Social Metrics Commission

Lord Howarth of Newport Excerpts

Tuesday 29th January 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Buscombe]

My Lords, it is important to say that we are committed to action that will make a meaningful difference to the lives of disadvantaged children and families, and that goes beyond a focus on the safety net of the welfare system to tackle the root causes of poverty and disadvantage. I am taking a particular interest in debt, working with my honourable friend the Minister for Pensions and Financial Inclusion. We are also very much looking at housing, working across government with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. These issues matter very much when looking at the root causes, as does low pay, and that applies not just to the private sector; it is important that we also look at the third sector and other institutions that might not be paying sufficient wages to those whom they employ.

[Lord Howarth of Newport (Lab)]

Does the Minister accept that the availability of a new and more informative measure of poverty must be the springboard to new action to alleviate poverty? To start with, will she insist with her colleagues in the MHCLG that their proposal to remove the deprivation factor from the foundation formula for the allocation of grants to local authorities would further impoverish urban communities already impoverished by this Government’s disproportionate reductions in grant, further widen inequality and, indeed, put further pressure on the social security budget?

[Baroness Buscombe]

My Lords, as well as doing the work that I have just referred to, over the coming months we look forward to the release of further information from the Social Metrics Commission and to working with the commission. In particular, the department is keen to be involved in the stakeholder discussions on some of the critical and more complex issues which the noble Lord recognises and which the commission is taking account of in its measures.

Poverty: Metrics

Lord Howarth of Newport Excerpts

Monday 21st January 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howarth of Newport (Lab)]

My Lords, I add my congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, and the Legatum Institute on establishing the Social Metrics Commission and on her leadership. Whatever our political differences, if we agree that it is a primary responsibility of government to reduce poverty, we must welcome the establishment of a better database and an extensively agreed definition and description of poverty. I hope that all the parties will be able to accept that the account of poverty so far provided by the SMC is an improved basis for understanding, for debate and for the development of policy.

Confronted by the statistics in the SMC report—some of them highlighted just now by the noble Baroness— we should be dismayed. It is a collective failure that 4.5 million children are living in poverty, that 6.9 million people who are in poverty live in families with a disabled person, and that 7.7 million people are living in persistent poverty. The challenge, presented anew by the SMC, is to put the reduction of poverty front and centre in our politics.

The SMC has admirably sought not only to understand material poverty but to take account of the lived experience of poverty: for instance, social isolation and mental and physical ill health. As it develops its methodology, I hope that the SMC will consider adding an indicator of cultural poverty, which has a profound effect on well-being, thence health, thence material poverty.

The massive and cumbrous social security system cannot move fast and takes time to get things right, as we see with universal credit. But policy must take account of social change, rapid as it is, the fragmentation of class, immigration, changing economic geography, the impact of technology: the actual experience of people’s lives. The UK Government, which at the moment—extraordinarily—has no official measure of poverty, should surely adopt the model offered by the SMC.

The SMC’s data and method can help us understand and address with new seriousness and effectiveness the problem, so glaringly exposed by the Brexit referendum, of the “left behind” and their alienation. Informed by the SMC, we shall be better able, if we will, to redress burning injustices, rekindle hope, heal divisions and, I would add, rehabilitate politics.

Local Welfare Assistance

Lord Howarth of Newport Excerpts

Monday 11th December 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Buscombe]

It is important that I stress again that, under the national system, there are strong safeguards in place. We expect local authorities to concentrate the funding on those facing the greatest difficulty in managing their income and to enable a more flexible response to an unavoidable need, perhaps through a mix of cash or goods and aligning with the wider range of local support that local authorities’ devolved administrations already offer. In short, the funding is to allow them to give flexible help to those in genuine need.

[Lord Howarth of Newport (Lab)]

The noble Baroness says that local authorities are best placed and they have £200 billion. Will she confirm that the Government have cut funding for local authorities by some 40% since 2010?

[Baroness Buscombe]

My Lords, perhaps I could quote the Local Government Association’s own study:

“Councils have managed the available budget effectively; reduced the potential for abuse, and created schemes which better meet the underlying needs of applicants and reduce repeat demand. This has enabled them to provide vital, timely support to some of their most vulnerable and deprived residents”.

Employment

Lord Howarth of Newport Excerpts

Thursday 19th November 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Altmann]

My Lords, in Jobcentre Plus we have across the country a network of trained and dedicated work coaches. They are transforming the relationship we have with claimants, and, in turn, the relationship they have with the labour market. Since the 2010 election, youth unemployment has fallen by 285,000 to its lowest level since early 2006.

[Lord Howarth of Newport (Lab)]

My Lords, while welcoming the increase in the quantity of jobs, I put it to the Minister that when the full employment White Paper was published in the middle years of the 20th century, the assumption was that the jobs created would be adequately paid, secure and long term. Only a small proportion of the jobs created in recent years have been of that nature. What is the Government’s strategy to improve the quality of employment, and what contribution do they consider the trade unions can make to that strategy?

[Baroness Altmann]

I am not entirely sure what figures the noble Lord is referring to, but since 2010 around two-thirds of the rise in employment has been in managerial, professional and associate professional occupations, which generally command a higher wage.

Architecture and the Built Environment

Lord Howarth of Newport Excerpts

Monday 28th July 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howarth of Newport (Lab)]

My Lords, in my three minutes, I shall touch on just two themes from this excellent and complex report. The first is well-being. It is some years since David Cameron said in a speech that,

“it’s time we focused not just on GDP but on GWB—general wellbeing”.

He understood that economic growth is not an end; it is a means to lives of well-being. That, of course, was understood by the pioneers of planning in this country—for example, those who were responsible for the garden cities movement which, after some hesitation, I think that the Government are again embracing.

Sir Terry Farrell and his distinguished panel want planning inspired by vision, not snagged in process; that is proactive rather than reactive; that is collaborative rather than adversarial. The National Planning Policy Framework touches on a crucial point when it speaks of,

“health, social and cultural wellbeing”,

but it fails to assert that the promotion of well-being should be the overarching objective of the planning system. I am proud to say, however, that the Norwich and Norfolk plan—that is where I live—declares that:

“All development will be expected to maintain or enhance the quality of life and the well being of communities”.

In that spirit, Farrell seeks to broaden design review into a more holistic place-shaping strategy. We need planners to work with health and well-being boards and other service providers. We need planners fully engaging with communities, and confidently and naturally integrating the heritage with the new. If we have planning with that kind of vision, instead of the crises of housing, floods and energy supply and the negativism and resentment about the planning system that we have at the moment, we would have a planning system of vision and ambition that worked towards creating cohesive and confident communities.

The second theme is education. Farrell wants decision-makers—for example, members of planning committees—to be trained in design literacy. I, too, say to the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, that that is a reasonable challenge. At the minimum, we want planners who know how to read a plan. Just as it is accepted that elected members need to be trained in certain legal and financial skills, so, surely, they ought to be in planning skills. I believe that could be done.

Farrell calls for a multidisciplinary common foundation year for the formation of all built environment professionals: planners, architects, landscapers, conservationists, developers, surveyors, engineers and builders. He wants more routes to qualification. That is surely an idea whose time has come. Ministers should endorse it and professional and academic leaders should get on with it. He wants the public to be better educated—of course, they will need to be if they are to rise to the challenge and opportunity of forming neighbourhood plans. He wants more architectural centres, urban rooms, events such as heritage open days, open house and architecture festivals. In schools, he wants teachers to be supported with some training and useful materials, so that we can gradually build an informed public with higher expectations.

We need to develop a culture that demands quality, so that, in the end, there will not be a market for rubbish, for the second-rate buildings that the big retailers and the volume housebuilders inflict on us. We also need to emancipate local government to make room again for civic pride and ambition and to allow councillors to have the power to take decisions in the interests of the well-being of their communities and not be overruled by an inspectorate.

We need leadership at every level and, indispensably, across government. So I await with excitement the response of the noble Lord, Lord Bates.

Diffuse Mesothelioma Payment Scheme Regulations 2014

Lord Howarth of Newport Excerpts

Monday 17th March 2014 Grand Committee

[Lord Wigley]

I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for intervening when I did. It clearly shows that we have not been comparing notes, because he was coming on to the very point to which I referred.

Perhaps the Committee will indulge me for a moment if I refer to the debate that we had in this Room on 16 January when I referred to a good friend of mine, Peter Wolfe of Cork in Ireland. Within a matter of days of that debate, he died. He had learnt of his mesothelioma only a few weeks before Christmas. That underlines how quickly this insidious disease kills people. I was at his funeral in Cork on 27 January. That casts a shadow over my contribution to debates on these matters.

The fact that the scheme under consideration today has been set up is a very positive development for victims of diffuse mesothelioma who cannot trace their employer’s insurance. I, too, pay tribute to the Minister for his perseverance in responding to the points raised during the passage of the legislation. I was especially glad to discover earlier this month, and to hear the Minister reiterate today, that claimants under this scheme will be able to gain 80% of the value of compensation claims, up from the 75% threshold which the Government seemed determined to stick to during debates at earlier states. I understand that claimants can now expect to receive an average payment of £123,000 before benefits are recovered, together with £7,000 towards their legal fees.

However, in my usual Oliver Twist fashion, I remain to be convinced about why claimants under this scheme should expect any less than 100% of the average compensation award for this type of disease. Those suffering from diffuse mesothelioma will be in debilitating pain, yet the Government insist that they are limiting the amount of compensation that can be claimed in order to ensure that claimants exhaust all other avenues before coming to the scheme. Surely this is grossly unfair. In effect, it penalises victims of the disease for the negligence of their employers. For the purpose of comparison, it is worth noting that the Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) Act 1979 scheme was designed to award 100% of the value of compensation claims to claimants and, as we debated a few moments ago, it is reviewed annually. Why victims of diffuse mesothelioma should not have the same recourse available to them is beyond me, but perhaps that is another battle to be won at some stage.

It is also astounding that claimants under this scheme will have 100% of their benefits recouped from the compensation that is awarded, even though they receive only 80% of the damages. Claimants will thus lose out financially even more, and the Government surely must look again at that aspect.

There were other problems aside from the amount of compensation to be awarded, which were likewise highlighted during the debates on the Mesothelioma Act—problems that have yet to be erased. Principally, it is at best short-sighted that the Government have decided to place an arbitrary cut-off date for eligibility under the scheme. A draft of this compensation scheme was published, as we all know, by the previous Government shortly before the 2010 election, and consultation closed in May of that year. The present Government made no announcement on taking the scheme forward until 25 July 2012, which is the date that they have set as the earliest time when a patient can have been diagnosed with diffuse mesothelioma for these purposes. Individuals who had the misfortune of being diagnosed between February 2010 and July 2012 thus fall between two stools through no fault of their own—a matter that we on all sides of this Committee have emphasised, as well as in previous Committees and in the Chamber during the passage of the legislation. Surely the Government must look at this again.

Furthermore, it is disappointing that the scheme is open only to individuals suffering from diffuse mesothelioma, which is only one of a number of asbestos-related conditions that can come about as a result of exposure to this deadly substance. I would welcome any clarity that the Government can give as to the steps that will be taken to protect the interests of those suffering from asbestosis and other asbestos-related lung cancers.

Finally, I know that many individuals will be grateful if the Government can confirm when people will be able to start making applications under this scheme. I am not sure whether the Minister mentioned that in his comments—I did not catch it if he did—but that would be useful.

[Lord Howarth of Newport (Lab)]

My Lords, I add my thanks to the Minister and congratulate him on achieving this legislation and bringing in these regulations. I thank him for his compassion, for the collaborative way in which he worked with noble Lords on all sides of the House, and for his strong determination to get to where we have now reached. It is a very significant achievement and he deserves our admiration and gratitude. Like other noble Lords, I am grateful to him for raising the level of compensation to 80% of average compensation awards. That is a significant improvement that will make a lot of difference to families when they find themselves in such dire need.

