Coal Health Claims

HC Deb 03 March 2004 vol 418 cc251-73WH

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned. —[Vernon Coaker].

9.30 am

Mr. Michael Clapham (Barnsley, West and Penistone) (Lab)

In my contribution, I want to do four things. First, by way of background I shall explain the procedure for making a coal health claim. Secondly, I want to explain the link between claims handling firms and solicitors firms. Thirdly. I shall give examples showing how mining communities are being exploited by claims handling firms and some firms of solicitors. I would say, however, that the number of solicitors firms that can be accused of being deceitful, if not dishonest, is small. Finally, I shall suggest what the Minister might do to remedy the issue; I know that he is as sickened as I am at the way in which mining communities are being exploited.

This month marks the 20th anniversary of the beginning of the year-long 1984–85 miners' strike. It should not go unnoticed that, 20 years on, we are still having to discuss how to prevent the further exploitation of mining communities.

For the record, I chair the all-party coalfield communities group and the miners' parliamentary group. I am also a member of the Minister's coal health claims monitoring group.

The coal health schemes comprise the vibration white finger scheme, the chronic obstructive pulmonary disease scheme and the coal industry pneumoconiosis compensation scheme. However, the debate will concentrate for the most part on the operation of the first two schemes. Former miners and their widows, as well as their estates, can claim compensation under the schemes, but they must register claims for vibration white finger or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease through a solicitor. Progress on the latter scheme is periodically reported to the court, along with proposed changes to the handling agreement.

The procedure for processing claims is set out in the handling agreement, and I shall explain how it works. It is an accord agreed by both sides, but it is still evolving. The claimants' solicitors group meets regularly with Department of Trade and Industry solicitors to discuss changes and amendments—or how the agreement might be tweaked. It basically identifies the information that, alongside the claims forms, is required to be completed by each claimant. That information is then passed to the insurers, formerly Aon IRISC, now Capita Insurance Services.

When the information is submitted to the insurers, it is checked and the work record of the claimant is sought in order to verify the claim. The number of fraudulent claims is extremely small, which suggests that the miner's word could be taken as the basis for claims without some of the statements that are required. When the work record has been verified, the claimant is referred for a medical examination. If it is a posthumous claim, records are generally sought from social security records, from the general practitioner and from hospital records to assist in making a diagnosis.

The vibration white finger scheme closed on 31 March 2003 for live claims, and three months later for posthumous claims, to date, 168,000 claims have been registered. The chronic obstructive pulmonary disease scheme is still open, but it will close on 31 March 2004. More than 400,000 claims have been registered, and I understand that they are still arriving at the rate of 8,000 a week. The Minister will be able to update us on the statistics.

To date, more than £1.9 billion has been paid to claimants under both schemes. Solicitors firms in England dealing with the claims number in excess of 500. Throughout the United Kingdom they have received about £300 million for the work that they have done. These statistics give some idea of the size of the claim overall, which I understand is the largest common-law damages claim run anywhere in the world.

David Taylor (North-West Leicestershire) (Lab/Coop)

My hon. Friend will be aware of the unfortunately numbered early-day motion 666 tabled by his Barnsley colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough (Jeff Ennis). It points out that average legal fees for chronic bronchitis and emphysema claims are £2,143 and that half of all final settlements are for less than that. Surely something has got out of kilter here.

Mr.Clapham

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, which suggests the need for a minimum level of settlement. Perhaps we should press that with my hon. Friend the Minister.

It became clear from complaints to the monitoring group that miners and their families were being exploited. Many of my colleagues in the House say that some firms of solicitors are charging claimants, in addition to receiving their costs and disbursements from the DTI. The charges levied on the claimants vary in form. Some firms charge a success fee, while others charge an extra hourly rate for coal health work, and particularly for vibration white finger claims.

The situation is made more complex by the advent of claims handling firms, some of which have come into being only in the past few years to exploit the situation in mining communities. They collect potential claims and pass them on to solicitors. Some of the handling firms sell the claims to solicitors. In other words, they are exploiting a market that has developed.

I refer to a letter dated 20 February from a company called Zuko Legal Ltd., which was addressed to Towells solicitors of Wakefield. The letter reads: I understand that you may be interested in buying mineworkers claims for compensation under the DTI Scheme from us. The number of claims our company source each week continues to escalate as the cut off date of this Scheme nears. I would therefore welcome an early opportunity to discuss the development of potential relations between us. We are able to provide a large volume of extremely high quality, signed Client Claim Forms carefully vetted by in-house solicitors. We have produced so far in excess of 5,000 with only 1 per cent. being rejected on the basis of previous solicitors having been instructed. The letter did not give the price of each claim, but if it was between £1,000 and £2,000, the claims handling firm would have received between £500,000 and £1 million for the 5,000 claims that it handled. Towells declined that outrageous offer and passed the information on to the DTI. Perhaps the Minister, who I know is as sickened as I am by the market in claims, will say what he intends to do immediately to stop this trade in the exploitation of elderly miners and their widows.

When a payment is made to the claimant, whether it is an interim payment or full and final settlement, a proportion is paid to the handling firm. Some of these firms have adopted names such as Union and General Services Ltd. or the Miners Welfare and Compensation Agency Ltd. It is clear that the companies have deliberately tailored their names to mislead by giving the impression that they have some formal link with the mining communities, through either the union or the Coal Industry Social Welfare Organisation.

Only recently, one such firm, the Miners Welfare and Compensation Agency Ltd., wrote directly to one of my constituents, Mrs. Leadbeater, whose late husband I was privileged to know when I worked at the colliery. The firm misrepresented itself by stating that it had helped thousands of ex-miners and their families, and it offered her a service that it said was free. That free service cost Mrs. Leadbeater £9,000, and it took all my efforts and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley), along with the "Politics Show", to get that money refunded. The solicitors who dealt with the case were a firm called Lopian Wagner of Manchester.

I am aware that the Law Society does not regulate the claims handling companies. I also know that a review is to take place shortly, and perhaps the Minister will refer to that in his response. Nevertheless, I believe that because those companies are registered, the DTI could regulate or control them before waiting for the outcome of the review.

