Mesothelioma Bill [Lords]

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Jim Sheridan

Tuesday 7th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Unfortunately, interventions have to be very short, because others want to speak. If interventions could be shortened, that would help.

[Jim Sheridan]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The docks are another area where mesothelioma was a constant threat and problem, particularly in places such as Leith, which is a big dock area.

On compensation, as I have said, I think the numbers are still to peak. There is a mesothelioma problem in schools and I think the problem will only get worse. It will be interesting to hear what the insurance companies have to say about teachers and others in schools who will suffer from this horrible disease.

On the levels of payment, it is totally unjust and unfair that victims of mesothelioma whose documents were either lost or destroyed will receive less than 100% of the average compensation. In an earlier debate we argued that the level should be set at 90% of the average. A precedent has already been set in the Financial Services Compensation Scheme, which covers the liabilities of insolvent insurers in circumstances involving compulsory insurance.

We support the cross-party amendment 1, which would set a lower level of 80%, although it is not ideal. I think that amendment 4, which would set the level at 100%, is the fairest solution and perhaps that is what we would seek in a different and better political environment. I think that the insurance companies, as opposed to the victims, could agree to set the level at 80%. The 90% level was already affordable, as it was still within the 3% levy on gross written premiums with which not only the Government, but the industry, are happy. If we set the level at 80%, I am sure the insurance industry would not only be happy, but feel as though it had got a good deal. At least it would put an extra £6,200 in the pockets of victims. Morally, 80% is the absolute bare minimum the Government should be aiming for.

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Jim Sheridan

Thursday 21st March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Jim Sheridan]

As I have said, this industry employs people in areas where few alternative jobs exist. The Chancellor threatens jobs in such areas, as the Chief Secretary presumably told him. [Interruption.]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Mr Griffiths, you have already spoken. The Member does not want to give way and we do not need a running commentary from the Back Benches.

[Jim Sheridan]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I have been heckled by better.

Perhaps the Chancellor will explain to pensioners enjoying a dram why they should have to pay 48% more duty for the alcohol they enjoy than their neighbours who prefer a beer. Only three countries in the EU penalise Scotch whisky more than the UK does. It is time to halt the duty escalator for all and to start backing, not penalising, our successful industries.

Let me deal briefly with pensions. Like many of my colleagues here, I have a large number of pensioners in my constituency, and I am concerned that this Budget will do nothing to reduce pensioner poverty, currently standing at 1.7 million people nationally. There are no proposals to help pensioners who are struggling with rising living costs.

Moving on to growth, in a written answer I received on 17 January, the Economic Secretary told me:

“The OBR forecast that real household disposable income will grow in each year from 2013 to 2017.”—[Official Report, 17 January 2013; Vol. 556, c. 866W.]

In December 2010, the Chancellor was equally confident, telling CNBC:

“Britain is on the mend. We got pretty steady and sustainable economic growth forecasts, pretty sustainable increases in employment, a steady decline in the deficit.”

Well, how wrong could this Government be? Real wages are set to fall by 2.4% over this Parliament. The OBR has also halved the growth forecast for this year and downgraded it for next year, too. I ask the Chancellor to see some sense and stop relying on the private sector to provide the boost to the economy that is needed. Millions will be squeezed by another year of capping public sector pay, while the private sector has simply not managed to perform as well as was needed at a time when growth has stalled.

A sensible Budget would have seen an intervention to legislate for a living wage, rather than giving the tax break to millionaires that is coming up in a few days’ time. That would not only be fair on working people, but could help inject the economy with consumer spending power. The most ironic part of this plan is that the Chancellor has not even succeeded in reducing the deficit—the golden goal that we have been suffering these tax cuts in order to achieve. Borrowing is now forecast to be £245 billion more than was planned at the time of the spending review. We will not have balanced books, but we will have low-income families paying the price, while millionaires continue to count their money.

I concur with the views of the TUC, which welcomes the British business bank but is calling for more resources to support businesses on a larger scale and for the bank to be able to raise funds in the capital markets as comparable banks do.

I and, I am sure, my constituents do not see this as an aspirational Budget, but as a desperation Budget.