I want to ask the Minister just one question. Will he clarify that it is his intention that the overall value of the scheme should continue to be set at 3% of gross written premiums after the peak year for claims? He has told us that we are to anticipate perhaps 2,500 claims in 2018, after which the numbers may reduce—although the noble Lord, Lord Alton, told the Committee that it is projected that there will be another 60,000 cases over the next 30 years. There will continue to be a significant volume, and I put it to the Minister that it is important that that 3% of gross written premiums is not reduced in the years after 2018. We all hope that after a long period of Labour Government, starting in 2015, the Minister may still have an opportunity to play some part in these affairs. I appreciate that it is difficult for him to bind his successors but it would be helpful if he would say on the record that he, as the architect of this scheme, envisages that the employers’ liability insurers should continue for the whole future life of the diffuse mesothelioma scheme to have to provide 3% of gross written premiums. If that was the case while the numbers of claimants or beneficiaries of the scheme were falling, it would make it possible to move the level of compensation up from 80% towards, or perhaps to reach, 100%. That would be one very important possibility.

There are other good things that it would be possible to do were funds to remain available while the total number of claims fell. It would become possible to backdate the eligibility for the scheme beyond July 2012 to February 2010 or even further. It would also be possible—I tabled an amendment to this effect in Committee on the Bill—provided that the legislation allows it, which of course is questionable, to adapt the regulations to cover family members who themselves contract mesothelioma even if the person who was exposed to asbestos in the workplace did not personally contract the disease. We talked about the case of a member of the family—most likely the wife—who washes the overalls of the person who has been exposed to asbestos fibre in the work-wear and she contracts the disease. As I understand it, the Minister has still not been able to bring those people into eligibility. However, if we had a slightly less tight financial envelope, then, through keeping the 3% of gross written premiums to fund the scheme, it would be possible to help those people.

Of course, it would also be possible to mitigate benefits recovery. I know that the Minister’s department, for theological reasons, will set its face against that, but, as the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, said, it seems very hard and unreasonable to claw back 100% of benefits from people who are receiving only 80% of average compensation. So there would be further latitude there. There would of course be further latitude to provide additional funding for research, the case for which has been so consistently and eloquently made by the noble Lord, Lord Alton. Among the range of options, it would also be possible to extend the benefits of the scheme, or perhaps a newly created parallel scheme, to victims of other long-latency industrial diseases whom we want to help.

I do not know what sorts of permutations might be possible but one could envisage this range of possibilities, and I hope very much that this afternoon the Minister will at least be able to tell us that there will not be a tapering of the overall value of the fund. The industry having treated mesothelioma sufferers so very badly over many decades, it seems to me that it should not be let off the hook. I appreciate that the current generation of employers’ liability insurers are not the worst culprits, and perhaps not the culprits at all in individual cases, of the failure to honour the policies that were written. However, I think that the industry as a whole has to continue to bear its share of responsibility and—I know that this is the spirit in which the Minister has always approached this whole issue—we should do the very best that we can for people who at the moment the scheme is not intended to help but who it would become possible to help if we maintained the value of the fund past 2018.

[Lord James of Blackheath (Con)]

My Lords, I apologise for not having been present at the beginning of this debate but I should like to make two points, the first arising directly from what the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, has just said. Three per cent of premiums seems to be the wrong way to come to this issue. Three per cent of the total reinsurance value backing asbestosis would be a nice round sum. It is about £6 billion of my money that I put in from Lloyd’s of London, and it is much nicer to get 3% on that. That coming in each year would give a lot of leg-room.

My other point is that I have been keeping in close contact with the Royal British Legion on this. At present, it has 42 cases—although, rather ominously, it has said that it expects that number to fall very quickly to 38—where it is providing care at its own expense and at considerable cost. Will the Minister explain what the crossover would be between this scheme coming in and either taking out or supporting the British Legion? I am concerned that when this comes in, it does not result in a hiatus, out of which the poor sufferers get nothing at all, whereas now they get support from the Royal British Legion. We need to know with some clarity what will happen in that respect. Those are the only two points I would like to make on what I have heard so far.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)]

My Lords, like other noble Lords, I join in praising the Minister for all his efforts on this Bill. Without his leadership, we simply would not have this legislation on which we can debate these regulations.

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

When I was praising the Minister, I wanted to say that, of course, he built on the foundations created by my noble friend. I hope that he will also accept the gratitude and praise of the Committee and everybody in a much wider community who have been concerned about the predicament of mesothelioma sufferers.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My noble friend is too kind, but I am conscious of the fact that this Bill has been forged in very difficult economic circumstances, and it is a splendid result that we are where we are. Like others, I also welcome the increase in the level of payout. As I remember it, when we were discussing this during the passage of the Bill, there were two versions of the gross tariff: one from the ABI and one from the DWP. I think the difference between them was based on the projections of the age profile of those who contract mesothelioma. We focused on the higher, DWP, one. Will the Minister confirm that this is still the gross tariff that we are working to and that it will be 80% of that?

A number of noble Lords have raised the 3% of gross written premiums. I am not sure that I heard the Minister actually say that this is where the levy is going to start, and it will be helpful if he could confirm the position. I thought his expression was “within that 3%”, but it would be good to know when we will see the levy regulations and whether the expectation is that it will be fixed, initially, and thereafter, as my noble friend Lord Howarth said, at 3% of gross written premiums. Obviously, this is to the extent to which they did not produce more than a 100% payout.

The Minister confirmed that the legal fees at £7,000 per case would be paid on top of that. I am not quite sure that I followed the reasoning of how that will be dealt with in alternative regulations. I would appreciate it if the Minister reiterated what he said. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, has been steadfast on the issue of research. Will the Minister take the opportunity to tell us where he thinks the insurance industry now stands, and what the prospects are of getting extra funding from it one way or another?

I have a couple of technical questions. Can we have an update on the oversight arrangements? I do not think there is a specific reference in these regulations to the oversight committee and whether there should be any obligation on the administrator. I should say that the Minister has been true to his word in terms of the process of appointing the administrator of the scheme, but I do not think there is anything in these regulations which requires co-operation and engagement with the oversight committee. Perhaps the Minister will say how he sees that working.

There was an issue over Schedule 3 to these arrangements, which deals with the application. This sets out all the information that needs to be provided and includes the names of all the person’s employers and the description of the arrangements under which the person was engaged by each employer. One of the issues that cropped up just at the tail end of the Bill’s consideration in the other place was HMRC policy on work histories and the extent to which a court order is now necessary for HMRC to provide them. I hope that this issue has gone away, but I would appreciate an update from the Minister on that point.

On a smaller point, will the Minister clarify where the administrator can impose conditions on a claimant? I think we understand why that would be but, as I understand it, there seems to be some differentiation. Conditions can be imposed where a dependant is an applicant, but where the applicant is deceased and the payment goes to the personal representative I am not sure that the constraints or conditions on that payment would apply. Maybe that is not necessary because it would be the role of the personal representative to make sure that that was effectively dealt with. Can the Minister confirm that?

Finally, I just ask about the Ministry of Justice procedure for reforming mesothelioma claims. In a sense, the Government backed up what was originally proposed but paragraph 39 of their response to the consultation on these proposals states:

“The stated purpose of the Secure Mesothelioma Claims Gateway was to support the proposed Mesothelioma Pre-Action Protocol. As the Government has declined to take forward the MPAP supported by a fixed recoverable costs regime, the ABI will no doubt want to consider whether and how it would wish to take forward its proposal for funding and hosting a SMCG and how claimants and defendants might voluntarily make use of it”.

Could the Minister give us an update on that and what it means in the current situation?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

Allow me to emphasise once again that it is imperative that the Minister, his department and successors maintain the pressure on the industry. We have just heard the noble Lord, Lord Alton, describe how there is no assurance that there will be continuing funding from the industry for research. We have seen the whole history of the neglect of the legitimate interests of mesothelioma sufferers by the employers’ liability insurance industry. Sadly, we cannot take it on trust. I am sorry that the Minister has not written that requirement of 3% of gross written premiums into these regulations—though I can perhaps understand why not. It would be very helpful and really the least that the Minister could do if he expressed this afternoon very strongly on behalf of the Government and mesothelioma sufferers his expectation that we will continue to have the substantial contribution from industry to fund this scheme and that he expects industry to continue to provide not less than 3% of gross written premiums after the moment of peak claims passes in 2018, for all the reasons that noble Lords indicated earlier in this debate.

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, I am not in a position to bind a future Government over what happens in four years’ time. However, as the noble Lord appreciates, there is now a context for that Government to take a view at the right time on what should happen beyond then. The figure we have at the moment, which is publicly on record, is 3%. In response to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, that is based on DWP forecasts. Clearly, to that extent, we are committed to a tariff level. If those forecasts are wrong for one reason or another, there could be variation round that 3%. That is the best we can do to set the level today. However, when that process has gone through—we thought the right point for that was after four years because we will have done the smoothing and seen how it actually works and if people change behaviour as a result of the scheme—we will clearly know exactly what is happening. We can then have a much more specific forecast of expectations, once the scheme is in and has been rolling for some time.

Mesothelioma Bill [HL]

Lord Howarth of Newport Excerpts

Monday 22nd July 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

My Lords, if it is in order to make some brief remarks in the debate on these amendments which go a little wide of them, as the Minister has just done, I will do so now rather than on the Motion that this Bill do now pass. In the absence of the noble Countess, Lady Mar, I will take a chance and hope to have the indulgence of the House. In our proceedings on the Bill, we have considered very closely the predicament of people who have suffered the tragic misfortune of contracting mesothelioma. This predicament has elicited strong feelings of sympathy all around your Lordships’ House. It is the role of your Lordships’ House to advise our elected colleagues in another place and I would like to reflect for just a moment on what the essence of that advice should be.

In the Bill, we are attempting to deal with the consequences of what should certainly be regarded as a major scandal. Of course, among employer’s liability insurers there are many honourable and conscientious people, but in their ranks there have also been, I regret to say, a significant number who have been deeply dishonourable and reckless. Some of the employer’s liability insurers have behaved as badly as the worst of the bankers and the worst of the touts of mortgage loans did in the run-up to the crisis of 2008.

Because of the long latency of mesothelioma and the three to four decades that the disease takes to incubate, there was scope for genuine administrative confusion, but a significant proportion of insurers have managed to lose the documentation that would have enabled mesothelioma sufferers to make a claim against their employer, or their employer’s successor, and perhaps to make their case in the civil courts. Within that number, it is very clear that there were also significant numbers of insurers who wilfully destroyed that documentation. Such negligence and criminality in relation to people who are doomed to suffer from this most horrible illness and to die of it seems peculiarly cynical and, I would say, depraved. There has been the inhumanity of that but there is also another fundamental issue at stake; the proper administration of contracts is fundamental to the functioning of a free-enterprise economy and to the maintenance of trust in society.

We have all admired and applauded the Minister who, building on the initiative of my noble friend Lord McKenzie of Luton, negotiated with employer’s liability insurers the scheme that this Bill would legislate. The Minister and his officials have invariably been helpful to us, and he was most generous in his remarks just now about noble Lords who have participated in these proceedings. As he said, it has been a collaborative process. We recognise and thank him for the improvements that he has made to this scheme during the passage of the Bill—the raising of the rate of payment to 75%; his agreement that details of the scheme should be brought in by regulation; his acceptance of the principle of an oversight committee; and his decision that the scheme should go out to open tender. I am sure that he will continue to give attention to the significant issues raised just now by my noble friend Lord Browne. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, made a very constructive set of proposals in response to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, on how to facilitate and fund further research into mesothelioma.

The difficulty that the Minister has had, and one that we entirely understand, is that having conducted his negotiation with the industry and reached an agreement with it, he has found it very difficult to budge from the exact terms of that agreement. I do not think that Parliament is bound by the terms of an agreement negotiated between the Government and the industry. Indeed, it is the responsibility of Parliament to improve the scheme further if we can in the public interest. There is therefore a small number of issues which we should commend to our colleagues in the House of Commons for their further consideration. I hope that they will want to look again at the rate of payment and the date for eligibility. I very much hope that they will want to look at the plight of people who are at the moment excluded from the scope of the scheme, such as members of the households of people who were employed and exposed to asbestos, where the employee has not so far contracted the disease but the household member, perhaps someone who did the household laundry and washed the contaminated overalls brought back from the workplace, has contracted it. People in that situation are not covered by the scheme. The self-employed too, even if self-employment was something of a technicality, will not be eligible to benefit. I hope also that the Government will after all agree that there should be an annual report on the progress of the scheme to assist Parliament in its necessary further vigilance in the interests of mesothelioma victims.