Mr. Ronnie Campbell (Blyth Valley) (Lab)

It is a question of the companies setting up the case and then selling it on to the solicitors. Although my hon. Friend said before that no fraud was going on, I believe that there is. The companies are setting up the case; the solicitors are used only as a postman to post the claim on to the DTI, and they are getting paid for it. The company is doing all the work, and when the payment is made, the company tells the client that they have to pay the company x thousands of pounds.

Mr. Clapham

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. He raises a matter to which I will refer. As I said, only recently one of my constituents had £9,000 deducted from her settlement. It took a great deal of work to persuade the company to cough up.

In general, such companies take a percentage of a claimant's damages. My hon. Friend has just made that point. Normally, the companies have an agreement or an arrangement with the firm of solicitors to which they supply cases and, in some cases, the claimant's cheque is passed on to the company first so that the claimant has to give an instruction for a deduction to be made by the handling company before the cheque is sent on to the claimant. I take the view that as the claims handling company deals directly with the law firms with which they have an arrangement, the firm, and not the claimant, should pay for the service. If we were to go down the route that I suggest, and the DTI were to insist that that should be the arrangement, we could restrict the operation of these companies. It is a disgrace that the companies are able to prey on miners and their families, and action needs to be taken immediately to obtain refunds. In the longer term they need to be regulated.

Mr. Kevin Hughes (Doncaster, North) (Lab)

Should not the message from today's debate to miners and miners' widows be that there is no need to have any truck with claims handling companies at all, but that they could go straight to a solicitor and have the case dealt with directly?

Mr.Clapham

That message needs to go out. Claimants do not need to go through an intermediary; they should immediately contact their solicitors. It is fair to say that if they were first to contact their MPs, their MPs could put them in touch with solicitors firms that do not make a charge.

Some solicitors firms have repaid claimants after being approached by constituents' MPs. Others have adopted a total refund policy—for example, Beresfords Solicitors, in Doncaster, which decided to refund all its coal health clients in cases in which an additional charge was made. Firms such as Atteys Solicitors in south Yorkshire, which charges an extra hourly rate for doing vibration white finger work, levy on the claimant a charge that is the difference between the costs that it receives from the DTI and the number of hours spent on the claim by its solicitors. That can result in the claimant having to pay the solicitor more than £1,000.

I appreciate that solicitors firms do not all have the same cost structure. It is swings and roundabouts: some cases cannot be established, but others can be set on their feet. Moreover, the risk associated with claims is substantially mitigated under the scheme, so that it is minimal. Any firm that charges an extra hourly rate without first informing the claimant, thus giving him the option to go to another solicitor, should refund that money. That is the Law Society's view.

Vendside Ltd., which operates through the Union of Democratic Mineworkers, charges claimants a fee, despite being an in-house solicitor operation. I have written to that firm on several occasions, having been approached by constituents who have been charged an extra fee. I know that the DTI said in a press announcement that it did not see the UDM charges in the same light as legal fees, but the UDM and Vendside are one and the same, and they are pocketing fees from claimants in addition to the costs paid by the DTI. Recently, there have been press reports on this issue. I have seen documents, which have been passed on to the DTI, that show that the union's two officers, who represent only 1,300 members, are both nominee directors of Vendside and that they earned £151,000 and £1 11,000 respectively in annual salary packages. Will the Minister ensure that the firm is investigated, with a view to deciding whether it should remain on his approved list?

Firms such as Kidd and Spoor Harper, and Robinson King, have replied to the Minister, stating that they do not charge clients, but have failed to mention that they use claim handlers, the charge for which falls on the claimant. The former firm uses P. R. Associates Advice Bureau—a claims handling firm that deals with solicitors and has an arrangement for coal health claims—whereas the latter firm deals with General and Union Services Ltd.

The Law Society has been most helpful. I know that the Minister's officials met representatives of the Law Society and found them helpful in dealing with this issue. It has sent all its members a letter advising that they should not charge coal health clients, and warning of the consequences should they do so. It has also asked its members to refund claimants in certain cases in which an extra charge has been levied.

I conclude by saying that coal health claims are helping to restore much of the damage that has been caused by British Coal's negligence. The money paid to claimants tends to go directly into the local economy and is having a noticeable effect in some areas. The business of many local solicitors firms has legitimately grown on the back of the coal health schemes. I have no objections to that, but I find it scandalous and outrageous that some claims handling firms should conspire to exploit mining communities in a manner that is tantamount to robbery.

Several hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. There are many hon. Members seeking to catch my eye, but if everybody speaks for 10 minutes, there will not be time for them all to get in, so I counsel brevity.

9.50 am

Adam Price (East Carmarthen and Dinefwr) (PC)

May I pay warm tribute to the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) for securing this debate and for the excellent way in which he set out the facts? I am sure that his concerns are widely shared throughout coalfield communities.

I should like to pick up on the comments that the hon. Gentleman made about Vendside, to which I was alerted some months ago. I wrote to the Department of Trade and Industry in July last year, when Vendside's marketing material, which boasted of an exclusive agreement with the DTI, was brought to my attention. However, that marketing material made no mention whatever of the connection with the Union of Democratic Mineworkers, and there is no reference to it on Vendside's website. Unwittingly, therefore, former members of the National Union of Mineworkers have indirectly been lining the pockets of Mick Stevens and Neil Greatrex. Whatever the legal position is, it sticks in many people's throats that union officials living in one of the most disadvantaged communities in the United Kingdom are drawing salaries of £150,000 a year, profiteering from the suffering of former miners. I see no way to defend that.

I have asked the Minister whether other unions were offered an arrangement directly to represent their members and others similar to Vendside and the UDM's arrangement. I do not think that the answer that I received was correct, although I am not making allegations. The Minister has fresh eyes, so I should like him to look again at why there was a special arrangement with the UDM. Also, there was no reference in the reply that I received to the National Association of Colliery Overmen, Deputies and Shotfirers. Once NACODS heard about the UDM's arrangement, it applied to have a similar arrangement but was turned down. I therefore urge him to look at why a special arrangement was made with the UDM.

I have read press statements by a DTI spokesperson defending the arrangement with Vendside and condemning the solicitors' charges— rightly, as we all agree—but saying that that case was entirely different and that it was acceptable to charge extra. However, it cannot be acceptable when, as we have heard, there are perfectly good solicitors who will not charge people. Surely the Department should urge people not to go to companies such as Vendside.

