Crime and Courts Bill [Lords]

Paul Goggins Excerpts

Monday 18th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)]

The Home Secretary began by noting how much the Bill had improved since Second Reading. As one who has sat through all the Bill’s stages so far, I must admit that I found it difficult to remember what was in it, given the huge range of other issues with which we were confronted at a very late stage. However, it is indeed a very important Bill, and I compliment those on both Front Benches on the assiduity with which they have debated the issues and led the argument, both in Committee and in the Chamber.

The National Crime Agency is now with us. I have never accepted the Home Secretary’s premise that it had to be introduced because what had gone before had failed—I think that the Serious Organised Crime Agency was an excellent organisation—but if the Home Secretary has judged that the NCA can take SOCA’s work forward, it has my full support. I do not quibble with that for a minute.

I am pleased that, in Committee and in other debates, we were given clear assurances that the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre would remain as an independent force for good in our society. It is a global leader, and I am delighted that Ministers have ensured that its reputation and its work will be protected.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) mentioned the difficulty involving the legislative consent motion. We debated that extensively last Wednesday. It is deeply regrettable that the National Crime Agency will not be able to operate fully in Northern Ireland, and I urge the Home Secretary and all Ministers who are concerned with the issue to do everything that they can. I urge them to negotiate, to discuss the issue in detail, and to bring Northern Ireland into line with the rest of the United Kingdom in this regard. As my right hon. Friend said, it is essential for the same rule of law to operate there, and for the same resources to be applied to the combating of organised crime. I know that the Home Secretary shares that view, and I hope that she will be able to secure an agreement soon so that all those additional amendments can be implemented and the NCA can work properly in Northern Ireland.

[Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)]

Because of his experience in Northern Ireland, the right hon. Gentleman is well aware of the importance of establishing measures for it. He has appealed to the Home Secretary to do what she can. Will he also appeal to the parties in Northern Ireland that have blocked such action, namely Sinn Fein and the Social Democratic and Labour party? The Democratic Unionist party, the Ulster Unionists and the Alliance party are strongly in favour of it. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will widen his appeal still further.

[Paul Goggins]

I am happy to agree with my right hon. Friend. That is a very important point. Let me put a rhetorical question to those who are not in the Chamber tonight, but who represent all the parties in Northern Ireland. SOCA was able to sit alongside the Police Service of Northern Ireland from 2006 onwards, and did an excellent job. Why should that work not be continued to ensure that those whose organised criminality poses a threat are dealt with, and dealt with properly?

[Mark Durkan]

My right hon. Friend will recall from the debate last week that some of us made clear that we had drawn attention for a long time to problems about which no one in the Northern Ireland Office, the Ministry of Justice or anywhere else had talked to us. Since people have talked to us, the negotiations have made progress. Let me also say that, unlike Sinn Fein, my party has never had any problem with the provisions relating to asset recovery. We want asset recovery to go the distance.

[Paul Goggins]

I warmly welcome what my hon. Friend has said. He will recall that last week I intervened on his speech to observe that it was strange that the Minister had not leapt to his feet and embarked on negotiations with him there and then, because he was clearly willing to discuss this matter. I urge the Home Secretary, in good faith, to talk to the parties in Northern Ireland and work with Northern Ireland Ministers to ensure that legislative consent is secured as soon as possible.

We discussed community orders at some length in Committee. I thank the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice, who, along with the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Jeremy Wright), has had constructive discussions with the Restorative Justice Council, with me and with others about the merits of moving restorative justice to the mainstream of the criminal justice system. I know that the Minister shares that aim and aspiration, and I welcome amendment 110, which the Government tabled last Wednesday. We did not have time to debate it, but the substance is there, and that is important. I thank the Minister for the attention that he paid to the issue.

I hope that the amendment relating to women offenders, which was cruelly removed from the Bill in Committee, will be reinserted when the Bill returns to the House of Lords, because I think it important to focus on the needs of women offenders. The aim of working with any offender is to try to ensure that they do not reoffend and that they can re-establish their lives in a proper way. The Lords amendment was right to focus attention on the needs of women offenders and if that is re-inserted into the Bill, I urge Ministers to accept it as a positive move that they can work with.

May I also thank the Ministers who have responded to the debates on child neglect? Again, we did not have time to debate an amendment on that on Report, but the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice made positive assurances about continuing to discuss the matter. The law is very outdated and it is important that we try to modernise it in a way that works and protects our children. Again, I pay tribute to him for what he has done on that.

