HC Deb 03 May 2001 vol 367 cc972-4
8. Mr. Alan Campbell (Tynemouth)

What plans he has to institute a DTI inspector's inquiry into the events leading up to the collapse of Chester Street Holdings. [159066]

The Minister for Small Business and E-Commerce (Ms Patricia Hewitt)

I share my hon. Friend's concern about the collapse of Chester Street Holdings and the dreadful situation of thousands of men who are suffering from asbestos-related diseases and whose employers' insurance policies were held by that firm. We are working across Government to resolve this very complex situation as quickly as possible to help the sufferers and their families.

Mr. Campbell

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Is she aware of the great sense of anger on Tyneside at the way in which asbestos victims are being denied proper compensation while directors of the company, such as Mr. Robert Hardy, are lining their pockets with huge wage rises and bonuses? What assurances can my hon. Friend give that all asbestos victims will receive proper compensation, and that lessons will be learned from this, not just for workers in other industries, but for the insurance industry as a whole?

Ms Hewitt

I am indeed aware of the anger and despair felt by the victims and their families. Let me make it clear that we will not allow the insurance industry to walk away from Chester Street Holdings or from the people who thought that their employers had effective insurance cover with that company. As my hon. Friend is aware, the Policyholders Protection Board will protect individuals whose employer no longer exists and whose insurance policy was compulsory. We are working with the insurance industry, as my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary has made clear, to deal with the position of employees whose employer no longer exists but whose insurance cover was not compulsory. Between us, we will ensure that lessons are learned and that matters are put right, not only for these individuals but for the future.

Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory (Wells)

The collapse of Chester Street Holdings needs investigating. However, does the hon. Lady agree that it is no use having a report unless it is published? So before she launches a new DTI inquiry, will she reveal the information that her Department already holds on the connection between the late Robert Maxwell, the business dealings of the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson), and the funding of the Labour party? Will she confirm that that report was carried out two years ago by her Department, but it remains a cover-up because it had not been—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker

Order. The question is narrower than the point that the right hon. Gentleman raises. Any right hon. or hon. Member who is attacked in any way should be given notice of that, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman has given such notice. However, the original question was far narrower than the area that he is going into.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory

I am not attacking the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West—I am simply pointing out the subject of a report that is held by the DTI and which is not being published, in defiance of all the principles of openness and good government. Will the Minister for Small Business and E-Commerce publish that report?

Mr. Speaker

Order. What the Minister will do is reply on Chester Street Holdings. If the right hon. Gentleman has nothing to say about Chester Street Holdings, the Minister will have nothing to say, either.

Ms Hewitt

I think that the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) has made clear his complete lack of interest in the victims of the collapse of Chester Street. It was the Labour Government who, in 1999, banned the importing, the sale and the use of all forms of asbestos. In relation to Chester Street, we are seeing—in those victims—the effect of years of neglect of asbestos problems by previous Governments.

On the other matter raised by the right hon. Gentleman, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has made the legal position clear. The right hon. Member for Wells does not seem interested in facts of law on that case.

Forward to