Homelessness
Debate between Eleanor Laing and Nicholas Brown(7 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mr Nicholas Brown (Newcastle upon Tyne East) (Lab)
claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36).
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
I hear the Opposition Chief Whip asking whether the Question might now be put, but I think he was just pipped to the post by the Minister concluding and sitting down.
Mesothelioma Bill [Lords]
Debate between Eleanor Laing and Nicholas Brown(10 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Nicholas Brown (Newcastle upon Tyne East) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 5, page 1, line 15, leave out ‘25 July 2012’ and insert ‘10 February 2010’.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 6, in clause 3, page 2, line 44, leave out ‘25 July 2012’ and insert ‘10 February 2010’.
Amendment 4, in clause 4, page 3, line 4, at end insert
‘but shall not be less than 100 per cent. of the average damages recovered in civil mesothelioma cases.’.
Amendment 1, page 3, line 5, at end insert
‘but shall not be less than 80 per cent of the average civil compensation recovered by mesothelioma claimants.’.
Amendment 9, page 3, line 5, at end insert
‘and shall be met by a levy on insurers of not less than 3 per cent of gross written premium during any given period.’.
Mr Brown
Before I explain the purpose of the three amendments that stand in my name, I want to make two more general points.
First, let me identify myself and my constituents with the tributes that have been paid to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins). My right hon. Friend has been a champion of my constituents as well as his own in all his work on issues relating to mesothelioma. Like many other Members whose constituencies are hot spots for the condition, I greatly appreciate the work that he has done over the years in trying to help those who suffer from it, and, indeed, his work more generally as a widely respected parliamentarian. I know that the whole House wishes him a speedy recovery.
Secondly, let me pay tribute to the Minister for managing to take the Bill so far forward—further forward than I managed to take the measure that I attempted to introduce when I was a Minister in the Department, which was slightly more wide ranging and was certainly brought to a halt more effectively. It is with some admiration that I pay my small tribute to the Minister—or, rather, my large tribute, for why should quantum be an issue? Actually, it is the issue in this part of the Bill, but we shall come to that shortly. I know of the pressures that the Minister has faced externally and within the broader Government over this issue, and I think he has done extremely well to get us to where we are now.
Having said that, I should explain why I tabled my three amendments. There is no position that cannot be improved with a little bit of thought, and in any event it is right to test the arguments. The amendments seek to increase the share of the amount that the arbitrator gives the victim that actually reaches the victim, and to give the legislation an earlier start date—2010 rather than 2012.
Let me address the compensation issues first. My amendment says compensation should be 100% of what is due. Nobody in the discussions we had on Second Reading and in Committee has made a moral case against giving somebody 100% of what they are entitled to. In fact, some very powerful speeches were made in this place on Second Reading on precisely this point, and I think it was my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson) who pointed out that within a few months the victims are going to be 100% dead, so 100% compensation does not seem unreasonable. After all, the employers paid 100% of the premiums and they thought they enjoyed 100% of the cover. Had there been recourse in law, they would have got 100% of the damages. In not one of these cases has the defence argued that to some extent the victim contributed to his or her own misfortune, and, when we think about it, what contribution could they have made that led to their own misfortune—breathing? It is a ridiculous contention. The victims are not to blame and therefore they should not have their compensation cut.