Finally, I think that the Home Secretary is wrong to bring the super-affirmative order proposal back. I say to her that the way in which this has been done is not acceptable. She told us on Second Reading that she had not made her mind up, the Minister in Committee never raised it there, except obliquely, and yet right at the end it is brought back in. There is a debate about who should lead on counter-terrorism, but I find it odd—it is nice to be able to say this to her personally, as I said it the other day when she was not here—that this Home Secretary told us that to extend pre-charge detention beyond 14 days and to get the enhanced terrorism prevention and investigation measures we had to have fresh primary legislation, but to change the lead responsibility for counter-terrorism we need only secondary legislation. I ask her to reflect on that again. I hope that their lordships will take that measure out of the Bill again, and I urge her to think carefully before she moves to try to put it in.

Let me end by saying to the Home Secretary, to her colleagues and certainly to my Front-Bench colleagues that they have done a fine job in leading this difficult and complex Bill to the conclusion that we have reached tonight.

Oral Answers to Questions

Paul Goggins Excerpts

Tuesday 5th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Wright]

Our expectation would be that people receive an extended determinate sentence for an offence of terrorism, under which release would not be automatic. I hope that reassures my hon. Friend.

[Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)]

Further to that question, the Minister recently confirmed in a written answer that 12 terrorists convicted under the Terrorism Act 2000 and the Terrorism Act 2006 will be released from prison this year. How does he intend to ensure that the probation trusts responsible for their supervision have the necessary additional resources?

[Jeremy Wright]

The right hon. Gentleman knows that the arrangements made for offenders of that nature will be multi-agency public protection arrangements. We want to ensure that local authorities and all other agencies responsible for joining in under MAPPA have the support they need. We will look carefully at what he has said and ensure that that happens in each of those examples.

Transforming Rehabilitation

Paul Goggins Excerpts

Wednesday 9th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

The latter point is an important one and I rather agree with my right hon. Friend on that. I look forward to having discussions with him and his Committee about it. I am also strongly supportive of the voluntary sector. It is simply not the case, even though the Opposition keep saying that it is, that the voluntary sector is not involved in the Work programme. That programme supports well over 100,000 people in the voluntary sector, using the real expertise of small and larger organisations such as the Papworth Trust and the Salvation Army. I want to see more of that in this process.

[Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)]

May I ask the Secretary of State about accountability to the courts? When a medium or low-risk offender is on a programme run by a private company and fails to keep to the conditions of that order, who will make the decision to return that offender to the court? Will it be the private company, which clearly has an interest in a successful outcome to the programme, or will it be a probation officer?

[Chris Grayling]

It will be a probation officer. I expect to have in every centre a seconded or attached probation officer who will be responsible for enforcing the legal side of things. In much the same way as happens in the Work programme, where Jobcentre Plus does the sanctioning, it will be a contractual duty of providers to report a breach but it will be the job of the public probation service to decide how to respond and whether to refer it to court or do something else.

Oral Answers to Questions

Paul Goggins Excerpts

Tuesday 18th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

As I have indicated, we have some high-quality probation professionals in this country. It is a profession that will remain important to us. We need specialist skills, particularly in the protection of public security, risk assessment and harm prevention. Such skills will remain integral to the way in which a public sector probation service works.

[Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)]

16. What plans he has to extend the use of restorative justice.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mrs Helen Grant)]

The Government published their restorative justice action plan for the criminal justice system on 19 November. It will improve the victim’s awareness of and access to restorative justice. We have also introduced legislation to put restorative justice on a statutory footing.

[Paul Goggins]

I am grateful to the Minister for that answer. I welcome the Government’s action plan, to which she referred, including the clear commitment to the needs of victims. However, if she and her colleagues are to embed restorative justice at the heart of the criminal justice system, she will need to find additional resources. Will she make a commitment now to allocate to restorative justice some of the extra money that has been raised from offenders through the extended victims surcharge?

[Mrs Grant]

We are already doing so.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Damian Green)]

I am happy to join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to the Erewash community safety partnership, and to reassure her that this is one of the many areas where the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice are working together closely. She will know that last week my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary published a draft Anti-Social Behaviour Bill, which aims precisely to help community safety partnerships put victims at the heart of their response to this problem. The Ministry of Justice is funding a number of organisations, including Victim Support, that are working to the same end.

[Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)]

T8. I know that the Minister responsible for probation has had the opportunity to visit Manchester and see for himself the intensive alternative to custody programme, which is co-ordinated by the Greater Manchester probation service and has achieved significant reductions in the rate and seriousness of offending. Will he and the Secretary of State make a clear commitment that, under the new commissioning arrangements, whenever they are announced, that tremendously important initiative will continue?

[Jeremy Wright]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising that, and I certainly enjoyed my visit to Manchester, where I could see that a great deal of good work was being done. He can take reassurance from the fact that the system we will roll out will reward those things that work. If the intensive alternative to custody programme is as effective as it appears to be, it will work and it will be rewarded.

Oral Answers to Questions

Paul Goggins Excerpts

Tuesday 18th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

I would have been very uncomfortable about inheriting a policy that allowed people to escape prison sentences by pleading guilty early. The National Audit Office report suggests that financial issues might be created for us. I can say that in the two weeks for which I have been in the Department, I have looked at the financial position, and I am comfortable that it is on track to achieve the savings that it should achieve during the spending review period. However, I want to ensure that that happens while also ensuring that the right people are still in our prisons.

[Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)]

One way of reducing the number of short-sentence prisoners would be to extend the intensive alternative to custody programme, which has been pioneered in Greater Manchester. When the Secretary of State makes his early visit to Manchester following the invitation issued earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), will he take a look for himself at how that programme is reducing reoffending, and how it could be rolled out still further?

Oral Answers to Questions

Paul Goggins Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Clarke]

The Bill stems from our recent experience in the so-called Guantanamo Bay cases, when a very large sum of money was paid out to satisfy claims and legal costs when the security and intelligence services insisted that they had an adequate defence. An increasing number of those cases are coming along, and it is not for me to pre-judge any of them, but I should like the judge to be able to hear all the evidence in the circumstances that are possible—closed material proceedings—so that we as citizens obtain some judgment in the end about the merits or otherwise of the complaint. We certainly must not encourage people to go along for both the political publicity and the potential funds that might flow from bringing a claim that they know cannot be defended.

[Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)]

On what basis has the Justice Secretary decided not to allow closed material proceedings at inquests? Surely if there is a highly sensitive piece of intelligence that would help to explain the cause of someone’s death, the coroner should be able to see that information, albeit on a protected basis.

[Mr Clarke]

We canvassed that proposal in the consultation, and I have considerable sympathy with the right hon. Gentleman’s view, but we have responded to the consultation, in which there were strong feelings against the procedure being applied to inquests—despite the support that we had from coroners’ associations.

The argument is that the coroner cannot consider such material in closed material proceedings because it means that the family, the press and other interested parties will not be able to hear what the spies have to say, and that is the basis on which we have introduced the Bill—we are a listening Government. But I did canvass the measure that the right hon. Gentleman proposes.

Mesothelioma (Legal Aid Reform)

Paul Goggins Excerpts

Tuesday 26th June 2012 Westminster Hall

[Bill Esterson]

My hon. Friend speaks with greater experience than anyone in this House on the subject and on the issue of protecting the rights of workers who have suffered, over many years, grave injustice through industrial diseases and industrial accidents. He brings that wealth of experience from his time as a miner, and he continues to campaign tirelessly, and I applaud him for that. He is absolutely right that we have a duty to the victims to ensure that the matter is dealt with properly and that this Government are held to account. We need to hear answers today as to what will happen in that review, and it needs to be done quickly.

KPMG estimates that the insurance industry was given a £1.6 billion windfall when the Government ended compensation for pleural plaques. Unless the Government change their mind on mesothelioma, a similar windfall may be made available to the insurers at the expense of victims of industrial disease.

In contrast to other diseases, mesothelioma has only one outcome—loss of life. It is not trivial, and victims need help not hindrance. Most doctors say that the average lifespan from diagnosis to death is around nine months to one year. As one victim explained:

“My life has been turned upside down, and I really didn’t want to think about anything except spending my last days with my family. I worked all my life and paid all my national insurance and taxes, so this seems unfair.”

Mesothelioma victims, who often have just months to live, should not be expected to devote their energies to finding the lawyer with the best deal, yet that is what the Government expect them to do. Asbestos-related disease is not an accident. It is the result of negligence and lack of duty of care.