I know the Minister has been fearful that if such refinements to the scheme were to be brought in by way of amendments to the Bill, the insurance industry would take away its bat and ball and revert to its customary position of taking legal action to prevent the Government from requiring it to do what in decency and justice it ought to do. Of course, we do not want to see any delays to the implementation of the Bill. I hope that Members of the House of Commons will take the view that a legal case by the employers against minor improvements of this kind to the Bill would be very weak indeed, given that they have accepted the principle that there ought to be a scheme of this kind which they should fund. My noble friend Lord McKenzie of Luton has demonstrated that the costs of such improvements would be affordable, and I do not believe that the employer’s liability insurers would be so shameless as to go to court to try to prevent these modest further improvements and further advance of justice for mesothelioma victims.

In the course of our proceedings on this Bill in your Lordships’ House we have defined the issues and laid out arguments and I very much hope that our colleagues in the elected House will wish to pursue these issues.

[Lord James of Blackheath]

My Lords, I had not expected to rise at this stage of the debate but, having listened to the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, I feel compelled to do so on behalf of the insurance industry, as he has made a serious allegation of fundamental dishonesty within it. I remind the House that I myself have stood trial in the USA on a charge that would have got me 24 years in the slammer, and was acquitted. At issue was the integrity and honesty of the British insurance industry, for which I signed the audit certificate that led to the ultimate creation of Equitas. The noble Lord should remember that we are a very public arena, and that there are many in the world with other motives who will look to get any crumb of comfort that they can to mount an action that would lead to a financial advantage for them.

The issue on which I was arraigned in the Justice Courts in New York was that, with the fundamental insolvency of Lloyd’s of London totally at issue, I had signed an audit certificate that said it was solvent when it was not. I had seven days’ non-stop interrogation on the subject, but I won. I would like to go on the record to this gathering, for the outside world as well, about why I won so that we may not find that we are undermining the integrity and financial security of the insurance industry on which this scheme will depend. There is no point in us busting the world of the insurance industry for the sake of the Bill and getting nothing.

The point was that I had signed an audit certificate to say that Lloyd’s of London was solvent and could meet all its liabilities, at a time when most people believed that it could not. I relied upon Section 18(1) of the Insolvency Act, which by the greatest irony I wrote when I was assistant to Sir Kenneth Cork in drafting it. The Act makes very specific statements about what justifies a claim for solvency, and I claimed that those conditions were met in the case of Lloyd’s. The ultimate proof that it was is the fact that Equitas, whose creation by Lloyd’s of London I chaired, has been sold to Warren Buffett for an enormous amount of money, with a guarantee that he will fulfil Equitas’s entire liabilities. In the process, he will pick up about £3 billion in pocket money for himself, and good luck to him.

The events of those days cast a very long shadow. The noble Lord, Lord Howarth, may be right in his comment that there was dishonesty in the loss of documentation and the avoidance of liability by those devious means, but there is no question of integrity in the industry with which we are dealing. It is adequately funded and has adequate backing, and it is completely solvent for the discharge of all the liabilities that we want to meet, including those that we are discussing in the Bill. It would be an outrageous act of complete disregard for the facts of history and the integrity of the industry if we were to cast any doubts on its ability to stand behind its liabilities. The issue is that there are these liabilities but there are the reserves in the world for them—you just have to find the key to unlock them, and the Bill is a wonderful part of the process of doing that. There is no question of the integrity of the industry regarding its solvency.

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

I hope that the noble Lord will accept that I did not in any way impugn the general integrity of the industry, let alone cast doubt on its solvency or its capacity to meet its obligations. I asserted, and I believe this to be correct, that there were within that industry at one time people who behaved dishonestly and, because it was convenient to them, allowed that documentation to go missing.

[Lord James of Blackheath]

I thank the noble Lord for that. I hope that he will appreciate that my concern was that I did not want to start the forthcoming Session by doing the perp walk down the middle of a 747 on an extradition order back to the USA.

Mesothelioma Bill [HL]

Lord Howarth of Newport Excerpts

Wednesday 17th July 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Pannick]

My Lords, I have not wiggled my toes but I have added my name to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Alton. In his compelling speech, the noble Lord referred to the letter that the Minister sent on Monday. In it the Minister expressed his support for increased research, but he added that,

“unfortunately, the mechanism proposed is just not viable”.

The letter does not provide what we lawyers call further and better particulars as to why the Minister believes that the proposal is not viable; nor did the Minister throw any light whatever on this matter in Grand Committee. Indeed, in his opening remarks this afternoon the Minister very helpfully referred to a number of other matters, but he did not give any explanation in relation to this issue.

In Grand Committee, the Minister focused on a concern that research funding was the responsibility of the Department of Health, while this was a DWP-sponsored Bill. I hope that we will not hear that argument again today. As a matter of law, of course the Government are indivisible, and, as a matter of efficiency, government departments talk to each other. I am encouraged to see the noble Earl, Lord Howe, in his place today.

What other reasons, therefore, could there possibly be for the Minister to suggest that the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, is not viable? The Government must be satisfied that Clause 13 of their own Bill is viable in providing a levy. These amendments simply provide for a research supplement on this levy, which would be clear as to those who are obliged to pay, the amount and the purpose. Nor can it be that the Minister thinks that these amendments do not reach their target. As the noble Lord, Lord Alton, mentioned, the amendments have been drafted by Daniel Greenberg, a former parliamentary counsel of distinction, who is editor of the authoritative work Craies on Legislation.

Nor could it sensibly be suggested by the Minister that the amendments are not legally viable because they might be the subject of some legal challenge under the Human Rights Act or the European Convention on Human Rights. The Bill contains a levy and there are many other examples of statutory levies introduced by Parliament to advance good causes. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, has given a number of examples; I mentioned in Grand Committee the levy on bookmakers under the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963 for the purpose of improving horse racing in this country. If, as Ministers must believe, the levy in Clause 13 is legally viable and those other levies are legally viable, I cannot understand why the amended levy of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, is not equally viable. Any legal action to challenge an amended clause—amended in the terms of the noble Lord, Lord Alton—would be a legal action, to coin a phrase, that is not legally viable.

There is a vital need for research and research funding to combat this awful disease. To include these amendments in the legislation would encourage research. I do not accept for a moment the concern expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, that for us to do our job and improve the Bill would somehow hold it up. There is ample time for debate on such matters if—I hope it will not be the case—the other place disagrees with us. When it comes to a choice between liability on the insurers and the Minister’s concerns about viability, I am with the noble Lord, Lord Alton.

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

My Lords, I, like all noble Lords, want to see more research into mesothelioma, above all into ways to prevent people developing this terrible and lethal disease. Noble Lords may be aware that quite recently Russia, leading a group of another six countries —Kazakhstan, Ukraine, Kyrgyzstan, Zimbabwe, India and Vietnam—blocked a move to have white asbestos listed under the UN convention that requires member countries to decide whether or not they should risk importing that substance. I fear that asbestos-related diseases, including mesothelioma, will long remain with us; we will need research for the long term.

I am entirely sympathetic to the purposes of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, his co-signatories to the amendment and the larger number of co-signatories to the letter that they were kind enough to send to us. I congratulate the noble Lord on his dedication in this matter. However, I have some difficulties in accepting the precise proposition of the noble Lord. I have no problem about hypothecating part of the levy for the purpose of research; I accept that precedents are there in the Gambling Act, the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act and other measures. I would not presume to take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, on the question of viability as he has just expounded it. In Committee, I heard noble Lords who are eminent in the fields of medicine and academic research support the case made by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and I applaud them for that.

However, there is a problem. The insurance industry has told us that it is a willing funder on the basis that the Government will fund the major part of the costs of research. The employer’s liability insurers see themselves as very much the junior partner in that partnership with the state. It was probably not the case with the gambling legislation and the other measures that have been referred to that the Government were expected to more than match the funding that the relevant industry should supply.

These amendments omit to state the implication for government funding of what they would impose on the insurance industry. I wonder why that is so. I can imagine that there are good reasons why the amendments do not require the state to commit itself to fund mesothelioma research specifically.

At one time I was Minister for Higher Education and Science; that experience confirmed me in my very strong belief in the arm’s-length system. If we were to abandon that, it would be only a few steps to the relationship between Stalin and Lysenko. The arm’s-length principle is essential for the maintenance of academic freedom and for research quality. Of course, it is legitimate for the Government to take a strategic view and, indeed, for the Department of Health and the National Institute of Health Research to set priorities and make broad allocations. As the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, told us, when he was a member of the Medical Research Council, the council identified broad priority areas, although it did not think it appropriate to identify individual diseases for which it was determined to fund research. That was because the criterion for making specific awards must be, above all, that of quality. Peer review, not Parliament or the Government, should determine who receives publicly provided funding for research. It follows from that that funding from the state cannot be guaranteed in perpetuity in any particular field of research.

Ample funding has already been provided by the state for which mesothelioma researchers are eligible to bid. The employer’s liability insurers have already provided funds for research and have indicated that they are willing to continue to do so. Therefore, the problem of finding money for research into mesothelioma is not a lack of money on the part of the state or a lack of money forthcoming from the insurers. The problem must be that there has been a lack of high-quality proposals for research in this field. There may have been some quite good proposals; I think that some 80% of bids to the National Institute of Health Research are unsuccessful. Such is the competition for funding from that source that only the very best receive it, so it is not only people who care very strongly about mesothelioma who are disappointed about the lack of funding in any particular field.

Are we to legislate simply to compel the employer’s liability insurers to do what they are already doing and have stated that they are willing to do? If, for good reason, we are not specifying an obligation on the Government, is the Minister none the less proposing to legislate thorough these amendments to place a moral, if not a legal, obligation on the state to fund mesothelioma uniquely, notwithstanding how weak academically particular proposals might be, and notwithstanding the needs that there are for research funding in other fields?

I am left feeling that these amendments, although I completely sympathise with their intention, do not yet articulate a satisfactory position. I think that in a moment the Minister will report to us on his conversations with the noble Earl, Lord Howe, who it is very good to see here listening to this debate, but I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Alton, ought primarily to be addressing himself to the scientists rather than to the Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

My Lords, the common theme of the amendments in this group is that they increase eligibility with a view to increasing justice. I add my personal thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Freud, for all his personal commitment to achieving just outcomes through the legislation, and I hope that he will be willing to contemplate the amendments that I have added to this group.

First, I entirely support my noble friends Lord McKenzie of Luton and Lady Sherlock in their amendments which would bring forward the start date for eligibility to 10 February 2010. Amendment 5 in my name would extend eligibility to a person diagnosed with diffuse mesothelioma who was self-employed at the time of exposure to asbestos. Amendment 6 would extend eligibility to a person who is a member of the same household as a person exposed to asbestos in the course of their work.

The employers’ liability insurers have bluntly and, I feel, rather brutally, expressed their view that the self- employed should not be eligible. As they have explained to us:

“As employers’ liability insurers will be funding the untraced scheme, payments from the scheme will only be made to those who would have been covered by employers’ liability insurance”.

The ABI has, however, made one small, decent concession, saying that under the untraced scheme, if someone has been negligently exposed during employment and self-employment but is unable to find an employer or insurer to claim against, they will be able to receive a payment from the untraced scheme without a deduction for the period they were self-employed.

In Committee, my noble friends Lord Browne, Lord Wigley and Lord McKenzie explained that on the kind of industrial and construction sites where people were negligently exposed to mesothelioma, there was frequently no real distinction between employed and self-employed status. In many cases, it may have suited employers to classify people as self-employed who were, to all intents and purposes, employed. Indeed, in Committee the noble Lord, Lord Freud, himself accepted that,

“some people will appear to be self-employed where the reality is that that was an artificial, tax-driven construct. In that case, if they can demonstrate that in practice they were acting like an employee, they would be eligible for a payment under the scheme.”.—[Official Report, 5/6/13; col. GC 220-221.]

I am very grateful for what the noble Lord said then, but we need to go a bit further. We need to ensure that everyone, whether they were nominally, technically or otherwise self-employed, is covered and is eligible to receive payments from the scheme.

What is the position of those who were genuinely self-employed, did insure, but whose documentation has gone missing? Should they not be included? The ABI itself admits:

“There will only be a very small category of people who have been solely self-employed and therefore not eligible for a payment from the untraced scheme”.

The Minister undertook to ask the ABI for its figures, but unfortunately, he then had to write to us to say that it did not have any reliable figures. What is clear, by the ABI’s own admittance, is that the numbers are very small.

The suffering of self-employed people who contracted diffuse mesothelioma, and the suffering of their dependants, is no less than the suffering of people who were employed in the technical sense. I believe that it would be wrong for us to abandon them, and I believe that it would cost very little by way of an addition to the levy, to embrace them in the scheme.

In Committee there was extensive concern expressed by noble Lords on all sides about the predicament of members of the household of someone who had been exposed to asbestos in the workplace, who were diagnosed with mesothelioma, when the person who was actually employed had not been diagnosed. Indeed, a household member might have predeceased an employee who has not, or not yet, been diagnosed. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, reminded us of one particular instance, movingly described to us in our proceedings on other legislation, of the sister of the noble Lord, Lord McNally. Other noble Lords in Committee were aware of individual cases where this had happened. In particular, the most frequent instances were when a wife, or perhaps a daughter, was regularly doing the laundry and washing the contaminated overalls.

In writing to us, the noble Lord, Lord Freud, gave us an estimate that an average of 214 cases of mesothelioma would be caused by environmental exposure in the years 2014-24. I take it that that is a wider category that would include household members; indeed, the friend of the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, the consultant neurologist who died, might have been included. We are talking of a significant, though not a huge, group of people. Is it right to abandon them on the technicality that they were not themselves employees?

The term “secondary exposure” was used in Committee, but I think we are really talking about the direct effect of employers’ negligence. It is the same lethal fibres in the same workplace that will have caused the disease to hit a person, whether self-employed or a household member in the circumstances I have described. Surely it was through employers’ negligence that employees were allowed to come home wearing their contaminated workwear; they should not have done so. On this, the ABI has been silent. Perhaps even it cannot contrive presentable reasons as to why it should not pay out of a scheme which, after all, is not based on precise legal liability.

This scheme deals with the situation of claimants who, by definition, cannot avail themselves of their legal rights. I do not think that the employers’ liability insurers ought to hide behind legal technicalities. If, however, the employers’ liability insurers are adamant, and if the Minister remains reluctant to compel them, then I hope that he will consider levying the public liability insurers. He was as good as his word; he discussed the question of public liability insurance in this context with the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers and with the ABI. He wrote to us following that discussion to say that, in the main, it would be the public liability policy that would apply when the affected person was not directly employed by the liable employer. In many cases, I think it is the same insurer.

I have not tabled an amendment relating to public liability insurance because, as I take it, this is already covered by Clause 13(1), which states:

“The Secretary of State must make regulations requiring active insurers to pay a levy”.

It does not specify active employers’ liability insurers, and in Clause 13(7) I do not see that the definition of the term “active insurer” excludes the public liability insurers. I would be grateful if the Minister would confirm that the legislation as drafted does give him the power to levy the public liability insurers. If that is not the case, I am sure that there will be no difficulty in tabling an amendment for Third Reading.

The Government’s 2008 scheme does not worry about who in particular was responsible for cover; it simply compensates people who have contracted mesothelioma. This new scheme should do the same, and in particular, should embrace mesothelioma victims who are self-employed or household members. The scheme is intended belatedly to make amends, and it should do so fully and generously. If the employers’ liability insurers would accept that, then that would be gracious on their part. I beg to move.

[Lord Wigley]

My Lords, I support these amendments and I will pick up the important points made by the noble Lord, Lord Howarth of Newport. I entirely support his emphasis on the need to ensure that those who suffered at second hand—whether it was the wives, daughters, or sometimes mothers of people in the industry who have been infected by the particles from washing clothes—should most certainly be covered if they have suffered a loss of health as a result.

The implication is that the insurance policies that were provided for the employees in case of negligence by the employer only relate to the employee in a very narrow sense. That needs to be explored in depth because there is a category of people who have undoubtedly suffered ill health and some who have died, and there may well be many more that come through from that avenue.

However, I return to the generality of these amendments. It has been noted in this debate that the scheme proposed by the Bill has its roots in the consultation announced by the previous Labour Government in February 2010, which is the date in these amendments. However, the scope of the assistance proposed in that consultation was, of course, significantly wider than what we have ended up with in the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wills]

My Lords, I, too, support these amendments and endorse everything that has been said. On Amendment 4, as my noble friend on the Front Bench has said, little credence should be attached to arguments that insurers could not reasonably have expected in February 2010 that a scheme such as this could not have been brought forward in the foreseeable future. Indeed, it is highly likely that the only reason for the selection of that date is that it reduces costs. That is not a negligible consideration, but, as we have heard, those costs are likely to be relatively small. We have heard that they represent a considerable percentage increase, but with all respect that is not the concern here. The issue is the absolute sums that are involved, which are relatively small. They ought to be easily affordable by insurers, particularly in light of the long period in which insurers have got away without paying sums that they should have been paying. In my view, those costs are unlikely to have to be passed on to employers.

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

My noble friend was making the point that for many years insurers got away with not paying compensation. I believe that the figure is that some 6,000 mesothelioma sufferers died uncompensated in the years since 1968. That would have saved the employer’s liability insurers £1 billion. They are very well able to do a little more for mesothelioma sufferers now.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for these amendments, which all share the same broad aim: to widen the scope of the scheme to get more people into it. I will take the amendments in turn and address first those tabled by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, and the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, regarding the start date for eligibility. I will then address the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, on the self-employed and household members.

We discussed the start date of the scheme at some length in Grand Committee. Clearly, it has received a lot of focus and continues to do so today. Under Amendments 4 and 8, once the scheme comes into force all living people who were diagnosed with diffuse mesothelioma on or after 10 February 2010 would be eligible for a payment from the scheme. They would also provide that any living dependant of a person with diffuse mesothelioma who had died on or after 10 February 2010 would be eligible for that payment.

Although it hurts to do this, I have to reject these amendments and ask that the noble Lord and the noble Baroness do not press them. I say that in the knowledge of the strength of feeling among all of us in this Chamber that the Bill should go as far as possible to help as many people as possible. The core issue is that this Bill was the subject of intensive negotiation. On top of that, it has been shaped by what I have felt to be innumerable obstacles that we have had to work around, and I need to restate why we cannot move the date as the amendments propose.

The start date of 25 July 2012 has been criticised for being arbitrary, but it is the date on which we announced that a scheme would be set up and it is the most legitimate date on which to commence eligibility. It is from that date that eligible people and insurers alike could expect that the scheme would be set up.

The proposed date of 10 February 2010 relates to the date when the previous Government published their consultation paper, Accessing Compensation: Supporting People Who Need to Trace Employers’ Liability Insurance. If noble Lords will allow me to correct myself, in Committee I said that that was published on 11 February, but other noble Lords were correct and it was in fact published on the 10th of that month. This was a consultation, not a decision in any particular direction, and did not create any expectation that people would be likely to get any sort of payment over and above what the Government provide for people with diffuse mesothelioma. I therefore cannot see that it is an appropriate start date for eligibility, and I fear that, were we to use it as such, it could be more reasonably criticised for being arbitrary than the existing start date.

We touched on the reasons why it took so long from the consultation being published to the scheme being announced to Parliament, so I will revisit them only briefly. I would have liked to have announced the scheme much sooner than 25 July 2012, but the issues involved were complex. We worked closely with stakeholders, including the insurance industry, claimant groups and solicitors, and all in all the process took longer to deal with than I had hoped. In addition to creating an expectation among people with mesothelioma, the announcement gave insurers notice that we intended to bring forward the scheme. From that date, those insurers will have had to factor the cost of the levy into their financial forecasts and plans.

There is one more point to mention that supports using the date of the announcement. Given that the insurers who are paying the levy to fund the scheme are not necessarily the same ones who took the premiums that paid for the historical insurance policies, we have to be able to demonstrate that the costs to them are fair and proportionate. Simply put, the earlier the start date, the higher the costs. If the scheme started on 10 February 2010, the extra costs, as I said earlier in response to the question from my noble friend Lord Avebury, would be £75 million.

Again, I need to take noble Lords from the figure of £119 million that I used in Committee. That figure was based on paying 100% of average civil damages to all claims, regardless of age. The £75 million figure that I am providing now is based on a tariff of 75% of average civil damages, which I have already talked about today, and takes the age of those making a claim into account. I think I owe noble Lords an apology to the extent that I have created any confusion.

I have spoken before about the risk that we take in raising the costs of the scheme. A litigious industry such as the insurance industry could easily delay the scheme with legal challenge if the costs were perceived as unfair. The other risk is that higher costs would be passed on to employers. I know that noble Lords would like us to do more, and indeed the Government would like to do more, but we cannot ignore these risks.

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

The Minister is worried that the employer’s liability insurers will default to the position of litigious opposition to the scheme if we attempt to improve it in these modest ways. Given that insurers have accepted the principle that they should fund a scheme, surely they would have no strong legal case to make in objection. Should he not simply say, “See you in court”?

[Lord Freud]

I have tried desperately hard not to end up in that position, because the “See you in court” line would just end up by tying us up for years with uncertain outcomes and would stop us getting payment to the people who need it from next July, which is when I want the payments to go out. I want this scheme up and running and working in April next year so that we can start making the first payments. I have tried in every way to ensure that we do not run into that kind of problem. The noble Lord may accuse me of not being robust enough, but I assure him that even to get to where we are it could be said that we have had to be as robust as possible.

The real problem is the technical difficulty with the four-year smoothing period that we have to use. We are going to have much higher costs in the first year as it in effect bundles up two years already and one year of running costs, so we are going to have substantially elevated costs in the first year that we have to find a way of smoothing, and we are doing that over a four-year period. If we extended that smoothing back even further to work in another two years’ worth of money—that £75 million—into the scheme, that would open up the whole agreement not just with the insurers but within the Government. On our assumptions, that would in effect push the levy rate up to approximately 4% in that period. That in itself would undermine what we are trying to achieve, which is to ensure as much as we can that these costs are not just passed on to British industry through higher current employer liability rates. That is the core reason. This is always about how much money you can get safely to people, and the adjustment in the amendment would undermine that.

Of course, any start date that we choose will exclude some people. The best possible way forward is to pin eligibility to the date when people with diffuse mesothelioma had a reasonable expectation of a payment and insurers knew that they would need to start factoring in the cost of the levy as an additional business cost.

I need to remind noble Lords again that the existing provision for sufferers of mesothelioma will remain in place for those who are not eligible to come to the scheme. I thank the noble Lord and the noble Baroness again for these amendments. I understand the reason behind them, but I have given the reasons why I would like them not to press them.

I turn to the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Howarth. These seek to be helpful to a wider group of sufferers, but we cannot extend the legislation to people who are self-employed or who were secondary-exposure cases. The Bill addresses a specific failure of insurers and employers to retain adequate records of employer’s liability insurance, and would provide payments to those affected by this failure who cannot trace a liable employer or employer’s liability insurer against which to bring a civil claim.

Following our discussion in Grand Committee, we talked with the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers, which advised us that an employer would have had to have specifically added elements to their employer liability policy to cover families of their employees. The association was not able to identify any specific cases where this has happened, which leads me to suggest that this is not a common occurrence. Family members who contract mesothelioma through coming into contact with asbestos as a result of someone working with it may have recourse to civil damages through public liability insurance, but our scheme is funded by the companies currently selling employer’s liability insurance and not by insurers more widely.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

My Lords, Amendment 16 is in my name. Again, the common theme is that the amendments in this group seek to maximise the amount that will be paid to mesothelioma victims and their dependants. I will come in a moment to my own amendment but I would like to say a few words in strong support of the amendments in the names of my noble friends Lord McKenzie of Luton and Lady Sherlock. It was certainly not the fault of the claimants that the documentation went missing and it is very hard to see why they should bear the burden. The Minister has spoken of the dangers of a disproportionate burden on the employer’s liability insurers, but is it not a disproportionate burden on the mesothelioma victims?

