there is a case for them to have some form of claimant rebate.

All in all, I welcome the statement, but there are still lots of questions to be answered. The Mesothelioma Bill gave us a great opportunity to give 100% support to the victims, but we did not quite get there. Perhaps we are getting there step by step, but why do we not simply take the massive step that is needed and put things right as soon as we possibly can?

Mesothelioma Bill [Lords]

Debate between Ian Lavery and Steve Rotheram

Monday 2nd December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Steve Rotheram]

My hon. Friend mentions the part that the Labour movement has played, but there is also the part played by the insurance industry, which has abrogated responsibility from day one and kicked back at every single push that the unions and the Labour movement have made. Does he see any parallels between large industries such as the insurance industry and construction industry that have failed to take responsibility for things they have done such as blacklisting and, much worse, possibly killing people through their irresponsible behaviour?

[Ian Lavery]

I have been involved for many years in trying to claim compensation for people in work, whether from insurance companies or employers, and it has always been a difficult challenge because they try to abrogate their responsibility at every opportunity. They try to run away from it and to put as many obstacles in the way of any form of compensation as they possibly can. Unfortunately, that is how they operate.

Thank goodness we have trade unions that stand up for individuals who are hurt and who suffer from prescribed diseases such as mesothelioma and other asbestos-related diseases, industry-related diseases and injuries at work. Thank goodness that ordinary people have behind them the security of trade unions, which have the finance at least to try to get the compensation that lots of families should have had.

I welcome the scheme as a massive move forward, but I hope that we can come together in Committee and iron out a few major problems. I will mention four items of concern, but that is not to say that there are not others: first, the level of the percentage payment; secondly, the exclusion of other asbestos-related diseases; thirdly, the cut-off date of 25 July 2012; and, lastly, the claw-back of 100% of DWP benefits when the Bill provides for payment at only 75%—a point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald).

On the level of payment, why should anybody who will have two years to live, max, be happy with 75% of any compensation? These people are dying.

Administration and Insolvency

Debate between Ian Lavery and Steve Rotheram

Wednesday 27th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Steve Rotheram]

I could not agree more with my hon. Friend, because that is exactly the scenario that I am painting with this company. Trigon was a viable, profitable company with a short-term cash-flow problem that could not get a bail-out from the banks, which, we should not forget, are owned by the people of this country, who rely on those companies to provide them with suitable jobs.

We must ensure that there is a chance, as in the case of Trigon, where a factory was at the heart of one of the most economically deprived areas in the UK—that is true of Liverpool, Walton and there are areas of social deprivation in my hon. Friend’s constituency too—that other bids are considered that would keep people in work and maintain UK production.

Liverpool city council has been successful in attracting new industries to our city. In north Liverpool, we continue to work to attract inward investment and businesses, and do all that we can to ensure that our workers are in full-time employment, but that is incongruous if the net result is that we haemorrhage jobs from profitable companies, which we give to asset strippers to break up, and sell brand names for products that are manufactured abroad, then import the same products back into the country.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

Was there any opportunity for the company to access moneys from the Government to prevent that situation in my hon. Friend’s constituency?

[Steve Rotheram]

The Secretary of State and the Department—I spoke to some officials—were as helpful as they possibly could be. If we had had a longer lead-in period or the company was in administration for a longer period there might well have been investment or pots of money—local enterprise partnership moneys, for instance, or regional growth moneys—that could have been used. Unfortunately, things happened very quickly and it was not possible to access moneys to ensure that the shortfall of £1.2 million was covered.

If the Minister is not willing to hear my request for a mandatory requirement for administrators to consider the social consequences of each bid, will she not consider the requirement in regard to the consequences for UK industries? That is not protectionism but pragmatism. We simply cannot afford to do nothing and watch good British businesses suffer. For instance, since the global financial crisis, the impact on the retail industry has been severe. According to the Centre for Retail Research in Nottingham, in its update entitled “Who’s Gone Bust in Retail 2010-13”, since the global financial crash, 249 medium and large-sized retail businesses have failed financially, affecting more than 22,100 stores and close to 250,000 employees. We all know the names of those companies—most of them are household names, but they have become infamous for going out of business.

Not all of those companies were profit-making enterprises in the way Trigon was, but undoubtedly some businesses were wound up that produced a short-term return for asset strippers but that, in the long term, could have been kept alive, and there was no consideration of the long-term social consequences for everyone affected by closure. In other words, I contend that some creditors will have done well out of these administrations, but the workers, the local communities and the economics of the area will have suffered most from their failure, and we must do more to protect society and British industry.

In conclusion, I expect that the Minister might try to explain that this is a very complex area of law and that it would be difficult to introduce changes as there would undoubtedly be knock-on consequences. I do genuinely understand the problems of best intentions—I spoke to the Secretary of State about this—and the law of unintended consequences, but I am sure the hon. Lady will agree that it would be wrong not to look at what could be done to improve current legislation. The status quo is not good enough.

Fire Service (Metropolitan Areas)

Debate between Ian Lavery and Steve Rotheram

Wednesday 7th March 2012 Westminster Hall

[Steve Rotheram]

Of course my hon. Friend is right. With regard to what has happened on Merseyside—I can speak for Merseyside in particular—we have had the largest and deepest cut to our grant settlement from Government. That has been a cut to our police grant, fire grant and just about every other supporting grant that we received from Government. We have seen the largest and deepest cuts. Again, I ask, “Is that a coincidence?” As I said before, it is for others to decide, but I would say that it is a strategic decision to balance the economy on the backs of the poorest.

In 2011-12, Merseyside’s grant cut was almost twice the national average and for 2012-13 Merseyside’s grant cut will be more than three times the national average. That means that our total grant has been cut by £9 million in the first two years of this disastrous and desperately unfair period covering the comprehensive spending review. I believe that that is dangerous; the Minister knows that it is dangerous; the Prime Minister knows that it is dangerous; and the people of Merseyside know that it is dangerous. There is grave uncertainty around the Merseyside fire and rescue service, as we wait for the Government to announce the grant figures for the third and fourth years of the CSR period.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

It is not just the metropolitan areas that are being affected. I realise that this debate is about those areas, but these cuts also impact on other fire and rescue services, including the Northumberland fire and rescue service. I just want to put something into context. All my hon. Friends and the hon. Members who have spoken have described the cuts in percentage terms, and in percentage terms they are absolutely horrendous. But can we just put the cuts in terms of the cost to human beings? Until now—that is, in 2010 and 2011—there have been 1,000 job losses in the metropolitan areas’ fire services and it is estimated that there will be an additional loss of 2,000 front-line posts, 50 fire stations and 100 fire appliances if these cuts go ahead. What message does that give to the firefighters—those brave men and women who run towards fires when everybody else is trying to run away from them—and to the general public?

[Steve Rotheram]

My hon. Friend has asked a question, which I will answer in relation to human beings. Our fire and rescue service on Merseyside is contemplating losing 150 firefighter posts, potentially through compulsory redundancies. That has never happened in our local authority’s history. Five fire stations are currently being earmarked for closure, including the Aintree fire station, adjacent to my own constituency. In addition, 11 fire engines will be removed from front-line response under the proposals. Five fire engines have already been removed—reduced from 42 to 37—as part of phase 1 of CSR. The cuts will reduce overall front-line operational capability to 26 engines, a reduction of nearly 40% since the start of CSR.