asked Her Majesty's Government:
Further to the Written Answer by Lord Sainsbury of Turville on 27 March (WA 91) on British Coal respiratory disease litigation, what is the current total of all expenditure incurred to date in that litigation, broken down between payments made to—(a) Capita and its predecessors; (b) medical service providers; (c) all other contractors; (d) the solicitors' co-ordinating group; (e) individual claimants' solicitors; (f) Vendside Limited; (g) the Union of Democratic Mineworkers; and (h) defendants' solicitors and counsel; and what compensation has been paid to the claimants. [HL801]
The total expenditure incurred in the British Coal respiratory disease litigation is as follows, as categorised above. However, figures for (a), (c) and (h) cannot be split between schemes so include expenditure incurred on both.
(a) £357.2 million; (b) £341.4 million; (c) £40.7 million (predominantly records storage and collection); (d) £ 16.5 million (excluding payments made in relation to individual claims); (e) £782.4 million (excluding the Union of Democratic Mineworkers (UDM) and Vendside); (f) & (g) £22.6 million (Vendside handle claims submitted by the UDM) (h) £3 5 million.
£2,010 million compensation has been paid to claimants.
The difference in the figure at (a) compared to the equivalent in the answer given in March 2006 stems from an administrative oversight in collation of the information in March. The current figure has been checked and we believe reflects the true position.
The figure at (h) also includes sums for advice on other coal health liabilities which we are unable to separate.
asked Her Majesty's Government:
Further to the Written Answer by Lord Sainsbury of Turville on 27 March (WA 92) on the British Coal vibration white finger litigation, what is the current total of all expenditure incurred to date in that litigation, broken down between payments made to—(a) Capita and its predecessors; (b) medical service providers; (c) all other contractors; (d) the solicitors' co-ordinating group; (e) individual claimants' solicitors; (f) Vendside Limited; (g) the Union of Democratic Mineworkers; and (h) defendants' solicitors and counsel; and what compensation has been paid to the claimants. [HL802]
The total expenditure incurred in the British Coal vibration white finger litigation is as follows, as categorised above. However, figures for (a), (c), and (h) cannot be split between schemes so include expenditure incurred on both.
(a) £357.2 million; (b) £19 million; (c) £40.7 million (predominantly records storage and collection); (d) £6.7 million (excluding payments made in relation to individual claims); (e) £89.3 million (excluding the Union of Democratic Mineworkers (UDM) and Vendside); (f) & (g) £6.0 million (Vendside handle claims submitted by the UDM); (h) £35 million.
£1,373 million compensation has been paid to claimants.
The difference in the figure at (a) compared to the equivalent in the answer given in March 2006 stems from an administrative oversight in collation of the information in March. The current figure has been checked and we believe reflects the true position.
The figure at (b) is lower than the equivalent given in March 2006. This results from an administrative error in the collation of information in March. We believe that the current figure reflects the true position.
The figure at (h) also includes sums for advice on other coal health liabilities which we are unable to separate.
asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their response to the practice whereby solicitors subject to Law Society adjudication decisions in respect of complaints made by retired miners and widows under the British Coal litigation use the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal as an appeal court, a right denied to the complainants; whether denial of a corresponding right of appeal to the complainants constitutes a breach of the Human Rights Act 1998; and whether they have plans to amend the Solicitors Act 1974 to prohibit such conduct. [HL803]
If a solicitor fails to comply with Law Society adjudication decisions then the Law Society is required in statute to apply to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal to have the decisions enforced. The public hearing that follows ensures compliance with Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Unlike solicitors, complainants are not subject to orders and Article 6 does not therefore apply. Complainants can apply to the High Court for a decision to be judicially reviewed.
There are no plans to amend the Solicitors Act in this respect.
asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their response to notification by the Law Society that, in proceedings against solicitors in the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal consequent on their conduct in the British Coal litigation, the complainant miners and widows are not recognised as parties and do not, therefore, have any rights of appearance or representation, save to attend the hearing as members of the public. [HL804]
If the Law Society instigates proceedings before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal then it is the Law Society that is the party to the proceedings, not the original complainant. However, I understand that complainants have been called to give evidence in such cases.
The complainants are open to bring proceedings before the tribunal themselves. However, they would be liable to pay the solicitor's costs if they are unsuccessful.