The ABI has put forward various arguments as to why payments under the scheme should not be at the same level as the average of court awards. The first is that an incentive must be provided for claimants to go to court. If they could just as easily get 100% by going to the scheme, why would they bother to go to court? With respect to the ABI, this argument is nonsense. This will not be a matter of choice for the claimants. The Minister’s letter to us of 4 July made it clear that the scheme is designed as a,

“last resort where all routes to civil action against the relevant employer or insurer are closed to the individual”.

The procedures under the scheme will make that a compelling reality. There will be the single portal and the identical search for documentation. Whether someone is on their way to having their case heard in court or considered by the administrators of the scheme, they will have recourse to the scheme only if they are unable to have recourse to the court, so the incentive argument is nonsense.

The ABI has also said that it is important to ensure that the overall cost to insurers is sustainable in the long term. I believe that the overall cost of a somewhat improved scheme—we have been debating today a variety of ways in which that scheme might be improved —would indeed be affordable. Apart from the fact that the insurers did very well for decades in being able to invest the premiums of mesothelioma sufferers whose documentation could not be found and who therefore could not bring a case, we have to remember in addition that between 1979 and 2008 the employer’s liability insurers were effectively subsidised by the taxpayer to the tune of hundreds of millions of pounds, as they were allowed to keep the amounts paid out under the Government’s pneumoconiosis scheme to offset against the cost of the liabilities of the insurers.

Even now, because the Minister declined in Committee to incorporate in the Bill the possibility of creating parallel and comparable schemes for other diseases such as asbestosis, asbestos-related lung cancer or pleural disease, only some 50% of sufferers from asbestos-related diseases stand a possibility of being compensated under this scheme. Those other 50% will in effect be subsidising the insurers. Those are a handful of reasons why I take with deep scepticism the proposition that the insurers could not afford to improve the scheme. We know, indeed, that their case load will fall, so even if it was a little pricey for them in the early years it would rapidly become more affordable. The Government are also going to smooth the way over the early years.

It is unlikely that the cost of these improvements would cause the cost of the scheme to creep above the 3% of gross written premiums. I prefer the DWP’s calculations on this to the ABI’s. However, if that were to happen it would not be a disaster and is not terribly relevant, because it is other factors that move premiums. The Minister’s fear that any improvements to the scheme would lead to the point at which additional burdens were placed, by way of higher premiums, on employers and industry is misplaced. The premiums that are charged in this market are the product of multiple factors and paying the beneficiaries-to-be somewhat more generously would not have an effect on the premiums. I do not believe that the percentage of gross written premiums has any bearing on what premiums are sought in the marketplace. The employer’s liability insurers pitch their premiums at the maximum that competitive market conditions allow. They will always do that, so the Minister’s fear is misplaced and he should call their bluff on that.

Finally, the third reason that the ABI gives is to stop people getting more than the courts would award. In its briefing, it said to us:

“As the payments will be made … on a straightforward tariff, some people will receive more compensation under the scheme than they would have received in civil compensation, and the aim is to set the tariff at a level that means this will only happen in a small number of cases”.

Elsewhere, it told us that the intention is for the tariff to be set “a little below” the average of awards made in civil cases. A little below? The proposition is that 30% should be docked from the average of court awards in the payments provided under the scheme. Seventy per cent was not enough and while we are very grateful to the Minister for easing the level of payments up to 75% of the average of court awards, that is still not enough. Nor would 80%, as in the amendment of my noble friend Lord Browne and the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, be sufficient in my view. Ninety per cent is the very minimum with which we could be satisfied. As the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers has pointed out, the Financial Services Compensation Scheme, which provides compensation where insurers have become insolvent, pays at the 90% level.

I turn for a moment to my own Amendment 16, which would prevent what I regard as excessive demands for repayment by the DWP through its agency, the Compensation Recovery Unit. The rationale for the figure of £110,000 is that if we expect the average of payments over the next 10 years to be £87,000—it may be fractionally more, now that the Minister has moved it up to 75%—and if, as the Minister has advised us, the average recovery required from claimants will be £20,480, add those two figures and you get to £107,500. Round that up a little and you get to £110,000. That is appropriate because payments under the scheme, unamended, will be meagre. At the same time, the DWP —and no doubt the Treasury, lurking behind it— aggressively intends to reclaim 100% in recovery of benefits and lump-sum payments from people who will have received only 70% of what they might have received in court.

Moreover, the department intends no abatement in its reclaiming to take account of pain and suffering, which they would do in the case of an award by the courts. So we risk the £87,000 typical award by the scheme being reduced by around a further £20,000 as a result of the DWP’s reclaims. According to the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers, the best estimate of what mesothelioma victims and their dependants will receive from the scheme will, therefore, be only 60% of what the courts might have awarded. It cannot be right that these people should receive only 60% of their legal entitlement when they have suffered a double negligence: negligence on the part of their employer and negligence on the part of their insurer.

The Minister has said that his intention, in this legislation, is to remedy a market failure. To be frank, that is a euphemism. We are talking about a gross and scandalous dereliction of their proper responsibility on the part of a number of insurers, affecting a significant number of people who should have had cover. This has been a great evil and we should make amends as fully and generously as we possibly can. Is that double negligence on the part of employers and insurers, from which they have already suffered, to be compounded by a double meanness on the part of the Government, insisting on taking 100% of 70% and taking no account of pain and suffering? The Government are being too greedy here.

[Lord Wigley]

My Lords, I shall speak primarily to the lead amendment, to which I have added my name, and return to Amendment 12, which stands in my name, at the close of my remarks.

The scheme proposed by the Bill will provide neither the full amount of compensation to which the sufferer would usually be entitled, nor full protection for those suffering from asbestos-related diseases. It is utterly unjust that those who have already suffered a wrong, due both to their injury and to the negligence of their employers in losing their insurance records, should now face losing a significant percentage of their damages.

The Government have offered the justification that mesothelioma claimants should be encouraged to seek out “all other avenues” before coming to this scheme. As I said during earlier stages of the Bill, this attitude shows a flagrant disregard for the harsh realities of this disease, not to mention the fact that the sufferers usually die very soon after diagnosis, so leaving their families with less compensation than they would otherwise have been entitled to. Of course, I welcome the move to increase the compensation payable from 70% to 75%, and I thank the Minister for securing that improvement. However, whether the Government propose that claimants should receive 30% or 25% less than the average worth of a claim, it is essentially unfair that any reduction is happening at all. By point of comparison, the Pneumoconiosis Act 1979 was designed to award full compensation to claimants and is reviewed annually.

The difference between 100% and 70% compensation for these claims is not to be balked at. On 25 June, the noble Lord, Lord Wills, asked the Government what assessment had been made of the likely impact on the insurance industry if it was made to pay the full 100% of compensation to sufferers under the proposed scheme. In his response, the noble Lord, Lord Freud, said that over the first 10 years of the scheme, if the tariff were 100%, the amount of compensation paid would total £451 million. Under the 70% tariff originally proposed, the insurance industry was, by comparison, forecast to pay £322 million. However, the money that the insurance industry saves by getting away with 70% or 75% is a cost suffered by the victims’ families.

The Minister also said that the Government,

“are getting an average of £87,000 a head to people who suffer from this terrible disease”.—[Official Report, 25/6/13; col. 654.]

It is presumably now nearer to £94,000 at the 75% level. According to the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers, if the tariff was set at 100% and based on the figure proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Freud, the amount of compensation awarded would be around £124,000. That is a £30,000 shortfall in what the victims and their families can expect and it is a big difference. It is a difference of millions of pounds for the insurance companies but, my goodness, that £30,000 difference for the victims will be even harder to bear.

Finally, I want to share with the House two of the many comments that I have been sent by families of asbestos victims. Sandra Emery wrote:

“It took Parliament … a hundred years to ban asbestos. As a result, I have lost my mother and brother to mesothelioma. Please do not compound the error by passing such inequitable legislation”.

As Kerry Jackson says:

“All victims and their families deserve 100% of what they are entitled to … this is a disease that has come through pure neglect”.

I ask the Government for an undertaking that they will continue to seek other ways to increase the compensation to around 100%. I plead with them to reconsider. I will not be pressing my amendment for the 80% level, which I would have done had the Minister not come forward with an increase. However, in order to register my support for the principle, if the 100% amendment is pressed to a vote I shall support it.

Mesothelioma Bill [HL]

Lord Howarth of Newport Excerpts

Wednesday 17th July 2013 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

17: Clause 7, page 4, line 12, at end insert—
“( ) must ensure as far as possible that the scheme administrator is unbiased as between the interests of the insurance industry and the interests of applicants to the scheme,”

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

My Lords, this amendment is intended to highlight the important issue of conflict of interest, which we have not sufficiently considered so far in our proceedings. The Government are proposing that a scheme intended for the benefit of mesothelioma sufferers should be run by the same insurance industry whose negligence deprived mesothelioma victims of legal redress and which for years held out against fair and decent treatment. As envisaged by the ABI, the industry would create an incorporated body, accountable to its funders in the industry through its board.

In its briefing to us, the ABI has made no mention of the possibility of competition that the Minister informed the House about earlier today. I applaud his intention to ensure that there is a competitive tender of the administration of the scheme; that is right in principle. However, it may be difficult for the noble Lord to find other tenderers that are competent to run the scheme. Let us see.

Meanwhile, the difficulty we need to keep clearly in sight is that it is in the insurers’ interest to pay 75% or even less of the average civil court settlements. It is in their interest to avoid costly procedures and negotiations of the kind the court route requires of them. Indeed, it is in their interest to determine that applicants for awards from the scheme are found to be ineligible. It is in their interest, after all, to reduce the levy.

The Bill, as drafted, and the scheme, as proposed, create an administrator and a technical committee that have pretty well plenipotentiary powers to assess eligibility, the validity of documentation and the significance of evidence. Under Clause 4(3)(b), the scheme may,

“in particular, give the scheme administrator power to decide when to impose conditions or what conditions to impose”.

That is a fairly blank cheque. In the scheme contents that we have been shown, which are to be brought in by regulation, the scheme administrator has powers to refuse altogether to make payment. We need to be well aware that there is a bias built into this system. It may be unavoidable but it is there.

The ABI has informed us that, of 4,051 ELTO searches in the year from May 2011 to April 2012, 2,354 were successful in tracing the documentation; it follows that 1,697 were unsuccessful. Yet the ABI is predicting that only 200 to 300 claimants will be found to be eligible each year. What is to happen to the other five-sixths of those whose documents could not be traced?

The powers of the administrator and technical committee are, as I have suggested, almost total. Admittedly, there is provision for reviews and appeals and, if this is to be a body created under legislation, there may be scope for judicial review, but that of course is not a desirable way to resolve these cases.

The insurance industry is going to be judge and jury in what is in its own interest. The case for using the insurance industry to administer the scheme is that it understands the business. However, I hope that the Minister will describe to the House how he intends to ensure fair play. The history of employer’s liability insurers does not inspire confidence and it is not satisfactory to design into the scheme a blatant conflict of interest. Therefore, the question is: will the oversight committee proposed in the amendment from my noble friends on the Front Bench be sufficient to ensure fair play?

My Amendment 30 would require the Secretary of State to report on the performance of the scheme and the administrator to Parliament each year. This amendment is modelled on a provision that the Government have written into the Intellectual Property Bill. It is an admirable provision. If the Minister is willing to agree that there should be an oversight committee, should it report to the Secretary of State and the Secretary of State then report to Parliament on an annual basis? I hope that that will be the case. The matters on which we should look to the Secretary to State to report to Parliament include: the performance of the administrator; all the relevant data and statistics to enable us to know the performance of the scheme in detail; the number and variety of cases; the speed at which cases are processed; the pattern of tariff payments; the evolving relationship between payments under the scheme and awards made by the courts; and the scale and nature of compensation recovery unit recoveries from payments. We should also be told about what is happening in the field of research, which we debated at length this afternoon.