I urge the Minister to look again at the charges, because Vendside, as we have learned from the Department's figures, has a much lower average compensation payout than other firms. We should urge people not to use the firm, because the average payment is significantly lower. I looked at the figures for last year, which showed that, like for like, Vendside's average payout was £3,000 lower than the average for solicitors in England. We must seriously ask whether Vendside is doing the work on behalf of its clients. Clearly, there might be financial incentives to a quick turnaround.

I urge the Minister to suspend the exclusive arrangement with Vendside, pending a proper investigation of what has gone on in the firm. I also urge him to look at why the DTI entered into an agreement with the UDM in 1998 that was not offered to other trade unions. What was the advantage to the DTI or to former miners and their families in doing so, given that UDM and NUM members had been badly served by Vendside and the UDM?

9.55 am

Mr. Kevin Barron (Rother Valley) (Lab)

I welcome this debate. I am not surprised by the number of hon. Members who are present. I first raised the issue of solicitors, trade unions and fees back in July 1999, with my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle), who was moved in a reshuffle shortly afterwards and sadly did not take any further action. Later that year, I referred the matter to the Law Society to investigate. I will mention one or two things that my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) said, because I take issue with him in relation to the Law Society and what has happened, and I will tell hon. Members why. However, I congratulate him on securing the debate.

The Law Society investigated the matter at the end of 1999 and the beginning of 2000. In early 2000, it was clear from a preliminary report that it was unlikely that it would take any further action. Indeed, that was the decision it came to. I had a bit of a wry smile when I read its press release of 20 January, in which the chief executive says: I am pleased the Law Society's Compliance Board was able to deal with this matter so promptly, following concerns raised by Ministers and MPs". Four years ago this month, I raised the issue in an Adjournment debate. By that time, my right hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Mrs. Liddell) was the Minister responsible. We debated it for half an hour on the Floor of the House. The hon. Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr (Adam Price) might like to know that his predecessor—the man he beat at the last general election—mentioned the South Wales branch of the National Association of Colliery Overmen, Deputies and Shotfirers in that debate all those years ago. The union had a levy of 5 per cent., which was similar to that of a union that I raised, and some of the awards were as high as £7,250.

I do not want to go into the detail of that debate except to say that it covered most of the issues raised in the past few months about what solicitors have and have not been doing. What was happening in coal mining communities was brought up at that time in the full knowledge of all concerned. There is no doubt in my mind about that.

Things fell down in the early stages, when we had the Law Society's preliminary report and an investigation by a firm of solicitors from the west midlands. The problem was that solicitors were still saying at that time that they were raising the money—success fees, administration fees, or whatever they were called—on a no win, no fee basis. I disputed that then and I dispute it even more now.

It is true that there was a dispute in the early days—certainly when I first raised the matter—about whether unsuccessful claims were going to be funded in any way by the DTI. It cannot be disputed that from September 1999—I think it was 24 September—when the claims handling agreement was signed up to, the DTI made some payments from public funds to progress unsuccessful claims. Yet I have in front of me—I mentioned these problems in that earlier debate—a letter from the lead group of solicitors, Irwin Mitchell, based in Sheffield. The letter is dated 24 November, but it still says: No costs are paid by the DTI incurred in relation to claims which are pursued in accordance with the terms of the Agreement but are ultimately unsuccessful. In the same month, Mr. Jeremy Cousins of the Department of Trade and Industry, sent a letter to the firm of solicitors that was investigating my complaints, saying: There is therefore some direct recovery for unsuccessful claims. Ever since September 1999, therefore, we have been having a fictitious debate about what solicitors are getting for coal claims.

As the lead firm of solicitors on the subject, Irwin Mitchell should have known what had happened. Last year, and indeed in the years before that, the DTI had the good grace to hold seminars to update us on coal claims, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson). I did not go to every seminar, but I raised the problem when I did. The agreement on handling coal claims is periodically reviewed, so I asked those on the platform last year—my hon. Friend was the Minister at the time—what the DTI had done about solicitors who were charging. Aside from my hon. Friend, those on the platform, who I assume were the DTI's legal advisers, just looked at one another. Then—this is only my recollection, although one or two other hon. Members were at the meeting—someone said, "I think some trade unions have this agreement, but I'm not too sure." There was nothing conclusive.

Within five minutes of my asking the question, however, a solicitor from Irwin Mitchell stood up—I think that he was called Mr. Andrew Tucker, but I would have to ask others who were there to be certain—and said, "The fees shouldn't have been raised after April 2000." I did not write down what he said word for word, so I am not sure whether he said that that would be "illegal", but he definitely said that it should not have been happening.

Geographically, Irwin Mitchell is close to my constituency, so the firm will have handled the cases of several constituents. We should not forget that it was the lead firm and had been negotiating with the DTI for years on the payments that would be made from taxpayers' money. As I said in that earlier Adjournment debate, I had seen evidence that Irwin Mitchell had been charging different levels of success fee—10 per cent., 15 per cent. and 20 per cent. So it struck a chord with me when Mr. Tucker said last year that what had been happening was illegal or that the fees should not have been raised after April 2000.

After the seminar. I went back to my constituency office to check some details from May 2001, when the daughter of a miner in my constituency who had died contacted me to say that Irwin Mitchell was after a success fee for her claim. I photocopied the documentation that she had received and wrote to Irwin Mitchell on 14 May. That was just before the election, so I was still working as an MP, although I was soon to be a candidate. I had a conversation with representatives of Irwin Mitchell five days later and they said that a mistake had been made.

Let me tell hon. Members what mistake that lead group of solicitors had made. In the letter to my constituent, Irwin Mitchell mentioned three scenarios for the funding of respiratory disease claims; indeed, the letter is headed "Respiratory Disease". The first scenario was: You may have a Legal Expenses Insurance policy". The second was: You may be a member of a Trade Union or another membership organisation". The third was: Legal Aid—unfortunately Legal Aid has recently been withdrawn". That was in May 2001, many months after Irwin Mitchell had been the lead firm in signing the agreement to allow the taxpayer to pay its expenses. It is still using such scenarios.

