Mesothelioma Bill [Lords]

Debate between Mike Penning and Paul Goggins

Monday 2nd December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Paul Goggins]

My hon. Friend is very knowledgeable about these issues and he makes an important point. I am saying that the date should be put back to at least February 2010, and there are arguments for going back further. I hope that we will have an opportunity to examine those arguments in Committee.

[Mike Penning]

On the point raised in the intervention by the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), the dependants of those who have been affected by this terrible illness will be comp—I nearly used the word “compensated”; we are not supposed to use it. Payments will go to them. It is not the case that no payment will be made just because someone has sadly died. The dependants will get payments as well, and that has to be taken into account. I understand what the hon. Gentleman was saying, but that has to be taken into consideration.

[Paul Goggins]

I am happy to be the conduit for a conversation between the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham. I hope that we will be able to have a sensible discussion about this in Committee. Whatever the start date is, it should predate July 2012.

My third point relates to section 48 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, to which I referred earlier. Last week, I received a copy of a letter sent by Lord McNally to Lord Alton of Liverpool. One or two other Members who took part in the debates during the passage of the LASPO Act also received a copy. Section 48 prevents sections 44 and 46 from coming into force in relation to mesothelioma claimants. That means that the new conditional fee agreements cannot operate in relation to mesothelioma claims.

Ministers keep making the point that the review that has to be carried out under the LASPO Act has somehow to be dovetailed with the arrangements in this Bill. In the letter, Lord McNally says:

“I can absolutely guarantee that we will work in a synchronised way with the DWP”.

However, there is no relationship between the review set out in the LASPO Act and the provisions of this Bill. As I have made clear, the provisions in the Act cover civil claims and the arrangements for conditional fee agreements. They will ensure that claimants have to pay back 25% of their success fee to the lawyer who represented them. There have been arguments about that, and the Government clearly have their point of view, but Parliament has expressed the view that that provision should not operate in relation to mesothelioma claimants.

The Bill, on the other hand, deals with a fund of last resort for people who cannot find their former employer or insurance company, and who have no one against whom to make a civil claim. The two issues are therefore completely separate, and I ask the Minister please to clarify that when he responds to the debate. If there is to be a decision in relation to section 48 of the Act, let us have that debate and make that decision, but let us not confuse that issue with the provisions of the Bill that we are debating today.

My final point relates to research, which the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford also mentioned. It is shameful that we spend so little on researching the causes and treatment of mesothelioma. It is a disease that will kill 2,400 people this year, and in the region of 60,000 people over the next 30 years, and we should be devoting much more to research. I applaud the initiative that a small number of insurance companies took to set up the research fund that is being managed by the British Lung Foundation. Some good, promising work has been done as a result of that, and Lord Alton and his colleagues in the House of Lords wanted to make that arrangement more sustainable, better funded and more reliable in the long term so that we could get some proper research done and some good outcomes. Indeed, Lord Alton pressed an amendment to that effect, but it was narrowly defeated. However, that does not remove the argument, or the need for Ministers to do much more in regard to the funding of research.

I was struck by Lord Freud’s comment in Committee in the other place, when he was asked about his own efforts to improve investment in research, from the Government and from other sources. He said:

“I have hit a brick wall at every turn” [Official Report, House of Lords, 5 June 2013; Vol. 475, c. GC250]

He is a Minister who was trying to get a better outcome for research but clearly found it difficult. Earl Howe also spoke on Report about how he was trying to improve the research programme, and I would be grateful if the Minister could update us on progress tonight, because the promises were made in July and it is now November. I hope that some progress has been made, but we cannot get away from the fact that the Bill should contain a provision for the long-term funding by the insurance industry of research into the causes and treatment of mesothelioma.

I welcome the Bill, but it could be and must be improved. The families of those who have suffered and died as a result of this dreadful disease must be better compensated, and we need a scheme that is affordable and in which those people can have confidence.

HGV Wheels (Safety)

Debate between Mike Penning and Paul Goggins

Tuesday 29th November 2011 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mike Penning)]

It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship on this important day, Mr Scott. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins) on securing the debate, although I am slightly disappointed by his saying that I have not engaged. We had the previous debate in this Chamber, but before the debate we had meetings in my office; I think that that is engagement. I have said throughout that as the Minister—the right hon. Gentleman used to be a Minister himself—I have to have an evidence base to go forward. In the letter to him, I was trying to be as honest as possible: I did not have a slot in my diary between now and Christmas, and that is why I said that at this stage I cannot see him; I could have given him a date after Christmas, but I thought that such a long delay would have been an insult to him. However, like any other colleague, he can stop me at any time and I will engage at any time. My officials are also engaging.

