I agree. I have no problem with that, but I challenge Durham NUM to publish a breakdown of what it has done with about £3.5 million, which it has had under the scheme. I also ask why, if Thompsons solicitors is so good and pioneering, it is not contributing, too. It has done very well out of the mining industry in the past 10 years.
I take exception to a point made by Lord Sawyer:"““If there is a dispute about deductions by the union in any mining community, it should be resolved within that community rather than be made into a political football, as it has been by some.”” —[Official Report, House of Lords, 11 July 2006; Vol. 684, c. 662-64.]"
I have tried to resolve this issue in the mining communities, as the noble Lord would know if he had taken the trouble to speak to me. I wrote to the general secretary of Durham NUM, David Hopper, on 3 February 2005; to date, I have had not a reply. In that letter, I finished by saying that if he wished, or his executive wished, for me to address them in any way, they should please contact me:"““I am more than willing to speak to either yourself or your committee.””"
To this day, I have not heard anything.
What I have heard is many mutterings behind the scenes in the trade union movement about how Kevan Jones is selling out the movement and his past. I was also, apparently, condemned, by name, from the podium last week at the Durham miners’ gala. The gutless individuals who could do that there are not prepared to meet me or talk to me directly about the issues.
It is vital that we press the new clause. I want assurances from the Minister that if she cannot accept it, she will undertake on behalf of the Government to put the utmost pressure on the solicitors and claims handlers who have deducted moneys to pay it back. My great fear is that without pressure from the Government individual solicitors will hang on to the money and give it back only when complaints are made, and that claims handlers who have already deducted money will not be prepared to pay it back. At the end of the day, those who will suffer will be individual consumers, for whom my hon. Friend has been a strong advocate throughout the passage of the Bill, and who are the reason for its introduction.
Compensation Bill [Lords]
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Beamish
(Labour)
in the House of Commons on Monday, 17 July 2006.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Compensation Bill (HL).
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
449 c101 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 10:03:02 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_338082
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_338082
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_338082