The letter continued: On the basis of the information that we have relating to your claim we consider that the best funding option for you is to enter into a Conditional Fee Agreement with us. We enclose a copy of our standard CFA agreement. We have assessed the risks of your case and the percentage success fee has been calculated at 43 per cent. That calculation of 43 per cent. was made when the lead person—he did not sign the letter—in that firm of solicitors had, I am sure told me that it was illegal to do that in 2001. I will not read the contents of the letter that I sent off straight away, but—this is a memory test for me—I had a phone call a few days later with the person at Irwin Mitchell whose name is on the letter. She said that a mistake had been made and that there would be no success fees in that case. I have no evidence to suggest whether that was or was not so. I asked the person concerned if she would contact me when she had been paid so that I could pursue the matter, but she did not. I have not tried to make contact with her recently.

I wrote to Irwin Mitchell on 22 December last year because of what the Law Society and my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone said in the press release about fees being claimed. He said that Beresfords was making repayments. I hope that it is making full repayments, because a BBC journalist told me a few weeks ago that it is paying them back if a claim is made. Will my hon. Friend comment on that?

Mr. Clapham

I stated that Beresfords was refunding everyone who had been charged extra, over and above the DTI cost, because it informed me in a letter that that is what it intended to do.

Mr. Barron

I take the firm's word for that and am pleased that that is happening.

I received a letter from Irwin Mitchell in early January in response to the letter that I sent asking whether it was repaying all conditional fees. The letter was from Mr. Tucker and stated that he had attended a meeting with the Minister, who expressed his views on behalf of the DTI. The letter stated: Up until April 2000, the Conditional Fee Regulations meant that only the Claimant could pay the success fee calculated as an uplift on the costs payable by the Defendant. From April 2000 this rule was changed and since then success fees calculated as an uplift on costs have only been payable by the Defendant. Although we have entered in to Conditional Fee Agreements with mineworkers bringing Respiratory Disease claims we have not raised charges of any of them. If, however, as your letter seems to imply, you believe you are aware of such cases I would be most grateful if you would provide me with the details so I may investigate them and take the appropriate action. Two matters arise from that. First, why was that company getting people to sign up to conditional fee agreements after April 2000 when it was not claiming any of the money and had not raised charges of any of them"? Secondly, why does Mr. Tucker want me to send my evidence to him if he is not doing that? What is there to investigate on Irwin Mitchell's behalf if it is not doing anything about conditional fee or success fee agreements?

With all my good will, especially to my hon. Friend the Minister, who has been great in bringing the matter to the forefront and putting it in the newspapers—I am sure all hon. Members appreciate how the work load has risen in the past few months in relation to what he and those who work in our offices do—I must tell the Law Society, which I assume will read this debate, that I raised the subject four years ago this month and it should have investigated it further. It knew what was happening in 1999 but did nothing. I am pleased that it is doing something now, but, further to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone, I would be happier if the Law Society, on learning of solicitors who have asked for money—whether or not they took it, as in the case that I highlighted—would go into their offices, review the cases and ensure that moneys that were wrongly stopped are paid. We must not forget that at least 50 per cent. of the cases are posthumous.

10.10 am

Mr. Bill O'Brien (Normanton) (Lab)

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr.Clapham) on initiating this necessary debate. In particular, I wish to take up his point about solicitors exploiting our communities and the people we worked alongside who are now claimants. We saw the conditions in which they worked, we saw them when their health was broken and we watched their wives and families nurse them through their illness. Their claims were justified in every way, and we must congratulate the Labour Government on taking the initiative in helping our constituents and the people with whom we worked with their claims.

As my hon. Friend said, the records that have been produced by many of the claimants have been accepted. That demonstrates that our colleagues are honest and that they have presented their cases in a truthful manner. Therefore, the matter of the exorbitant fees charged by solicitors who work on miners' health claims must be taken seriously.

I had a case in which the solicitors asked for money up front before they would take the case. When I learned of that and wrote to the solicitors, they agreed to refund the payment. That was one case; one wonders how many other solicitors requested payment up front before accepting a case on behalf of a claimant.

Not all solicitors take claimants for a ride. My hon. Friend referred to Towells of Wakefield, with which I have worked. They are effective and efficient, and have been of tremendous benefit to some claimants; the same can be said for Raleys. However, some of the other firms should not be on the list of accepted solicitors. I ask the Minister to ensure that those solicitors who have exploited claimants should not be allowed to deal with any further claims on behalf of our colleagues. We should ensure that such practices are not allowed and that exploitation does not continue.

I wish to thank the Minister for the way in which he keeps us informed of the progress of compensation claims. In the recent newsletter, he referred to solicitors' costs and the way in which the Department views claims handling organisations and the charges, fees and other deductions that are taken from any award that is made. The situation should be investigated further, and we should ensure that solicitors who exploit our colleagues are put on a blacklist.

My hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) referred to the average solicitors' fee, which can be five times greater than the compensation paid to some claimants. Again, the Department should investigate this matter further, because it shows that of the £1.9 billion that has been paid, an excessive amount is being paid in legal fees—an amount that is over and above the amount of compensation that has been paid. Taxpayers should not be paying solicitors for services that can be described only as partial to the claims that have been made. I hope that the Minister will take note of the concerns that we have as former mineworkers, and as members of communities that serve miners and their families. That is why I wanted to take part in today's debate: to show the support for the initiative taken by my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone. We want to show communities that we are concerned about what is happening in the mining industry and the mining communities. I urge the Minister to take note of what Members are saying this morning.

10.16 am

Mrs. Helen Liddell (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) on securing the debate. I put on record my recognition of the enormous amount of work that he has done in relation to coal health claims. I speak with some knowledge, as I was an energy Minister when this process was getting under way. Freed of the responsibilities of ministerial office, I can follow the example set by other colleagues and talk about my experiences as a Minister. The process was rather slow to get under way. One reason for that was the activity of the solicitors negotiating settlements. The process was slow because of the fees that they wanted to charge.

I say from the start that some of my best friends are solicitors, and I pay tribute to those who have been prepared to get down to work, boots and socks, adequately to represent the mining community, even to the extent of attending miners' welfares and helping miners and their dependants to sign the forms. Miners' welfares in Scotland do not take many prisoners. I am a reasonably calm person, but the entire process has made my blood boil. The Government acknowledged their responsibilities to the miners not so that we could help to pay the school fees of solicitors or help them to buy a little place in the Dordogne, but to accept that we had a responsibility to people who had sacrificed their lives.