It is important to talk about who is representing whom in the very important UK logistics industry. The Freight Transport Association and the Road Haulage Association, whose representatives I meet very regularly and with whom I have a very good rapport, have not raised this issue with me once. I was at a major haulier’s yesterday—in fact, I was going along the A13 in Essex in a 38-tonne articulated truck. I make those visits so that I can engage with the industry. I was feeling slightly jealous yesterday because I have only a class 2 licence, not a class 1. I have been very close to this issue for most of my career, especially when I had a licence in operation myself.

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I am going to quote the 0.0006% figure. I will answer the specific points he raised, but if anything has changed the position since the previous Adjournment debate—if more evidence has emerged—of course we will look at it and at the specific details to which we have alluded.

The right hon. Gentleman sent me a photograph of a damaged wheel. One of the facts I wanted to ascertain was when that vehicle was last tested, because the crack should and would have been brought up in the test. It is illegal to have that sort of damage on a vehicle, as he knows, and it is illegal to run the vehicle with it. The operator’s licence would be affected should they run a damaged vehicle; it is an offence under the Road Traffic Act 1988 as well as under the operator’s licence. However, the crack would have been picked up at the annual check. Unlike cars—we are to review the situation of cars in relation to MOTs—lorries are checked annually from when they are new.

I would like to know, and I would have hoped that the right hon. Gentleman might have told me because he was using this as evidence today, what vehicle the wheel came off and when the vehicle last had a check. It could have been the case that the damaged wheel on that vehicle was picked up and then removed, as we would all expect—so that it was not on the road at all.

Killer wheels are an interesting topic. The question of copies or snides has been around for a long time, particularly regarding aluminium wheels on cars. The failure rate for aluminium wheels, if they are not constructed right, has worried me for many years. The focus is often on design rather than function—people want them to look flash. That is something that we are looking at robustly, but legislation already exists to make sure that that sort of thing does not happen again. If the manufacturers are picking up copies being brought into the country, I assure the right hon. Gentleman that we will work with the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills on that.

The ITV report on potholes was interesting, because there are myriad reasons why a wheel could fail. Those who follow Formula 1 will know that during the race before last, a wheel failed on the first corner; there was an instantaneous puncture. Central Government have invested a huge amount of money in repairing potholes, which is why the number of potholes is as low as the report suggested. The right hon. Gentleman will have to wait until later today for further announcements on road infrastructure. It is absolutely right to say that failures take place when vehicles hit potholes or hit the kerb. I had a failure in an aluminium wheel when I attempted a U-turn, misjudged it and caught the wheel wrongly on the kerb. Not only did the tyre give way but the aluminium wheel broke.

[Paul Goggins]

During the first five minutes of the Minister’s speech he has not even glanced at his folder, which demonstrates both his enthusiasm for road safety and the fact that he is completely on top of his brief. He has responded to the three pieces of evidence that I gave him without looking at a note, so he clearly has the information at his fingertips.

If the hon. Gentleman had written to me on 9 November to say that he was dealing with a lot of pressing matters and would not be able to meet me until the new year, I would have understood and accepted that. I would have done so reluctantly, because before Christmas would have been better, but if he makes that offer again this morning I will be happy to accept.

[Mike Penning]

I apologise for the fact that I am not reading the speech that was written for me—I rarely do—but I hope that I am on top of my brief. Road safety is paramount for me, especially as I come from a fire service background. While I was in the fire service, I attended road traffic collisions regularly as the driver of a rescue vehicle. I never once encountered an incident in which the wheel had failed, although there were lots of other problems, particularly on some older cars where the hub structure had failed. In the evidence that we have looked at, which I will not read out, there were 23 failures over a 15-year period, but such problems were often due partly to accidents where wheels had been struck and damaged.

I will write to the right hon. Gentleman in the very near future and offer him a slot after Christmas. I think that something positive has come out not only of today’s debate but of my saying no the last time we met in this Chamber, because the trade associations have stepped up to the plate. Rather than Ministers telling people what to do, the right approach is often for the industry to realise that it has a responsibility as well and that reform is needed.