The claims of dying asbestos victims are never frivolous or fraudulent, but they are lumped in with road traffic accident claims that make up more than 70% of personal injury claims, for which the Government and insurance industry suggest that conditional fee agreements have been exploited. Between 2007 and 2011, there was a 6.6% reduction in employer liability cases, of which most respiratory claims are a subset. During that same period, road traffic accidents increased by 43% to nearly 800,000 cases. It is expected that mesothelioma claims will peak in about 2015, as asbestos has been eliminated from the working environment. Unscrupulous claimants may be able to fake road traffic injuries, but not mesothelioma or asbestosis. Road traffic accident problems will not be solved by punishing asbestos victims.

Mesothelioma sufferers who make a claim mainly do so because they and their families will not be at risk in terms of legal costs, which, without no win, no fee agreements, would be prohibitive. A claim may be valued at between £5,000 and £10,000, which is of great importance to the individual concerned, but which could be eaten up in costs and premiums under the Government’s plans. Mesothelioma sufferers would lose the whole of their compensation simply by not taking any action, which, as we have heard, is increasingly likely if no changes are made. Their access to lawyers would be restricted by making success fees unrecoverable from defendants, putting them at risk of paying defendants’ costs if they lose. Victims are already reluctant to claim because they have so many problems dealing with their rapid deterioration in health and trying to survive. The risk that if they lose they will have to pay such costs would be a massive additional hurdle for some of our most vulnerable people, to whom a decent, civilised society should and would guarantee support.

We should not forget that compensation is already significantly reduced for many sufferers. They must not only provide evidence of heavy exposure dating decades back, but forgo that portion of compensation where insurers cannot be traced for employers that are no longer trading. As insurance companies fight mesothelioma cases to the end, often trying to elongate the case until the victim dies, the cost of after-the-event insurance can be huge. As that will also be unrecoverable under the Government’s plans, there is no prospect of claimants being able to afford the premiums. The Government’s one-size-fits-all approach in the legislation is wrong. It may work for some personal injury claims, but is not effective in the case of complex industrial disease cases such as those involving mesothelioma.

[Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend has given a graphic description of the pain and suffering faced and experienced by mesothelioma sufferers. He is describing the impact that the legislation would have on mesothelioma sufferers if, following a review, it was fully implemented for that group. He has mentioned several times the review that the Government have offered as part of the concession that they made while the Bill was passing through Parliament. Does he agree that it is essential that that review fully engages with mesothelioma sufferers and their families and especially the support groups, such as the Asbestos Victims Support Groups Forum UK, which has done so much to make the case on behalf of mesothelioma sufferers?

[Bill Esterson]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his intervention. I completely agree with him and will come shortly to what we need in the review.

For mesothelioma sufferers, unwarranted and fatal risks have been taken unknowingly, so the correct function of the legal system in such cases would be to restore victims to the position that they were in before diagnosis and to make provision for them and their families. Terminally ill and dying people will have other things on their mind than looking for a lawyer to give them a good rate, so there will not be greater competition, driving costs down, as the Minister claims. There is in fact no evidence that lawyers will reduce costs, as lawyers themselves will be less likely to take these cases because they risk not being able to recover costs if they lose or they face the dreadful prospect of having to recover those costs from their clients in a situation in which they have just lost in terrible circumstances.

Making changes to rules on compensation is no motivation or incentive for mesothelioma sufferers. One sufferer has said that

“no amount of compensation could ever compensate for my husband’s suffering and loss of life. To even contemplate this is wrong. My husband’s suffering has ended but still I have terrible images of his horrific suffering which I cannot erase…My husband was poisoned going to work. I hope this Government remembers that!”

At all stages of consideration of the legislation in this House and in the House of Lords, the fallacy of the Government’s position on industrial disease was pointed out. Twice the Lords voted on amendments to this effect:

“The changes made by sections 43, 45 and 46 of this Act do not apply in relation to proceedings which include a claim for damages for respiratory disease or illness (whether or not resulting in death) arising from industrial exposure to harmful substance.”

The Government were forced to reconsider their position and they agreed to an amendment, which brings us to the point of today’s debate. This is the amendment:

“Sections 43 and 45 and diffuse mesothelioma proceedings

(1) Sections 43 and 45 may not be brought into force in relation to proceedings relating to a claim for damages in respect of diffuse mesothelioma until the Lord Chancellor has—

a) carried out a review of the likely effect of those sections in relation to such proceedings, and

b) published a report of the conclusions of the review.”