As a representative of a mining community, I have seen some of the worst aspects of the society in which we live. Let me begin by talking about the claims handling companies, which masquerade as good Samaritans but are vultures hovering over the dead and the dying. Many miners are very elderly and have badly failing health. This morning, as I sat in the Tea Room, I read in the Daily Record yet another advertisement front a claims handling company—Industrial Diseases and Injuries Claims Ltd. —frightening miners and their widows into thinking that a solicitor with an English office would not be able to deal with Scots law. We all know what that company is trying to do.

I will give one example. Mr. John Gardiner is an ex-miner who did not know how to process his claim. He knew that he needed a lawyer, but was frightened of lawyers. He saw the advertisement in the newspaper and approached Industrial Diseases and Injuries Claims Ltd. because it said, "No win, no fee." He was moderately successful. I will not say how much he received, but Industrial Diseases and Injuries Claims Ltd. took 10 per cent. That is not the worst case. As my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone said, some companies can take as much as 40 per cent. However, 10 per cent was enough to pay for a nice Caribbean cruise for someone, but not for the ex-miner in my constituency. The company justified itself by saying that it had pointed out to Mr. Gardiner that its sliding-scale fees agreement allows clients to see instantly how much they will have to pay. It offers a 14-day cooling, off period, but at no point did it point out to my constituent that had he gone to another firm, he would not have had to pay a penny piece and would have been able to keep a nice little nest egg for himself.

What made me particularly angry is that the solicitors company, Corries of Scotland—in the Pentagon centre, Washington street, Glasgow—is on the approved list of solicitors. It is not a naive little company that did not know that the Government were picking up the tab for miners in relation to this issue.

I pay tribute to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dudley, North (Ross Cranston), who was the Solicitor-General at the time. He went the distance to ensure that the profession, of which he is a distinguished member, would take on some of the inadequacies that we have seen. It is irritating that much of what the companies are doing is within the law, but it is not morally justified.

A month ago, I asked my two local newspapers—the Airdrie and Coathridge Advertiser and the Wishaw Press—to publish a warning that people should be extremely careful of leaflets put through doors by claims handling companies and solicitors. People are now frightened because the gate is coming down at the end of March. My office has been inundated—like that of every other hon. Member in Westminster Hall, no doubt—with cases of companies trying to make a quick buck on the backs of men and their families who have suffered for decades.

What the Labour Government have done in relation to coal health claims has been one of their great successes. In my constituency alone, out of a number of cases that is not huge— I have had about 280 cases—we have already seen £5 million going to a few villages. That has transformed people's lives. I am proud of that, proud of the part that I have been able to play in it, and proud of the part that my hon. Friend the Minister, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and my hon. Friends the Members for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) and for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donohoe) have been able to play. However, I am ashamed that there are those in our society in the 21st century who would behave as some of the claims handling and solicitors companies have done. They should look to their morals and repay the money that they have taken away from the dead and the dying.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Again, I appeal for brevity. I say to the right hon. Lady that the last time I was in a miners' welfare in Scotland was about 30 years ago in the company of the grandfather of the hon. Member for East Lothian (Anne Picking).

10.23 am

Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) on introducing the debate. It is one of many that have taken place in the course of the past several years since 1998 when the court decision was made. I shall refer briefly to that because it was one of the saddest days of my life as someone who worked underground for 21 years and experienced the pneumoconiosis settlement in 1976 under a previous Labour Government. At that time, we in the NUM begged and prayed of the people who were taking the Pickles case, "For God's sake don't take it into court. Settle it on the steps, because if it goes into court, the net result will be that all the miners in Bolsover and the rest of the country will have to fight a common-law settlement on an individual basis for every pneumoconiosis case."

Fortunately, the Amalgamated Engineering and Electrical Union at that time was smart, and it agreed not to take the matter into court. It was settled on the steps. What did that mean? It meant that the Labour Government had to pick up the pieces, as they usually have to do after the Tories have been in power for so long. We decided to pay out the pneumoconiosis settlements on the basis of a sliding scale. No fly-by-night solicitors were involved. The only solicitors involved were those who represented each of the 15 regions in the NUM and NACODS. The net result was that every pneumoconiosis payment was made within the space of nine months. That was a massive settlement and a great success story.

The real tragedy of the current issue, and the fact that we have to deal with fly-by-nights, vultures and all the rest is down to the decision of Welsh NACODS to secede from NACODS generally Bleddyn Hancock, the Welsh nationalist, with the house on the hill, decided to take the matter to court. He had his 15 minutes of glory on television. It was sad for me, because I knew that we were not going to get a repeat performance of the pneumoconiosis settlement, and that the process would drag on.

The result is that tin-pot solicitors have become involved—none of whom was available for the 1984 strike. We looked for solicitors when 10,000 miners were arrested, but the tin-pot solicitors could not be found to make representations for our people to the police. I agree with everyone who has a crack at them.

When, in 2001 at the manifesto meeting, prior to Labour's second success, I learned what money had been provided for the settlement of the claims, I told the Prime Minister and the Cabinet, "I think you'd better at least double that amount, because this is going to cost a lot more." I said, "I want to make a plea: for God's sake, when we double the amount from £2 billion to £4 billion," which I think will have to be doubled again the next time I go to the manifesto meeting—I am serious; it will probably be a rise of that proportion—"I hope you will not allow any more of the money to find its way into the pockets of the likes of Vendside." That goes for

the rest of them that have been mentioned, with their houses in the mountains in Wales, or wherever—it is not just the Dordogne.

That is the biggest problem and why we are here today. The sad thing is that we should be having a meeting with 20 miners' MPs and people who represent miners, congratulating the Government on picking up the bill for this massive common-law claim. I say to the media that this is not state benefit. I want them, for God's sake, when they write their little pieces, to tell people that it is not a state benefit like the old age pension. It is a common-law claim—just the same sort of claim that is made if someone has a car accident. Every one is different.

I hope that the Minister will manage to keep ahead of the game and the solicitors. My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone mentioned problems in an earlier phase of the process, but one of the major problems recently has been the cut-off date. We had to set one, but the result is that all the solicitors have come out from under their stones and said, "Christ, I'd better make a packet here, before it finishes." They have been making massive money fast.