There might be a certain amount of semantics on the part of both myself and the right hon. Gentleman about the wording of the letter and who the official responsible for these issues is, but the simple answer is that the buck stops with me. If the trade associations want to present evidence to me, rather than an official within VOSA, they can do so and I will be more than happy to provide that point of contact. This is not only about the manufacturer; if the failure rates are increasing, and that is what this is all about—I am not disputing that one way or the other because, frankly, we do not know, and there is no point disputing something that is not disputable—do I still want there to be a second-hand market? I do, because that is important for people who cannot afford to buy brand-new wheels every time, but those wheels must be safe. The operators have a responsibility to make sure that that happens, and I do not want to take that responsibility away from them.

When I was in that truck yesterday, I felt comfortable not because it was brand spanking new—it was not; it was about 18 months old—but because of the robustness of the legislation governing VOSA and its testing regimes. I have been at the side of many a road with the new VOSA testing and enforcement officers, and I know how remarkable the current equipment is. We can estimate the weight on an axle while the vehicle is travelling at 56 mph down the motorway; we can pull it over and put it on a weighbridge, and we know accurately what the result will be. When inspections take place, on overseas vehicles as well as our own, checks on wheels and brakes are carried out, there and then, to the best of the officers’ ability. Obviously, most of the weigh stations do not have a pit facility.

If the right hon. Gentleman—let me call him my right hon. Friend—has called this debate as a direct reaction to my letter, he should have pulled me over in the Tea Room, where I would have addressed the matter straight away and we would have had a meeting after Christmas. He will understand, because he was a Minister himself, why I do not like making appointments way into the future. Events take over and I might not even be at the Department any more; someone else may be doing this job if we go too far past Christmas, or even before Christmas.

[Paul Goggins]

I sincerely hope that the Minister is still in his position in the new year, not only because he has now promised me a meeting, but because he is clearly on top of his brief and doing a good job. I commend him for that. He has mentioned twice that I was a Minister, which I was for seven years, and I never, ever refused a meeting with a Member of Parliament. The message that I am sending to the Minister and the Government is that when Members of Parliament are pursuing issues that concern them and their constituents and they want to meet Ministers, it should be an absolute given that those meetings take place. Of course Ministers are always busy, but their busy diaries must not get in the way of their fundamental accountability to MPs and to Parliament.

[Mike Penning]

I have a reputation in the House for being approachable, and this is the first time that I have ever been reprimanded by a senior Member. My letter was written in the best possible faith; a series of events to do with lots of things, which I will not go into now, meant that I could not guarantee a slot that I would be able to hold on to. The worst thing in the world is to make an appointment and cancel it, but that is what tends to happen. When I was in opposition, promises were made to me and they were not kept. If I make a promise, wherever possible and subject to business, I keep it, so the right hon. Gentleman and I will meet. I hope that the trade associations will do what they said they will do—that they will get the submissions together and come as a united body to present their evidence. That will allow me to go away and ask why we have certain failure rates coming from all the different expert bodies mentioned in the speech that I have not used, and to compare that with what is happening on the front line.

Whatever happens, I will not increase the burden on businesses. I think that the haulage industry, with the margins that it works on, is already heavily burdened, and I am trying to take some of that burden away. Road safety is paramount for me, but operators have responsibilities, which they must never forget.

Road Vehicle Wheel Safety

Debate between Mike Penning and Paul Goggins

Tuesday 29th March 2011 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mike Penning)]

It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs McIntosh, for the first time as either a Back Bencher or a Minister of the Crown. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins) on securing this debate. I am not surprised that he put his name into the ballot for a debate after our meetings. It is natural for a Back Bencher to follow up meetings and correspondence with Ministers in that way. I gave him some assurances, which I followed up in correspondence, and I have more evidence today regarding what I promised when I met him and industry representatives.

It is a pleasure to set out the Government’s position on wheel safety. Having held an HGV licence for the past 34 years, I have been conscious of the issue for a long time. However, in all the time that I was driving, I never experienced or saw a wheel give way in normal service, except in a road traffic accident. In my 11 years of attending road traffic accidents with the fire service, I never saw a wheel buckle, unless—I will discuss this later—it was due to an ill-fitting tyre or to the vehicle’s being overweight. I have seen overweight vehicles on which a wheel could not take the pressure.

