Clause 3
Compensation Bill [Lords]
2:00 pm
John Mann (PPS (Rt Hon Richard Caborn, Minister of State), Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Bassetlaw, Labour)
They certainly have; I have uncovered many of them. The Leeds solicitor, Irwin Mitchell, was charging 25 per cent. The company with the most money, Thompson’s, was charging constituents such as my Mr. Allen directly. A range of solicitors charge levies or success fees—few of the leading ones do not—but that is a separate issue, because there is a remedy there. I do not think that the powers of the Law Society are strong enough to enforce adjudications without all the palaver that we have had with Raleys, such as appeals and solicitors’ disciplinary tribunals. In my view, the Law Society should strike off solicitors who refuse to abide by the club rules. It is straightforward. If that is not happening, we should legislate so that it does and so that such people are not entitled to be solicitors any more.
I come to claims handlers. The hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey asked who should be allowed to proceed with cases. That is a vexed question. In relation to the mining and hearing loss claims, I see no basis for the Government to sign an agreement with a claims handler. From the evidence, the Government should cancel that arrangement forthwith, because consumer rights are not built into it.
The only way that I would be prepared to countenance the idea that a claims handler should proceed with cases is if the consumer rights were equivalent to going through a solicitor. There may well be arguments—my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham will doubtless put them at some stage—that claims handlers should not be allowed to do so anyway. Even if that were the case, it could be considered only on the basis of equivalence of rights.
There are two other aspects. One relates to Vendside and the hearing loss claims. It is not just the mining industry; the textile industry is involved as well. One of the perplexities that I am still struggling to understand—I am still asking questions—is that I found women who worked together who appeared to have equivalent industrial deafness, some of whose claims have proceeded while others have not. There seems to be an interesting unwillingness to take claims to court, and that decision appears to be made by the insurers’ solicitors. Someone goes to a claims handler, and the claims handler gives the case to a solicitor, who perhaps passes it to a second solicitor. A third solicitor then judges that there is no claim, and that is the insurers’ solicitor.
Something in that does not add up. If that is right, proper and within the law, the law is wrong. If a woman with deafness takes a claim for industrial deafness, whether the employer is liable is arguable, but if the claim has proceeded through a claims handler, a solicitor and perhaps another solicitor and is then stopped by the insurers’ solicitor, that is rather dubious.
The fundamental question is how that fits into the draft legislation, particularly when there is a financial relationship, with fees being paid, and greater triangulation among the parties. I could see how there might be an unduly close financial relationship between the claims handler and perhaps even the insurer or the insurer’s broker. The remit and role of the Financial Services Authority and the Association of British Insurers in that context must be examined. Otherwise, the sort of ruses that took place with hearing loss claims, which appear to have been legal, will recur. In 2000, a hearing loss claim settled in a couple of months at costs of around £600 or £700 to the claimant’s solicitor suddenly became a five-year process in which £3,000 to £4,000 went in all directions for what appears to be wholly unnecessary insurance, third parties in medical investigations, repayments to the first set of solicitors, claims handlers and their marketing companies. If all that unnecessary expense is legal, we must ensure that the law is tightened so that it does not happen.
Vendside is not alone, but it is the biggest offender in my area in terms of volume and the most litigious in trying to ensure that what it does is not challenged. I faced three spurious and unsuccessful complaints to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, all of which were dismissed. Letters are now being sent to Opposition Members. I hope that they do not file them appropriately too quickly; I hope that they will let colleagues involved know that they have received letters.