Mesothelioma Bill [Lords]

Debate between Lord Beamish and Ian Lavery

Monday 2nd December 2013 Commons Chamber

[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.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

I have checked the date and I think the hon. Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) was wrong. I think that the actual date was 1965.

[Ian Lavery]

I wondered why 1969 was mentioned; I think that 1965 would be more appropriate.

The cut-off date will have a huge impact on lots of people. Geoffrey Leonard Bradshaw was from Pegswood in my constituency. He died of mesothelioma aged 66. He did everything necessary to try to find out which employer and insurance companies were to blame. He approached the Association of British Insurers and sent letters to employers. Mr Bradshaw did everything, but sadly he died before the cut-off date with minimal compensation from the pneumoconiosis compensation scheme. The civil-claim value of his case was in excess of £350,000, but he got less than £25,000. The cut-off date is really important and we need to look at it. It is not fair. I think that 1965 is probably the right date.

The fourth issue is the clawback of 100% DWP benefits when the Bill pays out only 75% in compensation. Why claw back a greater percentage than what is being paid? I want someone from the Government Front Bench to explain that. Why should we accept that under the premise of fairness? It is not and cannot be fair. Why should the state have a greater right of financial recovery than the victim? Why should the state get 100% back and the victim only 75%? I would be glad to listen to any explanation and perhaps even accept it if there is a valid argument behind it. To depart from a principle of like-for-like offset is both illogical and grossly unjust.

I want to place on record my thanks to the Mick Knighton Mesothelioma Research Fund, which was set up by the wife of Mick Knighton, who died of mesothelioma at a very young age. It operates from Wallsend in north Tyneside and has raised more than £1 million for mesothelioma research. It does a fantastic job and continues to help everyone who suffers from this horrible, horrendous disease.

Ideally, the Bill will be enacted before the end of the year. It is broadly welcomed, but it needs to be strengthened for the sake of people who have suffered for so long and those who have paid the ultimate sacrifice, such as Mr Bradshaw in my constituency and the thousands of hard-working people who, through no fault of their own, contracted this deadly disease. Let us hope that, in the name of fairness, decency and justice, this House can bridge the gaps.

Finance (No. 3) Bill

Debate between Lord Beamish and Ian Lavery

Tuesday 3rd May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Ian Lavery]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question, which is a great way of introducing IPSA into the debate on the Finance Bill. I think we would have agreement on that point across the House.

Let me get back to the discussion. Barclays bosses were compared to Somali pirates by one of their own shareholders, amid anger over their obscene bonuses. Shareholders lined up to vent their fury at the annual meeting, complaining that their dividends had plummeted while senior executives continued to enjoy huge pay packets. Another shareholder accused the executives of rank historical folly, saying:

“In these times of austerity the seemingly excessive payments to senior bank staff seems to show the lack of wisdom reminiscent of Marie Antoinette saying let them eat cake.”

HSBC has tried to seize the high ground by announcing a reduction in maximum bonuses for top bosses, but chief executives could still receive a package of more than £12.5 million this year. This mammoth pay deal comprises a salary of £1.25 million plus up to £7.5 million in long-term bonus shares and a possible £3.75 million annual bonus. Some reduction. That is why the bankers must pay their share, and why the Labour party are seeking this amendment to ensure that that happens.

This recession was not made in Britain; it is a global recession. Let me set the scene for a minute or so. In the decade before the financial crisis, Labour cut Britain’s national debt and Britain’s deficit. Both were lower than the amounts we inherited from the Tories. Before the financial crash we had a lower national debt than America, France, Germany or Japan. The crisis was caused by the financial institutions—by these banks. Governments and central banks were also, of course, at fault, including in Britain, where we did not see it coming and should have been tougher in regulating the banks.

The cry from those on the Conservative Benches, and from the City, for lighter regulation of the banks should have been totally ignored—and, yes, Labour should have been tougher on the banks. When the City and the Tories called for lighter regulation, we should have ignored them and been tougher still. Our priority, however, was to prevent recession turning into depression and to keep people in jobs. We always said that once the economy was growing strongly, tough decisions would be needed to get the deficit down again. The plan, as we all know, was to halve the deficit in four years, including through a continuation of Labour’s bank bonus tax.

The crisis was not the result of our spending on essential front-line services such as the NHS, schools, police, local authorities or any other public service.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

Does my hon. Friend share my disappointment at the sparse attendance on the Liberal Democrat Benches? Before the election, the Liberal Democrats lectured us on bank bonuses and what we were doing about the banks—and now, in places such as Northumberland, they are devastating public services through the cuts that they say are needed because of the financial mess that the banks got us in to.

[Ian Lavery]

That is a very good point about Northumberland. In my constituency in particular, 60% of women and more than 40%—nearly 50%— of men are employed in the public services. Many are being subjected to enforced redundancies by the Liberal Democrat-led Northumberland county council. We hope that will change in 2013, but let us wait and see what happens on Thursday, as that will give us a good idea of what will happen in the coming months and years.