Road safety is crucial, and I am pleased that the right hon. Gentleman has raised it. It is one of my passions in life, given my background, and it is a priority for the Government. We have the safest roads in the world, but according to the most recent figures, 2,222 people were killed on them last year. Our roads are not safe enough yet. We intend to build on our history and safety programme. We are developing a new safety strategy, which will be published in the next few months. The overall approach of the framework is to focus on localism and targeted education, particularly remedial education, wherever possible. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned how we educate the industry. The industry has a role to play as well as the Government. We will be publishing on many other road safety issues at the same time, not least the problem of drink and drug driving. I know that the industry is looking particularly at drug driving, and I recently met the representative bodies of the haulage industry to discuss it.

On the specific points, I agreed when we met that I would consider carefully what existing data had been published and what had not. We considered the data for the past 15 years, as the right hon. Gentleman said, and they were fascinating. Of 197,000 roadside inspections, 60 found defective wheels. Admittedly, we do not know at present exactly what those defects were. They may well have been due to over-tightening of nuts or to incidents in which the vehicle was not involved; the wheels could have been transferred. It happens all the time. In salvage yards around the country, one can see it on cars as well as HGVs.

When I met the industry and the right hon. Gentleman, I said that I had considered the risk. That is crucial. We cannot wrap everybody in cotton wool; we must consider the risk. Out of 197,000 roadside inspections, 60 found defective wheels, which represents a failure rate of 0.006%. I am not saying that any risk is acceptable, but that is a pretty low rate. At the same time, we considered an analysis of more than 4,000 heavy commercial vehicle MOTs—in my time, it was called plating, but we have moved on, and everybody understands MOT terminology—in which no wheel was found to be defective. In considering the evidence, it is important that we consider the risk. I have kept an open mind throughout. In 2009-10, the last year for which figures are available, there were 198,000 inspections. We expect the figure for the first eight months of this year to be about the same, and we have found only 33 problems involving wheels. There were a similar number the previous year, and it looks as though the figure this year will be lower, unless we have a surge in evidence, but it does not look as if that will happen.

The reason is, I think, the rigour of annual testing on HGVs. Unlike MOTs, an HGV must have a test every year, no matter how old or young the vehicle is. A brand-new vehicle must have an MOT after 12 months. Anybody in the industry who says that the test is easy or that it is not taken with due rigour has not attended one. If the right hon. Gentleman likes, I will arrange for him to do so, either at VOSA or elsewhere—we are now outsourcing tests to the industry—to see for himself how rigorous they are. Defects are found on a regular basis. I remember vividly how, when I used to come home on leave and do part-time work, I would be asked to take one of the lorries down to the testing centre. It was one of the most frightening experiences that I had ever had. The lorry had been jet-sprayed and sandblasted, everything was spotless and still they found something wrong. That is why, as the junior guy, I used to be sent; the others were frightened of going down there. It is right and proper that the test should be rigorous.

[Paul Goggins]

The Minister makes a generous offer, and I would be happy to take him up on it, because I would like to test precisely what questions are asked and what examinations take place. I contend that the close scrutiny applied to tyres is not applied to wheels. That is the problem. Will he comment further? It is not surprising that the numbers are so small considering that those questions are not asked and those issues not investigated in the same depth as for other aspects of the vehicle.

[Mike Penning]

I understand where the right hon. Gentleman is coming from, but there is a difference between a tyre and a wheel—in manufacturing and in actual product. The key to knowing what is going on is not what questions are asked, but visual inspection. Anyone can say whatever they like about where the vehicle has come from, what sort of work it has been doing, and whether it has been off-road or on-road. By the time a vehicle arrives for its plating or MOT, it has been jet-blasted, cleaned and painted, and everything looks immaculate, but if the inspectors get deep into the vehicle, they will find any defects.

The failure rates are also an issue. We are not picking up defects at MOT stage. As I have said, 4,000 had no defects. I accept, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, that they might not be looking closely enough, but one would still expect more failures for vehicles that are in use on the roads. A failure rate of 0.0004% does not seem to be huge. I promise the right hon. Gentleman, however, that I will keep an open mind.