Since then, the nature of the review, its timing, its terms of reference, how it is to be conducted and who is to be consulted have been raised several times. I have raised those matters myself with Ministers, as have the Labour Front-Bench team. When agreeing to the compromise, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan) said:

“We need assurances it will be truly independent and not just a whitewash. We also need confidence there’ll be sufficient time allowed to see how the changes brought about impact on other successful claimants before rolling them out for mesothelioma sufferers.”

Given the Government’s conduct throughout, it is not surprising that we and those who represent mesothelioma sufferers, and the victims themselves, are sceptical about the Government’s promise. Today is an ideal opportunity, which I hope the Minister will take, to address the doubts of everyone who has concerns about mesothelioma. Anything less than a fully independent and thorough review of the potential effects of limiting claims will not be within the spirit or the letter of the amendments agreed to, which enabled the Government to get their legislation through. I hope that we will not hear generalities or evasions from the Minister. A clear commitment to do justice for the victims of this terrible disease is the least we can expect.

I therefore ask the Minister these questions. When will the review take place? Who will be part of the review body? What will its terms of reference be? No doubt it will include representatives of the insurance industry, but who will be the victims’ representatives? Will the review be truly independent, by which I mean independent of the insurance industry?

Concern remains that the change to no win, no fee will cut the number of people claiming and the amount being paid by insurance companies. The insurance industry has a clear financial interest in cutting down the amounts paid out. How will the Minister or his colleagues ensure that that interest is balanced by how the review is run? Will he consider an independent panel to examine mesothelioma and compensation for victims and their families? Will he and his colleagues consider the call for an employers’ liability insurance bureau following the pattern of the Motor Insurers Bureau? We must ask why there is such a facility for traffic accident victims but not for those suffering from mesothelioma or other industrial diseases.

Victims and their families want answers and protection. They have a right to that protection, given the suffering that they go through. It is time that Ministers gave answers about how that protection will be guaranteed, and soon, by this Government.

Oral Answers to Questions

Paul Goggins Excerpts

Tuesday 15th May 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Blunt]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. We have invested £10.5 million in moving from 65 to 80 rape support centres across the country, examining the areas where there are gaps in provision to make sure we get the best possible national coverage so there is access to advice and support for victims of rape across the country.

[Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)]

T2. Further to the question from my colleague on the Front Bench, my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mrs Chapman), will the Minister comment on the relationship between health care and resettlement given that from April next year offenders in prison will receive health care that is commissioned centrally, whereas when they are released from prison back into the community those health services will be commissioned by the local clinical commissioning group?

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

Paul Goggins Excerpts

Tuesday 24th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)]

In the light of your comments, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will make a short speech, and will confine my remarks to the Government’s amendment to Lords amendment 31.

Let me first pay tribute to the work of Lord Alton, Lord Avebury, the late Lord Newton, and others in the House of Lords for tabling the original amendment. Without their dedication and commitment to ensuring a workable outcome for those with mesothelioma, we would not be where we are today.

I welcome the fact that the Government have listened carefully to the case presented in both Houses for exempting mesothelioma victims from the current proposals. It is not right to force victims of an extraordinary disease—when no fraud is possible and compensation is certain—to shop around for a lawyer during their last few months of life in an attempt to pay the lowest possible success fees as a proportion of a payment that they deserve. Discussion of this issue should never have been a fight about compassion for those with mesothelioma —it is a pretty heartless person who does not show compassion for those who suffer from the disease—but, rather, should have dealt with how best to protect the interests of the people who find themselves victims, and those of their families.

Without the amendment, the practical implications of the law as drafted for victims of mesothelioma would have been hugely damaging. Regardless of what colleagues on either side of the House may think of lawyers and insurance companies, it would ultimately be the victim, who would be going through intense suffering through no fault of their own, who lost out. The amendment rightly exempts mesothelioma from the overall package of reforms in the Bill, but it should be considered the beginning, not the end of the discussion. If ever there was an opportunity to kick-start progress on speeding up compensation payments to victims, it is now.

Like others, I seek assurances that there will be proper parliamentary debate on the commencement order and the report from the Lord Chancellor, and that future legislation will be synchronised with other initiatives that the Department for Work and Pensions is working on. However, more than anything, I urge the Government to conduct the review not with lawyers or insurers in mind, but with the sufferers at the centre, and to come forward with alternative proposals to ensure that they are protected, financially and otherwise, as soon as possible.

