Payment Scheme (Mesothelioma)

Stephen Phillips Excerpts

Monday 17th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Mike Penning)]

I beg to move,

That the draft Diffuse Mesothelioma Payment Scheme Regulations 2014, which were laid before this House on 3 February, be approved.

It is a pleasure to move these regulations on the Floor of the House. We had good debates on the Mesothelioma Act 2014, which allows us to move the regulations we need to ensure that the payments go to those who need them so much. The debates in the House and those with my noble Friend Lord Freud in the other place were incredibly valuable. I should like to place on the record my thanks to the late Paul Goggins. Paul campaigned for many years for the compensation for which these regulations make provision. It is a fitting tribute to him that I listened to him so much that we have moved to the figure of 80%, as I will say later in the debate.

We have debated these provisions, but it is good to mention at the start that the Act and the regulations continue to refer to 75% average civil compensation payments. I announced to the House on 6 March that, because the scheme administrator contract was let, and because we will stay within the 3% of the levy to employers, I am able to raise the percentage from 75% to 80%. I will introduce further regulations later, but I did not want to delay in any shape or form the compensation that is so badly needed.

[Stephen Phillips (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

Will the Minister confirm that, now we are moving to a scheme that will have an 80% compensation rate, 80% will apply to all claimants, including those who make their application under the regulations, on the face of which is the figure of 75%?

[Mike Penning]

My hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right. I was going to say that, even though the regulations are being debated today, all those eligible for the scheme will get 80%. It is important that people do not get one or another of the figures. It will be 80% across the board.

Mesothelioma Bill [Lords]

Stephen Phillips Excerpts

Monday 2nd December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Tracey Crouch]

As I say, we will have an interesting debate in Committee. Is the Minister saying that the insurance industry will pick up the legal fee? Where is this magic legal fee coming from? Who is paying for it? If it is not the claimant, it must surely be in the 25% administration costs. Officials have said that it is not within those costs, so we are going to have an interesting debate about where this £7,000 is coming from and, indeed, what it actually equates to.

[Stephen Phillips (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

The Bill went through the other place on the basis that the legal fees would be £2,000, yet we are now told that they are £7,000. The Minister needs to respond to my hon. Friend’s earlier point that one could move to an 80% level of compensation and accommodate it if the legal fees were indeed £2,000 within the 80% of gross written premium. One could not do it otherwise. It could not be accommodated if the legal fees were £7,000. There is room for manoeuvre if the assumption on which the other place proceeded—namely that the legal fees would be £2,000—is correct, but the Minister needs to be clear in the concluding speech about where this £7,000 figure has come from.

[Tracey Crouch]

I am grateful for my hon. and learned Friend’s intervention. The irony is that, when the Bill first started in the House of Lords, the figure of £7,000 was debated, but the assumption was subsequently revised down to £2,000 and then back up to £7,000. Under the original £7,000 assumption, however, the DWP calculations were exactly the same as they were when £2,000 was being discussed. Unfortunately, it is completely unclear to anyone who has paid any attention to this Bill precisely who is paying for this, what it includes and how the victim can still be put at the heart of it all.

On one particular point, I pay tribute to the insurance industry. It improved over the years in its financing of research into mesothelioma. This began when I was working at Aviva—I am not talking all the credit for it, but it did—as an attempt to stop the last Government from following the lead of Scotland and legislating too harshly on other asbestos diseases such as pleural plaques. As it happens, I supported the last Government’s resistance to following Scotland and was pleased that the top four insurers contributed to research funding into mesothelioma instead. That said, the funding runs out next year, and there has currently been no voluntary commitment—not just from the top four, but from all EL insurers—to contribute further money into research. I think that is a dreadful shame, which will have a major impact on future treatments to alleviate suffering at a time when we expect meso-diagnosis to spike. I share the views of the British Lung Foundation—supported, I believe, by the Association of British Insurers—about building the continuation of funding directly into the Bill. It is sad that a £4 billion EL industry cannot make a voluntary offering, spread equally across all insurers. If that is so, we parliamentarians now have a statutory opportunity to force them to do so.

Oral Answers to Questions

Stephen Phillips Excerpts

Monday 1st July 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Steve Webb)]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and pay tribute to his assiduous work on behalf of his constituents in that case. I hope that this afternoon he was able to have a telephone conversation with the Pensions Regulator to discuss it. In general terms, the Pensions Regulator has powers to act overseas, as in the 2007 Sea Containers case and the 2011 Great Lakes case. I am happy to continue working with the hon. Gentleman on the issue.

[Stephen Phillips (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

T8. What steps is the Department taking to support those who have worked for one company for most of their lives and whose pensions have now gone into the pension protection fund?

[Steve Webb]

I am pleased to announce that we recognised that the cap in the pension protection fund on those who are early-retired was affecting people particularly adversely if they had long service. We will be tabling amendments to the Pensions Bill so that those who have long service of more than 20 years with a firm will get an enhanced level of protection.

Oral Answers to Questions

Stephen Phillips Excerpts

Monday 10th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hoban]

The hon. Lady will be aware that the Old Swan jobcentre in her constituency was subject to an arson attack in May. The cases dealt with at the centre and the 63 members of staff working there have been moved to the West Derby jobcentre. I am confident that they can provide the same quality of service from there as they could from their previous centre.

[Stephen Phillips (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

3. What discussions he has had with officials in his Department on the long-term financial benefits to the Government of up-rating frozen expatriate pensions.

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Steve Webb)]

We estimate that the cost of uprating frozen pensions would be about £655 million a year. We believe that this is substantially in excess of any hypothetical savings arising from changed migration behaviour that might follow a change in policy on frozen pensions.

[Stephen Phillips]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer. He will be aware of the Oxford Economics report published last year that suggested that the Government could make a net saving overall in relation to pensioners who wish to retire overseas but are incentivised not to do so by the frozen pension situation. He will also be aware of the grave injustice against British pensioners who have already retired overseas whose pensions have been frozen. Now that there appears to be an economic case for righting that historic wrong, will he undertake to reconsider the question so that those who retire overseas can enjoy the fruits of their work in this country?

[Steve Webb]

I have indeed read that report, which I think is flawed on a number of grounds. To give an example, it assumes that if we uprate pensions, far more people will emigrate, and it counts savings from health and social care that might not materialise for 15 to 20 years while counting the costs up front. Our colleagues in the Treasury are not so far seeking policies with large costs for the current comprehensive spending review period that will give savings in 2030.

Oral Answers to Questions

Stephen Phillips Excerpts

Monday 18th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Duncan Smith]

We are not responsible for aircraft carriers, so I apologise for that!

[Stephen Phillips (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

T9. My right hon. Friend would no doubt agree with me that the last Labour Administration presided over a system of welfare that trapped people in poverty and ignored devastatingly high levels of workless families in our country. Will he tell the House what he is going to do about it?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

My hon. Friend will know that we are planning to bring forward a White Paper on reform of the benefits system soon. As I alluded to earlier, one of the biggest problems is that the existing benefit system has become so complex, with so many different withdrawal rates and different tapers—some at gross, some at net levels—done through different Departments. By bringing all that together and simplifying the system by giving people basically one withdrawal rate, we should be able to allow them to understand what they will retain, while also ensuring that work always pays. That, I think, is in the interest of everyone in the House.