--- Later in debate ---

Other amendments deal with the issue of scrutiny via some form of oversight committee. We are still working on the details, but we expect that performance information will be made available, probably online. This may be in another format. Perhaps it will be monthly rather than annual. We are looking at the matter and will consider it alongside the oversight committee. Indeed, the oversight committee may have views on the best way to make the information available. With that, I urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his full response to each amendment in this group. He tells us that sufficient safeguards are in place to ensure the objectivity and unbiased behaviour of the scheme administrator, and asks us to accept that the open procurement competition will be a contributor to guaranteeing that impartiality. However, it may be difficult for him to find anybody competent to run the scheme who is not in the industry, so the problem of conflict is likely to persist. I do not wish continuously to impugn the motives of people in the insurance industry, and would like to think that those who are appointed to work as administrators of the scheme will set out with the best of honourable intentions.

We are always being warned, however, that we should avoid situations of conflict of interest and, from time to time, people are vulnerable to the temptations that conflicts of interest present to them. There is a whole institutional temptation here because the insurance industry stands to gain significantly from cases not going to court and from cases not being handled generously by administrators, who will have such absolute powers of determination. I therefore remain concerned about this, although the Minister offered a little reassurance about Clause 4(3)(b) when he said that it was harmless. Certainly, on the face of it, the wording of it seems to give enormously large powers to the administrator, but I accept what he said about the purpose of that particular piece of drafting.

Moving on to the oversight committee, it is good that the Minister agrees that there should be such a committee; he made his points about getting stakeholders on to the board of ELTO and the technical committee being within ELTO, so that stakeholders would be in a position to keep an eye on the performance of those parts of the whole apparatus. He said, understandably enough, that he wants a non-legislative solution, but we will probably want to know a good deal more about the provision that he intends to propose before we can agree that it is right in principle that there should be a non-legislative solution. My noble friends may want to reserve the right to return to that, whether that is here or in another place.

As to the report on future schemes, the Minister again rejected the proposal from my noble friends, as he does not want to divert scarce resources—no doubt of time and energy, as well as money—to preparing that. He suggested that the complexities of the other asbestos-related conditions are such that they would not fit well into the mould of the scheme that we are legislating for in this Bill. I hope, however, that the Minister will continue to reflect on the fact that there are—as my noble friends explained compellingly, and rather movingly—large numbers of people who are suffering from these other conditions. At the moment they have all too little support; we know that there is a vast disparity between the lump sums that are paid under government schemes and the awards that the courts provide and the lesser payments that the scheme will provide. These people continue to be seriously disadvantaged and we cannot be happy with that.

I was pleased that the Minister was able to tell us that the success rate in tracing has been improving spectacularly, which suggests that it could always have happened if there had been the will on the part of the industry to do this. We must be pleased that it is now doing better but, equally, we must have means to keep the pressure up and to ensure that, in the future, there is not again any deterioration in the success rate of tracing and, above all, that elements of the industry do not resume the practice of conveniently losing or shredding documentation, which is the great scandal. They are getting off all too lightly in that regard.

On the annual report, the subject of Amendment 30, the Minister wanted us to accept that scrutiny and reviews are already planned and that we do not need to worry because everybody will keep an eye on it and Parliament does not need to be too bothered by it. I do not think that the annual Written Ministerial Statement that the noble Lord has promised is good enough for Parliament, even when combined with the online information that he said will be made available. He will have seen already the intensity of interest in your Lordships’ House and he will certainly see both greater intensity of interest in the House of Commons when it comes to scrutinise this Bill and a wide and deep concern across the country. I think that it is a proper responsibility of Parliament to invigilate this process, and an annual report is a convenient and practical means for Parliament to do so. Therefore, I am disappointed that the Minister has resisted that. This is a subject that I think we will wish to return to but, in the mean time, I beg leave—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, my aim is to know where we are with the structure over this Recess. I think that I owe the noble Lord a letter at the end of the Recess setting out where we have got to on that so that he will be able to talk to his colleagues in the other place. If he thinks that a gap is developing, that is a way for me to handle that uncertainty.

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 17 withdrawn.

Mesothelioma Bill [HL]

Lord Howarth of Newport Excerpts

Monday 10th June 2013 Grand Committee

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud)]

My Lords, before I address the noble Lord’s amendment, I shall clarify a couple of points that were raised when we last met on Wednesday, to put noble Lords’ minds at rest and to aid today’s discussions. In the case of people who contracted mesothelioma from exposure to asbestos fibres that were on another person’s clothes, or were brought into the household by other means, the question was raised whether these people, too, were covered by employer’s liability. This is a complicated area and I will do my best to be succinct.

In cases of secondary exposure, the claim will be of negligence against the person who exposed the primary victim. Theoretically, that person could have public liability insurance, employer’s liability insurance, or both, or none. We have contacted the ABI on this matter and I understand that it is not aware of any cases where anyone other than the employee has been compensated under the employer’s liability policy. Therefore, we return to the point that the scheme will raise funds from the employer liability market to cover those who would ordinarily have been covered by those insurers. In this case, it seems that, historically, instances of secondary exposure have not been covered by employer’s liability insurance, so the scheme cannot provide for them.

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

I am extremely grateful to the Minister for responding to the Committee on this point, which was the subject of an amendment that I tabled. As I heard him just now, he said that because historically no cases had turned up, in future employer’s liability insurance should not cover secondary exposure, even in a case where the secondary exposure occurred—I hope he agrees with this; I think the Committee agrees—to someone who did the family laundry and washed the overalls of the employee who was exposed to asbestos fibres and who therefore found herself exposed to asbestos and contracted the disease. Surely we cannot simply extrapolate from the past on the basis that there do not happen to have been any such claims. It is entirely imaginable that there could be such claims, and it is not enough, if I may say so, for the Minister to say simply that because it has not happened, the Government will make no provision for it to happen in future. We still have a class of people whose predicament is just as grave as the predicament of someone who was a direct employee. I hope that the Minister will be prepared to look further at this.

[Lord Moonie]

To follow up on that, was the Minister referring to claims or successful claims?

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

17: Clause 4, page 3, line 10, at end insert—
“( ) must ensure that applicants to the scheme are reimbursed in full by the scheme for reasonable legal costs incurred by them in their pursuit of payment from an employer or an employer’s liability insurer and from their application to the scheme, over and above any other payment from the scheme.”

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

My Lords, when the Minister introduced the Bill on Second Reading, he rather gave us to understand that the Department for Work and Pensions and the Ministry of Justice were on separate planets, and I think used the phrase that one was not beholden to the other. Indeed, it appears that, within government, the left hand is not at all clear what the right hand is doing and vice versa. It should not be like that, of course. There is a principle of collective responsibility in government. More importantly, it matters very much that there should be coherent policy-making in the interests of mesothelioma victims and their dependants. The way in which policy is developed should not be for the convenience of Whitehall but should have an unwavering focus on producing a scheme as soon as possible that will in every dimension benefit mesothelioma sufferers.

The legal, and possibly other, costs associated with getting to the point of making an application and then pursuing it are significant. The impact assessment issued on 7 May—only last month—indicated that legal costs associated with the scheme overall would be of the order of £24 million to £27 million. We were told that the legal costs incurred by an applicant to the scheme, in the event that he was successful, would be of the order of £7,000. However, in the previous debate, my noble friend Lord McKenzie drew to the Committee’s attention the new document issued by the department on 4 June—less than a month after the original impact assessment—which says that the published impact assessment,

“used a figure of £7,000 per individual for legal fees; here we have moved that assumption to £2,000 per individual (unless otherwise stated)”.

We have just talked about that, and I heard the Minister say that neither the £7,000 figure nor the new £2,000 figure had much solidity, and that it might end up somewhere in between. I would be grateful if he could explain to us what is going on, because it seems extraordinary that the assessment for an applicant making a successful application to the scheme should be £7,000 in legal costs one month and £2,000 the next. That shift is of a remarkable order of magnitude and leaves one a little anxious about impact assessments. I appreciate that they involve a whole mass of judgments and are very difficult to achieve with any precision, but there is extraordinary latitude here. Does the figure of £9,000 legal costs for an unsuccessful application still stand? As I say, does the overall figure that was given on 7 May still stand? As we go forward to Report, it would help the Committee to be given much more detail about how these figures are arrived at.

What costs will a claimant incur and what legal costs will he or she be able to recoup? I would be interested to know what happens about the preliminary legal costs that a claimant will incur before he reaches the door of the scheme. Following diagnosis, the claimant presumably has to make an appointment to see a solicitor. I do not know how this would work, but perhaps he would then be referred to a specialist personal injury solicitor. A lot of work must be done to determine whether a claim can be made against an employer or employer’s insurer, and to test whether that claim is strong enough to proceed in court. All these hoops must be gone through before the claimant is able to embark upon a claim against the scheme. Could the Minister in his response kindly escort the Committee along the path a claimant must take in legal consultation and legal process on his way to the scheme and to the completion of an application to it? We would then know much more about what the reality will be for claimants.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

We will deal with this issue in some detail in debate on a later amendment. In practice, where the scheme decides that it is a sensible thing to do, it will of course by definition take on the costs of pursuing that application.

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord German, and to my noble friend Lord McKenzie for their precisely focused and apposite questions. I am also grateful to the Minister for what he has said in response to this debate, although I wish he had not set up an Aunt Sally in misrepresenting both my amendments, because I was very careful to include in the wording of each amendment that it was only reasonable legal costs that I contemplated should be met in these ways.

[Lord Freud]

Let me apologise for any misrepresentation that I may have inadvertently made.

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

The Minister is so engaging as he apologises that of course it would be churlish if I did not immediately say yes. I think it would be helpful if at some stage he would also elaborate on the circumstances in which the ECHR exception to the disqualification for legal aid might apply. Should we anticipate that people taking cases to tribunals would do so in pursuit of justiciable rights under the European Convention on Human Rights, because that could make a significant practical difference? I simply do not know the answer, but it would be interesting and helpful to have some advice.

The Minister did his best to defend his colleagues over the way at the Ministry of Justice, but when I inquired on Wednesday of last week when they expected to issue the consultation, I was told that it was going to be this week. He has just told us that it has slipped yet again to July. There would then be the consultation, and it is proper to allow a reasonable amount of time for people to respond to that. Finally, the Government’s response and determination of what they are going to do is not expected until the winter. That is a fairly elastic target.

I am worried that the MoJ might be holding things up so that mesothelioma sufferers and their families will be prevented from getting the benefits of the scheme as soon as they might. While we as parliamentarians seek to scrutinise this legislation properly, we are anxious to give it the speediest possible passage through Parliament. It would be rather sad and ironic if, because of the lumbering pace at which another department moves, it was not possible to get the whole scheme up and running as early as it otherwise might be. I hope the Minister will convey these thoughts to his colleagues in the Ministry of Justice.

The Minister brought us the good news that legal costs will be paid on top of the 70% payment under the scheme. That makes me very happy, and on that basis I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 17 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

20: Clause 4, page 3, line 17, at end insert—
“( ) The Secretary of State may not seek repayment of that portion of any compensation or scheme payment made in respect of pain and suffering.”

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

My Lords, the amendments in this relatively large group are intended to enable us to probe the Government on their intentions behind the recovery of social security benefits and lump-sum payments from payments made by the scheme. I also offer some suggestions as to how a relatively lenient recovery regime might reasonably be applied to payments from the scheme.

Schedule 1 deals with these matters, but it is a prime candidate for the plain English prize for legislative opacity. It was beyond my wit to amend it for the purposes I had in mind. Therefore, I tabled the amendments to Clause 4 to establish some principles to constrain and guide the Secretary of State—and, in the case of Amendment 26, to provide him with an opportunity not to take away too much with one hand while he, or rather the insurance industry, gives with the other. I emphasise, as is the nature of amendments to the Bill, that we are talking only of the application of these proposed measures to the diffuse mesothelioma payments scheme or other schemes that might be set up under this legislation. I am not, needless to say, seeking to rewrite social security law; the Minister need not fear that that the ground will give way under his feet if he is willing to take an accommodating view of some of these amendments. It is an opportunity for the Minister to explain—relatively fully, I hope—what the spirit and practice will be of his department’s approach to recovery of benefits and lump-sum payments in these circumstances.

There is one principle, at any rate, that we all—I believe I can include the Minister—want to apply: the rules and the practice where the social security benefit arrangements and the scheme interact ought to be as generous as possible. That is more particularly the case in the situation in which the full, insured entitlements which a claimant ought to have have proved impossible to obtain because the documents are not there: a situation in which claimants have had to fight and wait for financial relief; and in which, when that relief then comes, it is discounted by 30% from the payments they might have secured from a civil court action. Of course, that discount of 30% might become less if Parliament in due course agrees with every noble Lord who spoke in our debate last week on Amendments 15 and 18 on whether the 70% measure should be raised.

The Minister might say that there is a deficit. He will not quite put it like this: that the further the Chancellor’s financial strategy goes astray, the more imperative it is that no opportunity is lost to reduce the deficit between what the Government raise and what they spend. In response, I say that, of all members of society, mesothelioma sufferers and their families should least be required to shoulder the burden of deficit reduction. On any reasonable scale of values, they surely should have priority for relatively generous treatment—before, for example, affluent individuals who can still get top-rate tax relief at 40% on their pension contributions.

However, the Minister might say that we must have regard for the interests of the generality of taxpayers. To that, I say that the British people are kindly and sympathetic. I believe that 99.9% would be positively glad to think that some minuscule part of the taxes they pay was going to help their exceptionally unfortunate fellow citizens who are mesothelioma sufferers or their dependants.

The principle that should govern the specifics of benefits recovery that are provided in the Bill should be that the DWP should be as generous and lenient as it can be. What, in particular, ought the Bill to provide? Amendments 20 to 22 and 27A offer alternative ways in which we might exempt from recovery payments from the scheme made on account of pain and suffering. This goes with the grain of DWP practice; indeed, it might even be in the law that the compensation recovery unit does not recover the element of an award made by a court that is in respect of pain and suffering, in contrast to the elements of a court award that are made on account of loss of earnings or costs of care where recovery occurs.

If it is going with the grain of existing DWP practice, the Minister might say that these amendments are unnecessary. To me, however, it is not clear that the rules that the DWP and the compensation recovery unit apply where court cases are concerned can simply be transposed to the scheme. The Minister at Second Reading was at pains to say with the utmost clarity:

“The scheme is not intended to be an alternative to civil damages, nor is it a compensation scheme”.—[Official Report, 20/5/12; col. 689.]

However, he then went on blithely to say that,

“an eligible applicant will receive a scheme payment after the deduction of relevant social security benefits and lump-sum payments, which the scheme administrator will repay to my department through its compensation recovery unit”.—[Official Report, 20/5/13; cols. 691-92.]

Setting aside the palpable contradiction there, the Committee ought to probe the significance of the Minister’s insistence that payments from the scheme are not compensation. I wonder whether what is going on here is that the DWP wants to be able to decree that no part of a payment from the scheme should be taken as compensation for pain and suffering, and therefore that the capital rules will, or should, apply to the whole of the payment, and that the compensation recovery unit, which henceforth should be better known as the MPR—the mesothelioma payments raider—would be able to help itself to a vastly larger proportion of a payment made by the scheme.

Under new Section 8A(2)(b), in paragraph 3 of Schedule 1, it is contemplated that the gross amount of the compensation payment—that is, the payment that the Minister said, in terms, on Second Reading, was not a compensation payment—

“is to be reduced to nil in any case where the amount of the recoverable benefit is equal to or greater than the gross amount of the compensation payment”.

There we have it. We need to amend the Bill to protect mesothelioma sufferers and their families from the compensation recovery unit predators. The law should not enable the Government to take away from an award made by the scheme that element of the award that, if it were a court award, would be designated as being made on account of pain and suffering and which the CRU therefore could not touch. The scheme is already unfair, with payments 30% less than they would be from the court. If the compensation recovery unit is to be let loose untrammelled on scheme payments, it will be even more unfair. The draft rules of the scheme, with which the Minister has provided us, make no mention of any of this. They say nothing about whether any part of payments from the scheme would be on account of pain and suffering, loss of earnings or costs of care. The rules say simply that payment must be made in a lump sum.

Amendments 20 and 21 would provide that the whole payment by the scheme would be regarded as being made on account of pain and suffering, and that the Secretary of State could not recover payment made on account of pain and suffering. In that way, the whole payment would be secured from the grasping fingers of the CRU. If the Committee thinks that is going too far, Amendment 22 would limit the protection on account of pain and suffering to the first £75,000 of a payment made by the scheme. Amendment 27A is more moderate still, and would provide that:

“The first £50,000 or 50% of any payment by the scheme, whichever is the larger amount”,

should be protected. I hope the Committee will look seriously at that proposition.

I will be brief on the other amendments, which are intended to probe the Minister’s intentions with regard to the recovery of means-tested benefits and non-means-tested benefits, recovery from the person diagnosed, carers and dependants, and of social security benefits paid before the grant of an award by the scheme and of benefits or lump sums paid after such an award has been granted.

The May 2013 impact assessment dealt with these matters on page 18, and anticipated that over 10 years the department would recover £71 million in social security benefits and lump sum payments. It would be helpful if the Minister would break down that £71 million as between social security benefits and lump sum payments. The £71 million would be reduced by £2 million of administrative costs and another £17 million for the smoothing costs over the first four years of the scheme, leaving a net £52 million going back to the department.

Paragraph 90 on page 23 of the impact assessment states that,

“under the Universal Credit … rules being developed, if a person suffering from mesothelioma received civil compensation or a payment from the scheme, it would not affect their means-tested benefits for at least a year (and would be ignored indefinitely for Pension Credit). If they put the compensation or scheme payment into a trust within that year, the value of the trust and any income from it would continue to be ignored”.

The paragraph goes on to note that bereaved relatives would not be so protected.

Amendment 25 would extend that period of ignoring from one to two years. Tragically, at the end of two years it may be anticipated that nobody who has been diagnosed with mesothelioma will still be alive, so they will not see benefits or lump sums taken from them.

Amendment 27B suggests an alternative route to protecting these payments via trust law. It would be extremely good if the Minister could look at this, having regard to the situation of the terribly vulnerable households, one of whose members has been diagnosed with mesothelioma. In effect, the amendment would protect social security benefits and lump-sum payments beyond that first year by deeming that the payments from the scheme had been made as payments from trust and should therefore be ignored. Of course, it deems that the money held by the scheme is held in trust for claimants.

An alternative way to approach this might be to have another amendment stating that the scheme should make all payments into trust on behalf of its beneficiaries. I am well aware that trust law is immensely complex, but I suggest that there might be a route that could reasonably be pursued by the Committee and by the Government through the use of trusts to protect recipients of payments in that second year.

Amendment 27 would protect lump sums altogether from recovery. In the normal course of events, I would endorse the principle that nobody should be compensated twice for the same thing. Indeed, my amendment is still consistent with that principle for two reasons. First, the Minister said that these payments were not compensation, so he cannot argue that people would be compensated twice. Secondly, as the payments are to be discounted by 30% from what the court would award, we can very properly take it that the lump-sum payments will fall into the 30% that will not be paid and therefore cannot be reclaimed.

I hope the Minister will explain very precisely his intentions in regard to the recovery of social security payments and lump-sum payments, and that he will seize some practical hints that I have offered as a way forward, so that he can protect mesothelioma sufferers from his own compensation recovery unit. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

These amendments do not achieve their aim in many cases, and they could have some deeply unintended consequences. In particular, they would change the way in which the long-established benefit recovery system operates, and I therefore urge the noble Lord to withdraw them.

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friends Lord Browne of Ladyton and Lord McKenzie of Luton, and the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for participating in the debate and for the excellent points that they have made. I will study with great care what the Minister has said and see whether I can elicit from his words a clear and acceptable set of principles that the department will apply here. He seemed to say that nothing must shake or disturb the existing ways of doing things, and I am not in the least bit surprised that he has said, in his characteristically courteous way, that my amendments are variously defective, subversive or would create chaos. I am an amateur in these matters and I have simply sought to raise the pertinent issues. Merely because my amendments may not stand up to the rigorous scrutiny of this Committee does not mean to say that the issues are not very important and worthy of continuing consideration as we reach the later stages of this legislation.

I agree with the Minister that the term “compensation” is a pretty slippery and rather sloppy one. It becomes a fairly sickly euphemism, not least in the context in which it is often used, where it refers to bankers’ compensation. Those are remuneration packages worth many millions of pounds, and one wonders what the bankers are being compensated for, other than the opprobrium in which they are held in society. I am with him in being cautious about the use of the term “compensation”. However, as my noble friend Lord McKenzie indicated, there may be difficulties in the Government seeking to have it both ways. We should consider further whether the normal rules that apply to compensation recovery, which are entirely legitimate and we do not challenge, can actually be laid over this particular scheme with its very distinctive circumstances.

I detect between the lines of what the Minister has said and from his tone that he wants to be as flexible, constructive and generous as he can be. In that case, we should certainly look further at the use of the mechanism of trusts. I completely accept that we should not take a sledgehammer to crack a nut and that it would not be sensible or appropriate to drive a coach and horses through the existing provisions of trust law in relation to social security benefits. However, it may be possible to harness those provisions to provide slightly more extensive alleviation. Whether, for example, the scheme might be able to provide a hand-out package, which is a trust ready for use that it would be easy for people to pick up and use, I do not know.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

40: Clause 13, page 7, line 10, after “Scheme” insert “, or any other scheme established under this legislation,”

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

My Lords, Amendments 40 and 45 in this group relate to the possibility of additional schemes being established. They would introduce that possibility into the Bill; perhaps I should say that they would clarify what has already been hinted at and may already be in the Bill. Amendment 40 would empower the Secretary of State to levy employers’ liability insurers in order to fund additional schemes comparable to the diffuse mesothelioma payment scheme. Amendment 45 would empower the Secretary of State to establish by regulation other schemes in relation to long-latency, asbestos-related diseases.

The difficulties of establishing entitlement to insurance payments after many years, when the employer has gone and the documentation is missing, are not confined to the circumstances of mesothelioma. If sufferers from asbestos-related cancer or asbestosis face the same barriers to securing compensation, if we call it that—perhaps we had better say “financial relief”—is it not right that they should be supported by analogous schemes?

I spoke at Second Reading about those two particular diseases as well as diffuse pleural thickening, pleural plaques, pleural effusion and rounded atelectasis. All of these are diseases of the lung and the pleura caused by inhalation of asbestos fibres. The Minister spoke encouragingly in that debate, saying:

“The issue of individuals who have developed other asbestos-related diseases through negligence or breach of statutory duty and are unable to bring a civil claim for damages of course needs to be addressed”.—[Official Report, 20/5/13; col. 690.]

Indeed, justice requires that where people have contracted one or another of these terrible diseases as a result of the negligence of their employer causing them to be exposed to asbestos fibres, surely they ought to be supported on a comparable basis.

Interestingly, the department has just produced a document entitled, Estimates of the Impact of Extending the Scope of the Payment Scheme in the Mesothelioma Bill to Include Other Asbestos-Related Diseases and Other Non-Asbestos Work Related Diseases. It expects that there will be some 2,000 asbestos-related lung cancer deaths yearly, 725 newly assessed cases of asbestosis and 821 cases of non-malignant pleural disease—around 3,500 cases a year of one sort or another. The department acknowledges that it may be more difficult to establish a causal occupational link where these other diseases are concerned and estimates that the levy on insurers to fund a scheme for asbestos-related diseases other than mesothelioma, if the new scheme were to be constituted on the same principle as the DMPS, would amount to £478 million compared with the £322 million cost of the levy for the mesothelioma scheme. That is a significantly larger cost than that of the mesothelioma scheme, but I think it is not impossible to contemplate at some point in the future. I certainly do not think that new schemes should be funded via the DMPS itself, nor do I think that anybody is in a position to create a new scheme immediately. However, it should be done in the fullness of time—indeed, as soon as possible. Therefore, while we are legislating to provide the basis for the diffuse mesothelioma payment scheme, it seems sensible that we should also be clear that we are legislating to make provision for further analogous schemes to be established on future occasions. I beg to move.