On priorities in relation to funding and to where we need to put our assets, the right hon. Gentleman asked me to go to the next stage and announce a year-long inquiry into or validation of the issue, but it is difficult for me to do that, because I do not have the evidence that that amount of failure is occurring. If I did, I assure him that I would do not only a localised inquiry, but a national one. However, it has to be evidence based and, at the moment, the evidence is not there.

I have made sure that a senior official at VOSA, which is part of my Department, will be responsible for dealing with complaints, and he will probably be inundated with them. Anecdotal complaints are always difficult. The gossip machine and tribal drums go on and people talk about things, but we will try to identify genuine complaints and concerns. Local authorities also have powers under the Road Traffic Act 1988, and I am more than happy for the Department and my office to be contacted directly. If anybody feels that they have a problem that is not being dealt with or that they think should be taken straight to the top, they can bring it to my Department or office and I assure them that it will be investigated. As the right hon. Gentleman has said, a lot of complaints are anecdotal, but I have to base everything that I do in the Department, especially on road safety, on my evidence base. We have three separate pieces of research. The first mentions 4,000, the second notes 1,900, and it looks as though this year’s figure might show that failure rates are lower than they were last year. It is, therefore, difficult for me to respond to the right hon. Gentleman’s request.

Trading standards have a role to play, particularly in relation to the concerns about foreign imports. There is a concern about the quality and standards of Chinese imports. We will continue to look at that. I am aware of what the German Federal Government are doing. Their form of Government is different from ours, and I will leave it to others to decide whether theirs or ours is right. We have safer roads than Germany and I am sure that that will continue to be the case. It is entirely up to the German Government if they wish to operate under their own legislation. The general product safety regulations fit in with this. If there is evidence that the products coming in from abroad are defective or sub-standard, we should be made aware of that and we, along with other Departments, will investigate it fully.

It is difficult for me to accept the suggestion that minimum standards like those for tyres be set. If we stand back from the issue, we will realise that tyres are a completely different product. Wheels are solid steel in most cases, particularly on lorries and public service vehicles, while there are myriad different types of manufactured wheel-product for cars. They are a different product. I do not want to ban products that are still serviceable from being transferred from one vehicle to another because of the sheer expense that would cause the industry as a whole. The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that the product must be safe. Salvage is a form of recycling. We have all done it over the years. I certainly have—I have been in many a scrap yard over the years to get products that I could not afford directly from the manufacturer.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Goggins]

I mentioned in my speech the “E” number system that operates for tyres. Does the Minister think that a similar system would help in relation to wheel safety? If that stamp was on a wheel that was transferred from one vehicle to another, it would at least show that it had met the industry standards.

[Mike Penning]

That is something that I am more than happy to look at. However, if we compare the failure rates of tyres with those of wheels, we will see that they are a very different product.

The right hon. Gentleman has asked me to look at two specific points, but I am sure that he will come up with more at a later stage. I do not say that in a derogatory manner, because that is the nature of a campaign. I cannot agree to do a specific year-long report, because the evidence from the three reports—this year’s report is about eight months in, so we will get its figure pretty soon, in about four months—do not show the failure rate to be as significant as the industry feels so passionately that it is. As I have said, I am more than happy for a senior official in VOSA to be the point of contact. If anybody thinks they have a defective product, not only do I encourage them to go to their local authority, but I am more than happy for them to report it to my own office and Department.

To reiterate, if there is a concern, we have to carefully look at the risk and make sure that it is evidence based. I know that this will be a disappointment to the right hon. Gentleman’s constituent and his business, and to the right hon. Gentleman himself, but I do not see the evidence to support Government expenditure on a further plan. I will, however, keep a close eye on the evidence that my Department receives. The way in which the right hon. Gentleman has raised the issue today, in correspondence and in meetings means that it certainly will not leave my eye for a considerable time. VOSA knows full well—my officials are present—that this is something on which I intend to keep a close eye, but the situation will not change unless the evidence changes to show that the failure rate is more significant. I apologise for citing the figure 0.0004% a few moments ago. The actual figure is 0.0006%.

I hope that the right hon. Gentleman understands my and the Government’s position. I congratulate him on his campaign and on bringing it to the Chamber’s attention today. I will work closely with him, based on evidence, but at the moment, I think the industry is doing fine.

Question put and agreed to.