Pensions Bill

Debate between Lord Browne of Ladyton and Lord Stoneham of Droxford

Monday 16th December 2013 Grand Committee

[Lord Stoneham of Droxford]

With respect to the noble Lord, it is slightly unfair to criticise this document for being so long and then not get the point that the pension for 30 years is £110, and the pension for 30 to 35 years will be £123. That means that somebody is better off. That is the point, is it not? It was unfair to attack civil servants for writing that long brief to make that point, when I am not sure that the noble Lord got it. They will be better off under this system.

I should like to make two other points. If we set it at 30 years now, there is no going back. We might like it to be 30 years, but the fact is that if we set it at 30 now there will be no going back if it does not work out. If we cannot afford it, it will not go up to 35 and we will have to stay with it; whereas, if it is at 35, there is the possibility of review and it could come down.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton]

Clearly, my carefully constructed argument was utterly wasted. I just want to make two points to the Minister, who may well not have been intending to look at me. I am not arguing for 30 years; I am arguing for a review. I was commenting on an earlier amendment, which is not in my name and which I do not support, for a reduction to 30 years, suggesting that it opened up an interesting debate about why it is 30, not 32 or 35. That is not for me to explain. The noble Lord can be reassured that I understand the mathematics, or the arithmetic, on this. I am just arguing for a review for reasons to do with the expectations of people whom I think are entitled to have those expectations.

[Lord Stoneham of Droxford]

I am sorry if I lost the noble Lord’s argument in not realising that he was arguing for a review; I thought he was arguing to reduce it to 30. I think that makes my point, actually: it is easier to have the higher figure to start with and then review it down than to start with something lower that you then cannot afford.

My other point is that the additional contributions are very beneficial in their rate of return. Under the scheme, we are trying to encourage people to save. That is one of its main merits and motives.

Mesothelioma Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Browne of Ladyton and Lord Stoneham of Droxford

Wednesday 17th July 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Browne of Ladyton]

My Lords, I support this group of amendments. In the interest of the efficient use of our time I shall do so principally by adopting the arguments that have already been advanced by my noble friends in support of them, and will seek only to reinforce one point and augment another in relation to Amendments 5 and 6.

The quotations which my noble friend Lord Howarth deployed from the ABI’s brief come from the brief that the ABI provided to some of us—in a discriminating fashion, I recollect—in anticipation of the Committee stage on 5 June. On that occasion I deployed these very same quotations; I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, had them at that stage. I made this point then, and I wish to repeat it: the ABI’s argument in relation to self-employed people seems to be, “This was a very small number of people”. I felt that that argument read that since we were leaving behind only a small number of people, we could be justified in doing so. I deployed the argument that that increased the injustice substantially and that extending the scheme to this very small number of people would have a very limited effect on the total cost of the scheme and on its administration. I also argued that it would be a deep and disproportionate injustice to leave those people behind because they were probably victims of the same negligence; they probably picked up the fibres that caused this dreadful disease in exactly the same workplaces as employed people did, but just happened to be working in them at the time. I repeat that point as there is some significant merit in it.

In relation to the group of people who are referred to in the Minister’s letter of 4 July as those who are infected by environmental or secondary exposure, there is a more compelling argument as to why these persons should be included in this scheme. It relates to the way in which public liability insurance and compulsory employers’ liability insurance—or employers’ liability compulsory insurance, which I think is its proper title—was sold historically. It may still be sold this way, but I know that it was sold in this fashion. I explored this argument in Committee—I am grateful to the Minister, who, in his characteristic fashion, addressed comprehensively in his letter those issues that he did not have a briefing to address in Committee—and I have now had it confirmed, from the information in the Minister’s letter, that it is right.

Almost invariably, employers’ liability compulsory insurance was sold in a package, with, among other things, public liability insurance. Consequently, it is invariably the case that the insurers, who carry the employers’ liability risk, also carry the public liability risk. It is the behaviour of exactly the same insurers, in either destroying their records or failing to be available to those who identified them as the insurers who carried these risks, that has caused this deep failure in the insurance market. Therefore, there is no difference in relation to the mechanism of insurance and its failure to provide compensation for people who have been exposed to environmental or secondary exposure, compared with those who were employed in the first instance.

It is almost incontrovertibly the case that were an employer to have been sued by the person who was exposed at the secondary level, that person would have been able to establish that they were owed a duty of care and that there was a direct causal connection between the exposure of their relative or loved one and their contracting the disease. Had they had somebody to sue, they would have been able to get compensation. If the employer does not exist and the insurer cannot now be found, they are in exactly the same position as the relative who was exposed to the fibres and carried them home. I made that argument, and from the way I read the very carefully worded letter from the Minister, that appears to be what his researchers have revealed: that this group of people would have been covered by public liability insurance and that almost invariably the same insurers would have carried that risk.

There is no argument, therefore, that has any merit, that those people who were in the category of secondary exposure should be excluded from this scheme. The opposite is the case. Given that exactly the same players would have been involved in the processes that caused their contracting this disease and dying from it, we should honour the experience they have had by including them in the scheme.

[Lord Stoneham of Droxford]

My Lords, I will comment on a number of issues to which these amendments give rise—and they are very sensitive issues. Any start date is arbitrary, and there will always be people who are caught by a start date, so whether it is 2010 or 2012, there will inevitably be feelings of unfairness. However, the earlier the start date, whatever the cost—perhaps the Minister will clarify the cost, but we were told it was £119 million, and if it is 70% of that it will come to £80 million—agreeing to that concession would cause a 25% increase in the cost of this scheme. Where is the money going to come from? Will it come from a new negotiation, or from reduced benefits and compensation for those who will receive money from the scheme? That question has to be answered by the movers of the amendment.

On the issue of coverage, there are obviously concerns about the self-employed and people from the same household, but are we saying that we are going to complicate this legislation and hold it up while we have an argument about public liability insurance versus employee insurance? That would be a recipe for severe delay. The great advantage of this legislation is that we have kept it simple and we have an agreement. It is a balancing act to get to that agreement and to get the legislation through so that it benefits the people who were in employment. Once this settles down, we could consider coming back to this—I hope the Minister will do so at some stage—and look again at how we might cover the self-employed and people from the same household, but if we start that discussion now we will be here until 2015 or 2016 before we have legislation to benefit the families for whom it is intended.