Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Mann (Labour) in the House of Commons on Monday, 17 July 2006. It occurred during Debate on bill on Compensation Bill (HL).


Compensation Bill [Lords]

No, the issue is very straightforward. The UDM charged a fee. Let me explain how it worked, as it is very interesting. As it was challenged, that union tried to twist its way into getting additional legal advice. I have with me a form from one of my constituents. It says that if the claim is successful,"““I will pay to Vendside Ltd, who administer these Claims, a fee, to cover the cost of pursuing this Claim on my behalf””," and it then spells out the fee rates. Yet Vendside Ltd and the UDM were not paying anything towards the costs. They dealt with the cases under the claims handling agreement and registered automatically. For reasons that have never been explained to me, they even had their own claims handling agreements: one for vibration white finger from January 1999 and one for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease from September 1999. No one has ever explained at all—let alone to my satisfaction or even my dissatisfaction—why that union should have had separate claims handling agreements and why a Minister chose to sign them. I do not even know which Minister signed them. Nevertheless, I shall keep burrowing away with questions on the issue; who knows, one day I might get to the truth of the matter.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
449 c81 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Complaints Compensation Codes of practice Courts Damages Advertising Coal Asbestos Legal profession Employment Liability Exemptions Functions Mining Negligence Mesothelioma Standards Regulation Trade unions Victims Industrial injuries disablement benefit Claims management services Mesothelioma Compensation Board
Legislation
Compensation Bill (HL) 2005-06
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk