Compensation Bill [Lords]

This has been an interesting debate. We have covered a range of issues, not necessarily all directly connected with the Bill before us. It has been a good debate for that. Several hon. Members have raised points related to the Bill, to which I shall shortly respond, but first I shall reiterate the benefits that it will have. I should declare an interest, as everyone else seems to have done. From 1978 until 1992 I was a branch secretary of the Transport and General Workers Union, and in 1986 I received £1,500 in compensation for an industrial injury, which was negotiated for me by the union. The provisions on negligence and statutory duty will provide much-needed reassurance for the voluntary sector and for others who are concerned about possible litigation. They will ensure that all courts, including the lower courts, are aware of the guidance given by the higher courts. They will serve a valuable purpose in improving awareness of this aspect of the law and ensuring that normal activities are not prevented by the fear of litigation and excessively risk-averse behaviour. All hon. Members have agreed on the importance of regulating claims management services and putting in place vital safeguards for consumers. My hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr. Anderson) and others, especially those representing coal mining constituencies, have described some of the problems—to put it mildly—that arise with those intermediaries and the way in which they mislead people who make claims. The regulatory framework that we have set out is both proportionate and targeted at the areas where there is the greatest potential for consumer detriment. It is consistent with the Government’s better regulation agenda, and will ensure that standards are raised in the industry. The regulation of claims management services is a necessary step for protecting consumers. The safeguards that we propose will ensure that bad practices stop and the era of unregulated claims management companies misleading consumers and leaving them out of pocket will be brought firmly to a close. A number of hon. Members have raised the Barker decision in the House of Lords relating to mesothelioma. I reiterate what the Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, East (Bridget Prentice) said: it is the Government’s intention to address this issue as soon as possible. Hon. Members have stressed the importance of speed, because of the nature of the disease. My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) made the good point that unless new legislation is introduced, if we leave it to the courts, it could be years and years before the matter is properly resolved. Colleagues will be reassured not just by my words but by those of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs in opening the debate, and those of the Prime Minister the other day. In the same vein, we await the decision of the House of Lords on pleural plaque—a subject that was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping). It is not appropriate to say what we will do until we have heard the final decision.