One of the real problems now is that we must deal with miners who worked for British Coal and then went to mining companies one, two, three and four. That means that there is an aggregate claim, not just one simple claim against British Coal. It is not only the solicitors: some of the mining companies are just as bad. They refuse to pay for the two years or nine months when a miner worked for them, with the result that the British Coal claim that would be settled by Aon IRISC and the Government is being held up.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone for raising the matter. As I said at the outset, it would have been wonderful if we had been here today to appreciate how great the scheme is, and the way in which the Government have footed the Bill. It would have been even better if the matter could have been settled after 12 months by the mining regions and the solicitors.

10.29 am

Mr. Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)

I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) on securing a debate on a subject that is of keen interest to many of my constituents. Individuals have had their compensation plundered by people whom they trusted to represent their best interests. I agree with other hon. Members that the way in which claims have been dealt with is nothing short of a national scandal. If it had been happening in the leafy suburbs of Surrey or the southeast, the issue would have been in every national newspaper, and people would be asking for action to be taken at the highest level, but because it is happening in coal communities, it is ignored.

On 18 December 2003, in the Christmas Adjournment debate, I raised the case of a Newcastle-based firm, Mark Gilbert Morse. Not content with the £10 million that it had received in fees from the Department of Trade and Industry, it was deducting up to 25 per cent. of victims' compensation in my constituency. Since I raised the case of Mark Gilbert Morse, many other people have contacted me. It appears to be paying money back to victims—where people complain, I hasten to add.

I still have concerns about why it deducted the money in the first place. I am also concerned about the comments and contradictions made by the firm in the Newcastle Evening Chronicle, which I must congratulate on the forceful manner in which it reported the story, in justifying its actions. For example, on 22 December 2003, the firm told the newspaper that it was deducting money only from claims lodged before April 2000. The senior partner, Mr. Morse, was quoted on 13 February 2004, saying that the problem stemmed from a change in the handling of mining claims in 1999, when the Government accepted liability.

That is complete nonsense. I have that agreement with me. It is dated 24 September 1999. I also have a copy of the agreement's schedule I and its annexe listing the solicitors who were party to the agreement. Turning to page 4, the name that appears at No. 17 is Mark Gilbert Morse. So, not only did the firm know, in 1999, that it was getting its costs covered, but that part of the agreement on costs. It may make excuses that it did work before 1999, but I understand that there were separate schedules to cover any work that had taken place.

Why did the firm deduct from my constituents' settlements if, in 1999, it knew that it would get its costs paid? Mr. Morse told the Newcastle Evening Chronicle, on 13 February 2004, that the firm had decided midway through 2003 that its policy of charging clients part of payments was unfair as the Government were already paying it £1,800 for successful cases. Why did the firm make its decision in mid-2003, if it already knew, and was part of the settlement, that costs would be covered in 1999? Even Mr. Morse's statement about changing the policy in mid-2003 does not hold water. I have a constituent, Mr. Steele of Stanley, from whose settlement it deducted £2,180.80 on 29 September 2003—hardly mid-2003.

John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)

Is not the key point in law that the solicitors never told my hon. Friend's constituents that they had the alternative of going to another solicitor who would provide the service for free? Therefore, along with all the other firms—Richmonds, Raleys, Avalon, Hickmotts, Moss, Gorman Hamilton, Frank Allen Pennington, Graysons and Colemans—the Government could mount a legal challenge to get the money back.

Mr. Jones

I think that there might be a legal challenge on the individual cases. In many cases, the firm did not give client letters explaining the terms of the cases that were being pursued. I ask why one of my constituents, Mrs. Elliott, who contacted the firm in April 2003, was told that she was not entitled to get her fees back? She has now successfully had her money returned with interest. I also note that I have constituents, such as Mrs. Greener, who are still waiting for the interest on their payments. I congratulate the Law Society on its handling of the case, as it is taking a robust stance against the firm and is investigating, although I understand that Mr. Morse told the Newcastle Evening Chronicle that no such investigation is taking place.

Finally, I touch on the issue of claims handlers. It is important that they be exposed. I refer to one company in the north-east in particular: Industrial Diseases Compensation Ltd. of Ashington, Northumberland. It charges a registration fee simply for accepting claims. It is not a firm of solicitors—it passes claims on to solicitors. In some cases, it takes a proportion of the claimant's award. I was outraged when I saw that it had taken more than £5,000 from an individual award, not for doing any work but simply for taking the case. The Law Society is now considering that case. Unfortunately the individual does not want his name mentioned. If it is scandalous for solicitors to deduct money, claims handlers are doing nothing except acting as unelected middlemen. It makes me angry.

Mr. Ronnie Campbell

As we have stressed before, is it not important that now, before the deadline, when the hawks are out and the vultures are around, we should tell our people in Northumberland, Yorkshire, Scotland and Wales that they must not sign up with claim handler companies but should stick with the union solicitors?

Mr. Jones

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend's sentiments. The way in which some people have preyed—motivated by sheer greed—on the poor and sick makes me very angry. If those same individuals had robbed those old people using force, there would be universal calls from here and elsewhere for them to be locked up. Action must be taken, and I urge the Minister to continue the good work that he is doing so that he can right the wrong that has been done to many of my constituents and those of other hon. Members, many of whom are present.

10.36 am

Jeff Ennis (Barnsley, East and Mexborough) (Lab)

I will keep my remarks brief to allow as many Members as possible to enter the debate; an hour and a half is not long enough to discuss this very important issue.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) on initiating the debate, and on the amount of time, effort and research that he has put into the matter. Money is being put into the pockets of miners and I congratulate the Government on the scheme. According to the latest figures, my constituency has received more than £33 million for vibration white finger, which is the biggest VWF settlement of any constituency. For chronic bronchitis and emphysema, we received £29.5 million. More than £63 million is going to former miners and their families in my constituency, and no one can take away the credit due to the Government for funding the scheme.

I shall comment on the take that is currently being paid out by the Government. Of all the money that has been paid out so far, 77 per cent. has gone to the miners; 13 per cent. has gone to the contractors such as Healthcall which are dealing primarily with health claims, such as medical assessments and so on; and 10 per cent. has gone to the solicitors, which most Members are focusing on today because solicitors are doing very nicely out of the scheme.

If we consider the top 10 solicitors, in the top three, Hugh James Ford Simey has received £35.8 million so far; Thompsons has received £34.6 million; and Raleys in Barnsley has received £23.7 million. Number seven on the list happens to be an organisation called the Union of Democratic Mineworkers. The list does not mention Vendside. The Department of Trade and Industry responded to a question of mine by stating that it was the Union of Democratic Mineworkers and not Vendside that received £8 million.