We must realise that the recession was caused by the financial institutions and, yes, by the banks. We are certainly not alone in Britain as a nation in deficit. The financial crisis affected every major economy, resulting in national deficits worldwide. It is the different way in which those nations agreed to tackle their deficits that is the issue. We are saying that we need financing from the banks and the continuation of Labour’s bank tax to ensure that we have the money to allow the programmes we had planned to go forward.

The Government are cutting too far and too fast and they are hitting the most vulnerable, as well as jobs and families. It is necessary to prioritise an economic plan that focuses on increased growth and increased employment opportunities, which would place Britain in a better position to emerge much more rapidly from the current economic situation, which has been flatlining, at best. Part of such a plan would involve repeating Labour’s bank bonus and investing in growth and jobs.

The economy remains extremely fragile. The Office for Budget Responsibility has revised down its growth forecast for the UK economy in 2011 from 2.6% a year ago to just 1.7%. Last week’s growth figures were hardly a triumph for the economy. Growth flatlined over the last quarter of 2010 and the first quarter of 2011—it was down 0.5% in the former before going back up 0.5% in the latter—an effect that the Office for National Statistics has largely attributed to poor weather in December.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Lavery]

That is strange, but it is probably what we should expect. It does not surprise me one jot that the tax on banks will reduce in the years to come rather than increasing in line with profit or productivity.

Most Members will be lucky enough to have a credit card, and many of them will have maxed it out and might still have a maxed-out card. That is a new term I have learned since coming to Parliament—“maxed-out credit card”. Incidentally, returning to IPSA, my IPSA card has definitely been maxed out: it has been stopped, as there is only £1 left on it, but that is another issue. On a serious note, many hon. Members will have maxed out their credit card and will not be looking to pay it off in the next year or so. Instead, they will be planning how and when it best suits their pockets to pay it off, when they are able to do so. Paying it off immediately would mean having to go without even the most basic of necessities. That is life: it is about having effective financial means.

The world economy revolves around borrowing and debt. People the length and breadth of the nation live off debt, and the issue is how that debt is managed and repaid. That kind of debt is like a mortgage: people have to pay it off, but it becomes like a family deficit that is paid off over 25 years. If people were told they had to pay their mortgage off in two years they could not do it, because they could not survive. That is exactly the approach that the Government are taking with the deficit. This is about having a fair process; it is about financial management. We are definitely not all in this together, but the Labour party’s bonus tax would have helped to implement a number of social programmes that would have benefited many of those who feel they are being disproportionately affected by the cuts.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

I do not know whether my hon. Friend saw the Newcastle Journal on Saturday, but he knows that the housing market is struggling in my area. The Journal has reported that only 13 houses in the north-east were bought for more than £1 million last year. Is it not ironic that one of the bank bonuses that has been paid could have bought all of those houses?

[Ian Lavery]

I think that is ironic, and I assure my hon. Friend that not many houses in my constituency are valued in the region of £1 million. That is not only ironic; it is pretty sad and desperate when I think of the number of people in my constituency and elsewhere in the north-east who are looking for social housing and who cannot even get on to the housing ladder as a result of the austerity measures that are being put in place. That is why Labour says that although it is hurting, the signs are that it is not working.

The amendment calls on the Government to review the overall taxation burden on the banks. They have declined to renew Labour’s bank bonus tax, which raised £3.5 billion last year, and have instead proceeded with a bank levy that will raise about £2.5 billion. Labour is calling on the Government not to give a tax cut to the banks, but to use the money that would be raised from repeating the levy to invest in jobs and growth. The Bill’s provisions for the bank levy equate simply to a tax cut for the banks, because it is estimated that it will bring in £2.5 billion a year, which is less than the £3.5 billion that Labour’s bonus tax brought in last year according to the OBR.

Furthermore, the Government are giving banks a corporation tax cut of more than £100 million in 2011-12 and the value of that tax cut will rise considerably by the end of the Parliament. It is essential to repeat the bank bonus tax, to increase the bank levy and to invest in jobs, growth and housing. Labour believes that in addition to continuing with the bank levy the Government should repeat the bank bonus tax and raise at least £2 billion more, so that the banks do not get a tax cut this year. Frankly, I am opposed to the banks getting a tax cut in any year.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Lavery]

That is the first time I have been accused of being sympathetic to the bankers, but I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. I would much rather give the bankers a nice little tick or an A* for the way in which they perform—or perhaps in this particular case a C, D, E, F or a fail. At the moment, an F would still equate to many tens of thousands of pounds for most bankers.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

Does my hon. Friend think that his constituents or mine believe that most of the bankers who got us into the mess we are in deserve a bonus at all, or even an F?

[Ian Lavery]

The reality is that people in my constituency cannot even get a loan from the banks. In the past they could get loans for all sorts of things, and that was a run-of-the-mill thing to do in my community and many others. If someone wanted a holiday, a carpet or a car and they could not afford it outright, they would have gone to the bank or building society and got a loan.

Now they not only cannot get loans, they cannot even get credit cards. The bankers are making billions, but the people at the sharp end, who are suffering the most as a result of the Government’s cuts, cannot even get a loan from the banks or building societies.