[Lord James of Blackheath]

My Lords, the problems of the Navy in this regard persist for that service. An MoD meeting has been called for 10 o’clock tomorrow morning. Will the Minister be present at that meeting? It would be helpful to know that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord McKenzie for laying out the case in his customarily lucid and reasonable style. I strongly support Amendment 46, in his name, which wisely would require the Secretary of State to set out his plans to establish further analogous schemes within a year.

We will come back to the Minister’s refusal to contemplate doing that in a moment, but I will just comment on Amendment 47, concerning the Armed Forces, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord James of Blackheath. He has raised a massively important issue. Our concern has to be not only for sailors, for people doing highly skilled labouring jobs in naval dockyards and for other members of the armed services, but for people who could well have been directly employed by government in a whole host of other fields in publicly owned facilities of one kind or another, including of course civil servants. The Government self-insure, and there must be an employer’s liability in that situation. I cannot see how it could possibly be otherwise. Perfectly understandably, the Government do not go to the insurance market to take out employer’s liability insurance but absorb the risk themselves.

I can well understand that the Ministry of Defence has form and has sought, over many years, to resist what many very well informed people consider to be well founded claims for compensation against the Ministry of Defence. It digs in and goes into the trenches. However, there must be a strong case—not only a moral case, as the noble Lord, Lord Alton, very powerfully suggested, but, I would have thought, a strong legal case. The difficulty, presumably, is that potential claimants do not have the confidence to take on the MoD because it has infinite resources with which to defend itself in those trenches.

The noble Lord, Lord Alton, compared the Minister to William Wilberforce. The persuasive powers and techniques of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, are legendary, but I would join him more prosaically in simply encouraging the Minister not only to receive a report on the important meeting that is due tomorrow but to pursue this matter strenuously. I do not know whether the Bill would permit an amendment to be incorporated that was designed to achieve the purposes of the noble Lord, Lord James of Blackheath, with this amendment. However, I hope the Minister will do his very best to ensure that some such amendment is included.

This brings me back to my own amendments, which the Minister resisted despite saying that he was sympathetic to their purpose. How could he not be considering that he went so far at Second Reading? I assume that if the department was going to do the work to produce the estimates document to which I and others have drawn attention, it must be because it sees that there is a strong case for establishing other schemes in the future for other long-latency asbestos-related diseases.

I now know that this is his technique in debate, but the Minister has set up another Aunt Sally, as my noble friend Lord McKenzie spotted. He sought to interpret the purport of my amendments and my remarks as being that we have to stretch the mesothelioma scheme to encompass the payment of compensation in relation to these other diseases. That, of course, is not at all what I said. Amendment 40 would insert,

“or any other scheme established under this legislation”.

Amendment 45 says:

“The Secretary of State may by regulation establish other schemes in relation to other … diseases”.

I am not at all saying that the mesothelioma scheme should be expanded, inflated or stretched to do what he said. I am saying that, to the extent that the Bill clearly does not confer the powers requisite, we ought to amend it so that it would be possible to establish other schemes analogous to the diffuse mesothelioma payment scheme in future. This does not cost the Treasury a penny, and I cannot see what the conceivable difficulty should be. The Minister has given no reason why this should not be done.

[Lord Freud]

I apologise if I abused the Aunt Sally—if I did so, I did so unintentionally. I want to make absolutely clear that we have had recommendations from the Delegated Powers Committee that we are obviously taking with great seriousness. One of the two big recommendations is resisting widening this Bill in the context of the technical committee. The noble Lord in this amendment goes directly against the thrust of the Delegated Powers Committee, which said we should keep this specific rather than giving wider, extra powers to the Secretary of State. I neglected to put my finger on that point, but it is a substantial one for that amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

Perhaps I have opened up a completely new front. I am reluctant to go into that specifically. The point is that we are trying to draw up a specific scheme in this legislation. We would be most reluctant about other schemes with other rules having powers in secondary legislation, whether or not the Delegated Powers Committee were on the same page. I will resist; I cannot do that.

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation. I yield to no one in my respect for the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which does extremely valuable work in ensuring that the Government do not take outsized powers of a rather generalised nature when they present legislation to Parliament. However, I am not sure that an argument put forward by the Delegated Powers Committee on the proposed technical committee would have a bearing on whether it would be appropriate to take the opportunity of this scheme to make provision in primary legislation to be able in due course by regulation to establish further schemes that would be on the same model as Parliament will have approved in the primary legislation for the diffuse mesothelioma payment scheme, and which would of course have to be legislated in their specifics by way of regulation—as is quite explicitly stipulated in my Amendment 45.

I do not know what the Minister had in mind when he addressed the House at Second Reading and said that schemes to deal with these other terrible diseases should be brought forward, and that there were situations that needed to be addressed. If he was saying that he hoped he would have the opportunity to bring forward a Bill of one sort, then another and then another after that to establish further schemes, he must have known that that was not realistic. To secure legislative time is always a considerable problem, and I am afraid it would be pretty improbable that we would have the opportunity to embark on fresh primary legislation to repeat the process that we are going through now to create the mesothelioma scheme. Therefore, I can see no difficulty of principle that ought to deter us from amending the Bill to provide a clear legal base for establishing other schemes, so that it could accommodate the principle that the Secretary of State could by regulation establish further analogous schemes. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 40 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

43: After Clause 14, insert the following new Clause—
“Report on record keeping by insurers
The Secretary of State shall establish a commission to examine and report within one year of enactment on the history of record keeping by insurers who have provided cover against employers’ liability for mesothelioma and other long-latency asbestos-related diseases.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

My Lords, the Committee will be relieved to know that this is the last amendment in my name, at least in Committee. It will introduce into the Bill a new clause to require that the Secretary of State commissions a report on the history of record-keeping by liability insurers. We are legislating for the scheme precisely because the insurance records are missing in a significant proportion of mesothelioma cases. It would be helpful if the Minister were able to give us figures on that. What proportion of mesothelioma sufferers who contracted the disease as a consequence of employer negligence will have to have recourse to the scheme because the documentation for their insurance has gone missing?

In its publications, the department has taken a bland tone on the matter. It has talked of poor record-keeping. In his speech at Second Reading, the Minister was restrained in his language. In Committee, too, he has been studiedly non-judgmental. He has spoken a number of times of “market failure”. He did so far unbutton himself at Second Reading as to speak of,

“a terribly damaging market failure”.—[Official Report, 20/5/13; col. 692.]

In Committee, he has urged noble Lords not to allow emotion to cloud pragmatism, nor allow moral indignation to frustrate practicality. He may be wise in those admonitions. However, I will say—very quietly, not in a sermonising tone but recording what I believe to be a matter of fact—that we are dealing with a major scandal.

At Second Reading, the Minister said that he hoped that noble Lords would agree that,

“the principles driving the Bill are right and just”.—[Official Report, 20/5/13; col. 692.]

He allowed himself to take a moral tone there. I put it to the Committee that justice entails not just making payments under the scheme that is proposed, but exposing wrongdoing and exacting punishment where there has been breach of contract or where criminality is in evidence.

[Lord James of Blackheath]

I might be able to ease the noble Lord’s concern on this. I believe that when the major reinsurances were written, they were limited as to the dates when an infection was identified and the reinsurance applied only to the names of those who had a registered claim at that time. That was all that was relevant for a claim; there is no question about that. Lloyd’s of London did not buy its first computer until 1986. It has nothing that goes back to this period.

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

I am always disposed to defer to the noble Lord as he has a depth of knowledge on this matter that I do not think is matched by the rest of the Committee. However, if Lloyd’s of London did not get a computer until a rather late date in the history of that august market, it none the less had brown cardboard files. It seems to me that strong procedural safeguards and impeccable record-keeping are always central to the upholding of property rights and the protection of people who enter into contracts. I cannot see how employer’s liability insurers at any phase of their history could ever have been justified in allowing the documents to disappear. There might have been a fire in the warehouse but we have not been told that there has been such a fire at any of these insurers. Other than in an extraordinary circumstance of that kind, it must be normal and basic practice to keep the documentation and to pass it on to the successor insurers and reinsurers. I cannot see how anything else could have been appropriate.

We are looking here at a spectrum of wrongdoing that runs from inefficiency and muddle through negligence to, very possibly, deliberate criminality in some places. Indeed, the scale on which the documentation has gone missing suggests that there could have been widespread criminal intention on the part of some people in an earlier generation of insurers. I say “an earlier generation”; they may no longer be active in the market but many of them may still be extant as individuals.

Another recent major scandal has occurred in terms of record-keeping. I refer to the sub-prime lenders in their Gadarene rush towards 2008. The banks, in issuing huge numbers of mortgages and eagerly selling them on, took to neglecting procedural safeguards. The combination of disregard for procedural safeguards with fraudulence led to the catastrophe of 2008 and in the years following, from which we continue to suffer. It reached a point where, with millions of mortgages in default, the banks abandoned the attempt to examine individual documentation to certify that a particular person owed a certain amount of money on a mortgage, which was the asset being sold on, and took to what was known in the trade as “robo-signing”. Instead of examining the individual records, they hired a person simply to sign masses of these documents without even examining the records.

The temptation for businesses not to keep full, accurate and proper records when it is convenient to do so clearly can be very great. We do not suppose—I do not think we do; I certainly do not—that the banks which were guilty of that systematic failure of proper record-keeping should be able to walk away from the scene of what they did and just get away with funding a token scheme. Equally, it seems to me that in the interests of justice and for exemplary purposes, there should be a proper investigation of what went wrong with the employer’s liability insurers. Of course, ELTO has been created and that improves the methodology of tracing claims and liability. However, a disastrous failure has occurred in this regard for a great many people. As I say, it seems to me that this is a major scandal. That is the reason why I have tabled Amendment 43—to require the Secretary of State to establish a commission to investigate and report on what happened in this history of inadequate record-keeping, which I do not think anything can possibly have justified. I beg to move.

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, the noble Lord has tabled this amendment to require that investigations be made into the record-keeping practice in the insurance industry which, to put it no more brusquely, we know has been insufficient in the past. It would also require us to legislate to protect those who cannot bring a claim against an employer or insurer because the records have not been traced.

I sympathise with the aim behind this amendment, which is to bring those culpable to account. Unfortunately, what we already know about record-keeping practices tells me that this simply will not be possible and that any investigation of this sort would be a costly addition to the scheme. One of the things of which the noble Lord may not have been aware, and inevitably would not have been aware of when he put down this amendment, is that on 4 June the FCA published details of its requirements for employer liability insurers to undertake effective searches for historic policies. Moreover, the employer liability tracing office, ELTO, is currently undertaking an audit of the record keeping of its 150 or so members, including Equitas. The number affected by the issue of records that were destroyed is broadly 300 out of the 2,400 people with relevant mesothelioma per year, which implies that one in eight cases is untraced—that is the proportion of the problem.

I hope that noble Lords will understand that we want to ensure that the maximum amount of funds possible go to helping those eligible people who come to the scheme and therefore there is not the flexibility to put resources into potentially costly investigations such as these. I have already spoken to noble Lords about the exercise that I conducted into what was likely to be available on a historic basis, and we already have measures to improve tracing. On that basis, I urge the noble Lord to withdraw this amendment.

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

I am glad that the Minister sympathises with my aim in tabling this amendment. I am sorry, however, that he thinks an investigation of the kind that the amendment would require is not practical. I think it depends on how important people think it is to do the detective work. Of course, it is not within the resources of his own department and I think it would be difficult for the employer’s liability insurers themselves to meet the full cost of this.

However, if we consider that an inexcusable series of abuses has occurred, I cannot see that it is right to allow those who perpetrated these abuses simply to get away with it. If as many as one in eight cases of insured people are untraceable, then something is going wrong on a very big scale indeed. It cannot be satisfactory to leave it at that. The noble Lord gives me a modicum of encouragement in telling me that from now on the FCA is going to intensify the requirements for effective search and that ELTO is going to audit its members. However, if we accept the position as stated by the Minister just now, we will be saying in effect that those generations of people in the insurance market who did not take the basic duty of care that they should have done in relation to the documentation of people who turned out to have contracted this most terrible of diseases should get away with it, I think we should be ashamed of ourselves. I will not say any more about this today and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 43 withdrawn.