So, the solicitors are doing very nicely. As some of my colleagues have already said, on average a solicitor receives £465 for dealing with a VWF claim and £2,143 for dealing with a CBE claim. I shall focus on the average fee for CBE claims. Using last November's statistics, by then about 85,700 miners had received full and final payment settlements for CBE claims. Out of those, more than 40,000 had received less than the average amount that the solicitors claim—in other words, 40,000 miners received less than £2,143. Out of those 40,000, about 3,162 had received less than £200, decreasing to about £50 for the lowest payment.

When I found out that information in November, I wrote to the Minister in the following terms: Dear Nigel,

As you are probably aware I have recently been tabling a number of questions concerning the amount of money that is going to miners for CBE and VWF, and the money paid to the solicitors. I enclose PQ4282, which has drawn attention to the fact that we now have over 3,000 former miners who have received a full and final settlement of less than £200. Whilst at the same time the average, being paid to solicitors, dealing particularly with CBE claims is over £2.000. I fully realise that the solicitors' fee has already been agreed by your Department over that course of time. However, I cannot believe that it is right that in some cases that the solicitors are being paid over 1,000 per cent. more than a claim settled at under £200. There are two issues I would like to bring to your attention from this PQ. Firstly is it possible to review the charges that are currently being paid to the solicitors so that more money can be channelled to where it is needed, this being the miners. Secondly I believe that if we are paying such vast amounts of money out to solicitors and the final settlements are less than £200, then in order to make the scheme fairer consideration ought to be given to allowing a minimum compensation fee to be paid for every individual case. I would suggest that we look at the possibility of establishing a minimum £1,500 payment for a successful claim. This would then avoid the current embarrassment being generated by the solicitors' fees issue. I would appreciate your observations. I received a reply from Ann Taylor, who was the head of the coal health claim unit at the DTI on the 28 November: Dear Mr. Ennis Thank you for your letter of 10 November regarding solicitors' costs and minimum payments to claimants. I note the points you raised in your letter. The Claimants' Solicitors Group recently made a proposal to the Department regarding minimum payments to claimants, and the fees they receive. The CG are currently discussing the issue with all of their members, and hope to reach a decision shortly. I understand that that review has now been completed, and I would like the Minister to inform the House of the result. If it was negative, I would like to ask the Minister how he intends to address this iniquitous situation? If we cannot establish a minimum £1,500 fee, as we should, that is why I have tabled early-day motion 666, which I hope hon. Members will sign at the conclusion of this debate, if they have not already done so.

My final point, given the amount of time that is available to us, is that many former miners are still under the impression that the compensation scheme is being paid out of the mineworkers' pension fund surpluses, which are being generated from the two pension schemes. I know that that is not correct, but I would hope that the Minister would address that issue in summing up.

10.43 am

John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)

The list of solicitors has been outlined. I would stress to the Minister that every claims handling company requires a solicitor who is prepared to take on the work. All the 18 firms that I have a dispute with have been named today.

I want to concentrate on the point in law. According to the chief executive of the Law Society, when I discussed the issue with her, it is very straightforward. Did the solicitors, or did they not, tell the individual client that they could go to another solicitor and get this work done for nothing? If they failed to do that specifically—I would suggest in writing as well as verbally—the case in law against them seems absolute. It is not about them um-ing and ah-ing about whether they choose to give good-will gestures, and some of these companies have written to me saying that they are sending cheques back to my constituents. It is about whether they should be struck off by the Law Society, which is the action the Law Society should take, or whether they should be sued by the DTI.

Therefore, I would like to ask the Minister two questions. First, will he, on behalf of the Government, request that the Law Society strike off the register all firms of solicitors that have failed to tell people about the claims handling agreement and the fact that individuals can get this work done for nothing? Secondly, is he prepared to launch legal action against all those companies, where it can be identified that they have double charged, so that the money can be returned to the people who should rightfully have it—miners, miners' widows and their families?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

There is little time left. I thank the Opposition Front-Bench teams for saying that they will co-operate. I apologise to the Minister, but there has been a great deal of interest in this debate, and most hon. Members have not been able to speak in it.

10.45 am

Brian Cotter (Weston-super-Mare) (LD)

Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We will severely cut our remarks in view of the time constraint.

I thank the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) for raising this matter. It is very timely as time is running out for claims. I thank also the many other speakers, including the right hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Mrs. Liddell), who said that her blood is boiling and referred to vultures. It is a revelation to people like me, who have done some work on this issue within my party, to hear what has been going on.

In support of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), I very much hope that there will be widespread publicity after this debate, not only in local newspapers in Wales, or wherever, but nationally. This is a scandal, and it must be addressed. I hope that the Minister will take on board the points that have been made—the description of a market developing, of vultures, as the right hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts said, the exploitation of elderly miners and their widows and the tailoring of names by firms to try to make them sound reputable, relevant and semi-official. There are many issues involved, including that of payments up front.

As it is so important for the Minister to be able to respond to the points that have been raised, I resume my place and allow him to do so.

10.46

Mr. Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)

I, too, will not detain the Chamber for very long, because it is important that we hear from the representatives of mining communities—I am not one, although my father was a miner, and therefore I feel sympathy with the points that are being made.

I know that the Minister has done a great deal to help. Given the fact that claims are being made in relation to work carried out when mining was a nationalised industry, that there is a great deal of taxpayers' money being spent, not only on compensation but in paying solicitors to carry out the work, and that the situation does not have to arise in the first place, the only point that I would seek to make at this late hour is to ask the Minister whether there is any more that can be done to educate people who are about to make claims.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab)

Would the hon. Gentleman now put his party on record as supporting calls for retrospective action against those companies that are refusing, against Law Society advice, to pay back this money, so that miners can claw it back one way or the other?

Mr. Robertson

It is an avenue that I do not think I should go down at this late stage. I certainly take the point on board, and I promise that I will discuss it further. I would ask the Minister whether there is any way in which a process of education of claimants can be embarked on, to let them know that there is an alternative, and that they do not effectively have to pay twice. I know that Labour Members will not take my brevity as meaning that I am not interested in this issue. I am simply allowing more time for the Minister. I congratulate the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) on raising this issue and on the passionate way in which he and many other hon. Members have addressed it.

