Clause 5
Compensation Bill [Lords]
5:45 pm
David Anderson (Blaydon, Labour)
Certainly, Mr. Atkinson. I am more than happy to do that on your behalf.
It is clear that we are considering whether trade unions are claim handlers. There is a long history of the difference between trade unions and claim handlers being that when a case is handed over by a trade union it does not end there. The union must continue to carry out work and a lot of work goes on to try to find witnesses. There have been successful cases in which people have been dead for more than 30 years, and the unions have gone out and spoken to former members and colleagues, asking, “Can you remember what was happening and what this man was using, and where he was exposed to this thing?” No claim handler in the world would do that; they want to be in and out, get the money and leave.
The other difference, which is key, is that there is massive trust of trade unions in the community. People might say that what has gone on has breached that trust, which is a sad shame and I hope that it is put right. However, people have faith in trade unions to do work for them because of the long history of that having happened. When intervening on the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire I said that there are restraints on trade unions that there are not on claims handlers, including the fact that financial records have to go in front of the certification officer, who can be challenged by ordinary members and who can go through books in a way that could never be done in the case of an insurance company. Again, the reality is different in trade unions.
The ongoing work is not just about individual cases; there are knock-on effects. In cases in which compensation has been won, many people have accessed payments through what was the Department of Social Security and is now the Department for Work and Pensions. The unions on the ground have supported those people to go to appeal and to take out cases on reduced earnings allowances and other such matters. The unions have helped them to continue to get the support to which they are entitled. To return to my original point, without the deductions that would not have happened. It is clear that they also intend to carry on doing work. The NUM is a federated structure, and certain federations are now agreeing to take on more cases for people who have had their knees damaged at work. That can be done only if people work together. The union will provide the money up front—money that they do not have through subscriptions—and take a risk on behalf of their members. If the risk comes off, those people will be well looked after.