I started by thanking the noble Lords for tabling amendment 31 in the first place. It is only right that I finish by saying that I am sure that the late Lord Newton of Braintree, a co-sponsor of Lords amendment 31 who passed away recently from a respiratory disease, would have been pleased, as a former Leader of this House, that the Government have listened, that cross-party consensus has been achieved and that common sense has prevailed.

[Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch), who has played a brave and important role in discussions over recent days. I pay tribute to her for that. In relation to Lords amendment 31 and amendment (a) in lieu, the whole House is rightly paying tribute to Lord Alton and his supporters in another place for raising the issue in the first instance and for then persisting in their opposition to what the Government have until now been proposing in the Bill.

I also want to thank Lord McNally and Lord Freud for the constructive approach that they took in a meeting that I attended with Lord Alton last week, and in the days since. I welcome the concession that the Minister is offering this afternoon, and I appreciate that he cannot go into great detail about any proposals, which he said he hoped the Government would be able to bring forward before the summer recess. However, I can tell the House that his ministerial colleagues made it clear in the meeting I attended that they are striving to negotiate and implement a system of compensation and support for mesothelioma victims that is swifter and more sympathetic than the one currently in place. I am sure that the whole House would want to encourage them in their endeavours.

Whether amendment (a) in lieu is sufficient will depend entirely on the answers to a number of questions. In particular—this has already been raised—what will the extent and conduct of the review be? Crucially, how will the commencement of the relevant provisions of the Bill be aligned with the proposals that the Department for Work and Pensions hopes to publish before the summer recess? I would be happy to take an intervention from the Minister if he wishes to make a clear commitment this afternoon that he will not seek to implement the relevant provisions in the Bill unless and until an improved system of compensation is in place.

[Mr Djanogly]

I do not want to give any binding commitments about the process today, because things have not been finalised. However, I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that if the process is to be improved by the Department for Work and Pensions, which we hope it will be—he will have some insight into our proposals from the discussions he has had—that could well require DWP legislation, in which case we would look to roll the ending of the provisions into the commencement of the DWP provisions. That is how I foresee the process now, but again, I am not making that a commitment.

[Paul Goggins]

I am grateful to the Minister for that helpful intervention, because if there is to be legislation to introduce the new system, there will have to be full parliamentary scrutiny of those proposals in both Houses.

It has been a privilege and a pleasure to support Lord Alton in his efforts to protect mesothelioma victims. He has asked me to say that he is grateful for the cross-party support he has received from this House, and that, along with other Members of both Houses, he awaits with interest the outcome of the review and the details of the new compensation scheme. Above all, he is pleased that Parliament has acted to protect mesothelioma victims.

For my part, I am pleased that the Minister’s comments of last week—in particular that the families of dying mesothelioma victims should, and would, be watching the lawyers’ clock as fees mounted—have now been overtaken by an acceptance that mesothelioma victims are not part of a compensation culture and that they should not be expected to pay their lawyers a success fee out of their damages, and, finally, that through the amendment in lieu and other measures that will follow Parliament should continue to do all in its power to give mesothelioma sufferers the best possible help and support.

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

Paul Goggins Excerpts

Tuesday 17th April 2012 Commons Chamber

The view which seems to underpin much of part 2 of the Bill is that all no win, no fee claims are bogus. That is clearly not true, and I hope I made it clear that it is well nigh impossible to bring a fraudulent industrial disease claim on account of the high degree of medical evidence necessary. Industrial disease cases centre on situations in which an individual has suffered over a period of years on account of negligence by their employer. These individuals should not fall further victim to this Government’s reforms because of their doubts about the petty claims industry. That would deny them justice, and I hope it is the last thing on the Minister’s mind; although, having listened to his earlier comments, I am not sure how committed he is to these claimants in any event.

[Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)]

I begin by paying tribute to Lord Alton and those who supported him in proposing amendment 31. We have had a number of powerful contributions to this evening’s short debate, but none more so than that from the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch), who made a thoughtful and compassionate speech that was listened to carefully. I urge the Minister, even at this late stage, to show some compassion and to listen carefully to the expressions of concern that are not just reserved to the Opposition, but are being expressed publicly and privately on both sides of the House.

What this issue boils down to is: who pays the legal fees when a claim for damages is concluded? As we have heard from the Minister, legal aid is no longer available. Since 1999, the losing defendant has paid; now, the Government are saying that the claimant must pay. I have to be completely honest and open with the Minister: if he was proposing to switch the burden to claimants for road traffic claims only, which account for 70% of personal injury claims, I would not be contributing to this debate. It would remain to be seen whether he was right to think that that would drive down costs, but I do not have evidence to argue to the contrary in those cases.