10.49 am

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Nigel Griffiths)

This debate is about justice and fairness, which is why it is so well attended—indeed the attendance here exceeds that in the main Chamber—and why so many hon. Members have spoken with such eloquence and informed the Chamber so well. It has been one of the best-informed debates of the Session, and nobody has been better informed than my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham), whom I congratulate on securing this debate. It is about justice because it aims to remedy an injustice that saw hundreds of thousands of miners suffer from terrible, crippling lung diseases, and other diseases that rob them of the use of their hands. Furthermore, hundreds of thousands of them died without one penny in compensation. The scheme was designed to ensure that every sick miner, their widow if they are no longer with us, or their family if both parents have passed on, receive the compensation to which they are due. In 1997 and 1998, court judgments established their right to secure compensation for those diseases.

At that time, the Department for Trade and Industry agreed a claim handling agreement with solicitors representing claimants. That agreement was, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) said, to avoid miners individually having to go through the court one by one settling on the steps of the court. The agreement included specifically a payment to solicitors for handling successful claims. It was not just the successful claims. An element of that sum—we are reminded that it was on average about £2,100—was to cover them for the claims that were unsuccessful. That was accepted as a convenient arrangement by all and we did not expect it to be abused.

As a result 371,000 claims have been met and £1.7 billion has been paid out on both schemes. Levels of compensation range from £350 to £350,000, but the average for both schemes is £7,700. My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough (Jeff Ennis) urges on us the need to consider a minimum figure and suggests £1,500. The judge has considered that figure in consultation with us but has some reservations about it, one of which I will share with hon. Members. If a minimum amount is set, all those who currently fall below are likely to be excluded from it, which would not be just. Those are the issues that we are wrestling with and trying to reach a fair and balanced view on, so that no one is discriminated against and everyone receives compensation.

I became aware early as Minister about what appeared to be gross overcharging by solicitors. Therefore I undertook to write to all solicitors, having studied the claims handling agreement, to spell out to them that every penny of that £1.9 billion—it could rise to £6 billion; the largest scheme of its sort in the world—should go to the sick miners, their widows or their families, and that not one penny of that compensation was to go to the solicitors, because under the claims handling agreement that we reached, solicitors were amply recompensed.

One firm, Mark Gilbert Morse, which my hon. Friend mentioned—I am pleased to confirm that a team from the Law Society is investigating it and reporting regularly to me—has received £10 million. The compensation has been generous, as has been said. I wrote to all 500 or so solicitors on our list and asked them to confirm that they were not double charging, and asked them also what action they were going to take to repay any double charging. Two hundred had responded to me by last month, so I had 300 immediately removed from our list. The Law Society has written to them separately.

Two hundred more firms have additionally come to my notice, to which we have also written. The Law Society, I am pleased to say, agreed that they were in breach of its codes and requested that the money be refunded. There was some concern expressed by myself and other Members that the refunding process might involve said miners unhooking themselves from their ventilators and going to the solicitors to say, "Please can you revisit my claim and pay me back?" I was not having any of that and neither were other hon. Members.

I said to the Law Society that I thought it was only fair that all solicitors should be asked to investigate every record and to make repayments in the event of double payments. I am pleased that the Law Society wrote to me on 27 February in complete agreement, and has made that request. It is also writing to the additional firms that we now know about over and above the original 515 firms that we believed were handling claims to instruct them to make repayment. My hon. Friends know me well: we shall be monitoring the situation vigorously.

I want to cover all the issues that have been raised, but I know that there have been time problems with the debate, because of the intense concern of hon. Members.

Huw Irranca-Davies

I hope that DMH is one of the firms that are being looked into. It replied to Mr. Cosker in my constituency, saying: Having consideration to the Law Society's recent guidelines, we do not believe that we are under any obligation to reimburse Mr. Cosker the contingency fee charged. It may not be under a legal obligation, but for goodness' sake, it is under a moral obligation.

Nigel Griffiths

I shall pass my hon. Friend a copy of the Law Society's letter. His interpretation is the same as the Law Society's: the firm is under an obligation. I shall take a personal interest in that firm.

The role of claims handlers also causes considerable concern. I am informed that the DTI does not endorse claims handlers, and never has. The message is clear: we have an agreement with the claimants' solicitors, and claims can be submitted only via solicitors. That allows the Law Society and others to regulate them.

The important issue of claims handlers and unregulated claims handlers is part of the review being carried out by David Clementi for the Department of Constitutional Affairs, which was announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary State. Mr. Clementi is due to publish his initial findings in a consultation document later this month. I have spoken to many hon. Members with an interest in this matter, reminding them of the review and asking them to give Mr. Clementi evidence of gross abuses of claims handlers that have in part been highlighted in the debate. It would clearly be helpful if such evidence could inform the consultation document before it is published. However, once the document is published, we shall want to ensure that the concerns are reflected and that whatever action is recommended to the Government is studied seriously and taken.

We have also written to the Law Society about a number of firms that are in partnership with claims handlers, so that it can examine the relationship between solicitors and some of the claims handlers whose abuses have been highlighted today and elsewhere. It appears that such relationships may contravene the Law Society's rules. I shall keep hon. Members well informed and briefed on that issue too.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover rightly referred to the cut-off dates for claims. The cut-off date for the second respiratory claims scheme is the end of this month. The cut-off date for the vibration white finger scheme was some time last year. Hon. Members will be reassured to know that there was not the chaos that had been predicted. That is a tribute to the terrific staff we fund at the DTI to look after the schemes. They have done a tremendous job, and I was grateful for hon. Members' words of appreciation. As hon. Members can imagine, they have never been busier.

I want to echo the important message that has emerged this morning. Everybody who thinks that they may be eligible to claim for a respiratory disease—not just those who are sick, but the widows of miners or their children if the parents are no longer with us—should submit a claim now, through an approved, reliable and trusted solicitor. I know that all hon. Members who have been busy assisting, counselling and even, I am sure, helping to complete some of the forms will be active over the next few weeks.

If there are any other matters that I have not dealt with, I shall be happy to report back to the working group and to other hon. Members who have raised valid points.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I thank hon. Members for their co-operation, and for the quality of debate.