Civil Liability Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Faulks and Lord McKenzie of Luton

Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 15th May 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Faulks]

My Lords, in practice, when these cases come before a court, particularly where there is a party who lacks capacity, a judge, before approving one of these orders—they have the right to approve or disapprove a settlement—must be satisfied that appropriate advice has been taken on the split between periodical payments and a lump sum and that, generally, it is a satisfactory settlement from the court’s point of view. If they are subject to the Court of Protection, the court will then be able to manage investments according to the best interests of the protected party. If I may say so, the noble Lord has a good point on what happens to those who do not need the approval of the court or who are outside the protected party, and who are like anybody else who comes into a large sum of money in any other context. They will be well advised to take advice: some do; some, I fear, do not.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

I am grateful to the Minister and to the noble Lord for that education and further information. I still take away the point about where those who do not take advice end up. There is a difference between people receiving compensation for damages—where in most instances it is a one-off arrangement to last them for the rest of their life—and somebody who wins the pools and has a stash to invest, which they may do wisely or foolishly.

The genuine point is this: it is important to be comfortable that people will be as encouraged as they can be to take advice—I know you cannot force them—and to know that any gaps have been covered in our deliberations on the Bill. That is particularly important in this era of scammers and cold-callers. We know the impact that they can have on people’s pensions and there is a real parallel here. Having said all that, I think I have probably said enough, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Mesothelioma

Debate between Lord Faulks and Lord McKenzie of Luton

Tuesday 9th December 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Faulks]

The position with insurers is that they have provided money. I will have to write to both noble Lords and the right reverend Prelate about what has happened to that particular sum. The question of the use of research funds is difficult. We think that research funds should be spent in the most effective way, and we think that publicly funding research is much more appropriate than hypothecating against insurers’ particular sums.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)]

My Lords, would the Minister accept that throughout our deliberations on the Mesothelioma Bill the focus was on a 3% levy? It was 3% because the insurance industry insisted that beyond that it would have to be passed to consumers. By implication, if the levy is now 2.2%, presumably that falls into the pocket of the insurance companies at a time when compensation is not being paid at a 100% level, and, as has been asserted, there is insufficient funding for research.

[Lord Faulks]

It is absolutely not the case that there is insufficient funding for research. As I have said more than once, the case is that, at the moment, there is not a suitable number of applications for research. The funding is very much there. As to any question of insurers making some profit out of this, I will look into that. It is contrary to what the Government wish to achieve.

Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill

Debate between Lord Faulks and Lord McKenzie of Luton

Monday 22nd April 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, we remain steadfast in our opposition to the Government’s position, and fully support the case led by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hardie, and spoken to in support by my noble friend Lady Turner and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. We are dismayed that parliamentary process has allowed so little time for consideration of this matter in the House of Commons and that more than a century—in fact, nearly 150 years—of settled law is being overturned on the basis of such brief deliberation.

The arguments to remove Clause 61 from this Bill have not of course changed in the few weeks since we last debated the matter. Nor have the serious consequences which will ensue should we not carry the day. Removal of the existing right of an employee to rely on a breach of health and safety legislation represents a fundamental shift, and one which is to the detriment of employees.

We heard before, and again today, that having to prove negligence will provide a more difficult route to getting redress. The burden of proof will shift to employees, or to the family in the case of a fatality at work, there will be a requirement for more evidence-gathering and investigation, and the incurring of greater costs. In that respect there will be no lessening of the regulatory burden on employers. This change goes well beyond the issue of strict liability which the Government’s own impact assessment accepts is likely to give rise to only a small number of claims.

The issue of a near impossible burden referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, I think in our previous debate, was not applied generally but specifically to those circumstances where strict liability has hitherto been in force.

[Lord Faulks]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. The point is that there is always a claim, as I am sure he will agree, in negligence. Whether there is a breach of a regulation will be strong evidence of a departure from an appropriate standard of care. All that is changing is simply that it is not actionable per se. I would like the noble Lord to say why he adheres to his suggestion that there is a near impossible burden.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

The point I sought to make is that in some circumstances it has been accepted, I believe, that there is a near-impossible burden. That is not necessarily the case, but even the route to proving negligence is a greater burden than the route to proving breach of statutory duty, which is what operates generally at the moment. The “near-impossible burden” description was particularly applied to those areas where strict liability applies in circumstances related to the provision of equipment, where purchased, maintained and sourced by the employer, and the employee is in a disadvantaged position in seeking to prove negligence.

The impact assessment recites the belief in a compensation culture which is having an impact on the behaviour of business. However, even if true, why on earth should it be a justification for reducing access to justice for employees injured or made ill by their work? This cannot be a rational basis for acting. Why should employees bear the strain of tackling these perceptions? Where is the evidence that unreasonable claims are being made and indeed settled? If there are fewer claims, the beneficiaries, as we have heard, will be the insurance companies, the providers of employer liability insurance. Where the Government are particularly remiss is in failing to see this from the perspective of the individuals who are injured at work, because one way or another they and their families will bear an increased burden. They may be forced to place greater reliance on the health, caring and benefits system. What does the Minister say to those families whose circumstances may have been eased by receiving compensation but who face a life on benefits in the future? Health and safety impacts on the lives of millions of individual employees every day of the week. It is not some distant concept related to red tape.

There is undoubtedly some overcompliance with health and safety requirements, but there are ways in which this can and is being tackled. The register for consultants is one route that the HSE is seeking to apply. However, there is also undercompliance. The noble Lord, Lord Faulks, asks what my evidence is for that. Let us look at the data. People are still being killed at work and hundreds of thousands of people are injured every year. I spent three and a half years as Minister for health and safety. We know those sectors where there is a struggle to get compliance. It does not operate across the board. There are some very good employers who try to do the decent thing, but there are some who do not. This undercompliance has been made worse by restrictions on funding, by limiting the regulator’s role in proactive workplace inspections, and by the portrayal of health and safety as red tape and its undermining by myths that bear no relation to reality. Promoting the changes in Clause 61 will also send the wrong message to those employers who would undervalue health and safety and cut corners, safe in the knowledge that their chances of being held to account are diminished. This is to the detriment not only of employees but of those many employers who do the right thing.

The Government’s position is untenable. It is changing the settled legal position of over a century on the basis of anecdote and perceptions. It is making it harder, sometimes impossible, for employees to access justice when they are injured at work. It is undermining the cause of health and safety. The Government have failed to consult properly on this or make reference to the EU. They offer an inappropriate remedy to any perceived compensation culture which can and should be addressed by other means. Most of all, they are careless of the personal cost to those who are damaged by their work. That is why we support the amendment of the noble and learned Lord.