However, amendment 31 is not about whiplash cases; as we have heard, it is principally about people with a fatal respiratory disease: mesothelioma. These are people who, frankly, expect to be dead within one year of their diagnosis; who face the prospect of excruciating pain and difficult medical treatment; who have to cope with the trauma and upset that they and their families feel. These people are not ambulance-chasers; they are not part of a compensation culture, and they deserve justice.

The truth is that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) alluded to earlier, many of these people do not claim now, such is the trauma they have to face. If the Government’s proposal is enacted, it will drive that number down still further. How can the Minister expect such victims and their families—people who have received the diagnosis and know they are going to die—to shop around for the cheapest possible lawyer when they need every ounce of their energy to fight their disease?

I want to draw the Minister’s attention to comments made by the widow of someone who died from mesothelioma, which were brought to my attention by Tony Whitston from the Greater Manchester Asbestos Victims Support Group. These are compelling remarks and I ask the Minister to reflect on them. The widow says:

“I know the mere talk of legal action, court cases and costs was the farthest thought from mine or Peter’s mind. Whilst you are trying to cope with the physical and emotional trauma that comes with the words terminal illness you cannot contemplate the extra worry and anxiety that claiming compensation would bring. Mesothelioma sufferers are in constant pain and always fighting to breathe, they suffer horrendously and they and their families are traumatised at what the future holds.”

It is up to the Minister to bring some hope to people in that situation, not injustice, yet Ministers want to make successful claimants pay up to 25% of their award for pain and suffering as a success fee to their lawyer. I know that that success fee is not a bonus for the lawyer but is meant to cover the costs of other cases, but why should the successful claimants—the mesothelioma sufferers—have to pay? Surely their former employers and their insurance companies should have to pay.

The Government say that there will be a 10% uplift in general damages in the awards, but that is an estimate and cannot be guaranteed. Even so, those who were awarded payments would still pay thousands of pounds in a success fee. Ministers also talk about qualified one-way cost shifting, but that does not take account of the disbursements that are often required in these complex cases, costing on average £8,000 a claim.

I have never believed that compassion belongs to one party in this House. I believe that it can be found all around the Chamber and Members of Parliament from all parties are concerned about the issue. I finish my speech by urging the Minister to listen, even at this stage, to the voices of those who have spoken in tonight’s debate and those who might speak to him after the debate in more private surroundings. I urge him to listen because what the victims of mesothelioma want from him is not only compassion but justice.

[Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)]

It is 43 years since I started work as a coal miner, and during the many years for which I was a union rep I saw some horrendous accidents: men who had their legs cut off by broken ropes or broken chains; a man buried alive under thousands of tonnes of coal; a man impaled on the roof of a coal mine by a machine; and a man whose pelvis was broken by another machine. I represented people with stress-related illnesses. I represented thousands of people in my 35 years as a trade union representative and I sat on social security tribunals, went to social security tribunals and sat on industrial tribunals, but nothing could convince me that anything is more pernicious than the situation for people who are suffering from mesothelioma.

Mesothelioma is an exceptional case, because of what the disease does. When I first became aware of mesothelioma, I asked a solicitor, Ian McFall from Thompsons Solicitors in Newcastle, to explain to me exactly what it was. He said that one fibre could go into someone’s lung and lie dormant for many years, but when it becomes active there is no alternative—that person suffers horribly and then they die. There is no cure, no remission and no element of survival; they die, and that makes it a special case. Everybody who gets mesothelioma will die an agonising death.

The real real reason why mesothelioma is an exceptional case is that the problem was known about for more than a century. Asbestos was identified as a poisonous substance in 1892 and has been banned for use in this country for almost half a century, yet employers knowingly exposed their workers to it day in, day out. They knew the dangers and ignored them for decades. They were eventually held accountable, but ever since the first successful case against the employers and their insurers on asbestos-related diseases, the employers and the insurers have kept coming back to the courts and to this place.

The hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) asked why we in this place were involved in this issue, but we constantly have to rewrite the law because people are using the law and this place to get away from their responsibilities. The decision on pleural plaques a few years ago was welcomed by KPMG because, as it said, that was a £1.4 billion handout to the insurance industry in this country. Those were the people who were clapping their hands on that day, not those who have asbestos-related diseases.