Mesothelioma Bill [HL]
Lord Wills Excerpts(11 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Freud
My Lords, I think that how we do this will go into secondary legislation. We are well covered. If we need to make an adjustment at primary level, clearly we will have an opportunity in the other place. However, my desire here, for reasons that noble Lords will understand, is not to have ping-pong between the two Houses, because I do not want to lose the extra weeks that could be taken up. If I am wrong in saying that this does not need primary legislation, I will write to the noble Lord. However, that is my view, without checking.
I turn to Amendments 1, 3, 7, 9, 10, 14, 31 and 33.
Lord Wills
I, too, thank the Minister for the work that he has done so far on the Bill. It represents an enormous step forward, for which the House is extremely grateful. The noble Lord, Lord Wigley, raised a very important point. It is infinitely preferable not to have to resort to primary legislation in future should changes be necessary under the review process. If the Minister feels that the Bill is not adequate in giving powers to the then Secretary of State to introduce any changes by secondary legislation, will such provisions be introduced at Third Reading or in the other place?
Lord Freud
Perhaps noble Lords will indulge me and allow me to reply to that question a little later this afternoon. It is a very technical question and I will double-check that my answer was reliable. I will come back to it. We will have another chance.
If there are no further interventions, I will turn to the rather drier amendments in this group. A number of noble Lords present today tabled amendments in Committee to require the rules establishing the payment scheme to be made by statutory instrument rather than having them simply published by the Secretary of State. The amendments in this group are aligned with a recommendation of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. Again, I acknowledged the concerns behind these approaches. Today I am pleased to announce that this set of amendments aims to establish the diffuse mesothelioma payment scheme by statutory instrument rather than by publication by the Secretary of State.
Having made this change, a number of consequential amendments fall to be made to other clauses, so that previous references to “regulations” will now refer to “the scheme”. Before noble Lords suggest that I am taking a backward step by amending the Bill so that it refers to “the scheme” instead of “regulations”, I should add that the combined effect of the amendments will be that where “regulations” has been changed to “scheme”, it will mean the scheme as set up by regulations.
We have also removed the ability of the Secretary of State to amend, replace or abolish the scheme, or publish the scheme as amended from time to time, as these matters will now be dealt with in regulations—as will the definition of a “specified payment” in Clauses 2 and 3. In addition, provisions for the amount of a scheme payment, for payment amounts to be dependent on age, and for the division of scheme payments between dependants are all now to be determined in accordance with scheme regulations. The same applies to the circumstances in which a person is or is not to be treated as able to bring an action against the relevant employer or any relevant insurer for civil damages. These will now be dealt with in scheme regulations.
Amendment 31 provides for the first regulations setting up the scheme under Clause 1 to be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, where the regulations must be approved by a resolution of both Houses of Parliament and for subsequent regulations to be subject to the negative resolution procedure. This approach follows a recommendation from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. I thank noble Lords for their well informed views when we addressed this matter. I beg to move.
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.
Lord Wills
My noble friend makes an extremely important point. In Committee, he made some very telling points about all the ways, not just the direct financial ways that he has just calculated, in which insurers have benefited during the very long period when legislation such as this was not in place.
We then have to ask whether these increased costs can be justified. We should be looking at the expectations not of insurers but of victims. Victims certainly expected that the start date of a scheme such as this would be in February 2010. I hope that the Government will now satisfy the expectations of victims, not insurers.
I will speak briefly to Amendment 6, to which my noble friend Lord Howarth spoke very powerfully. We have heard all sorts of moving stories in this House, in Committee and elsewhere, of tragedies that have happened in precisely the way that he has described. I heard them in my own constituency surgeries when I was the Member of Parliament for North Swindon. My noble friend said—I hope I am quoting him correctly—that this amendment is necessary because the exposure of these people is a direct result of negligence by employers. I agree with him. It is a matter of common decency that these people should be covered by the scheme, and I hope that the Government will agree with this amendment.
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 Wills
My Lords, I, too, support the amendments in this group and endorse everything that my noble friend on the Front Bench said in support of them. In doing so, I express my appreciation for the achievement of the Minister in nudging the percentage up to 75%. It is a significant advance and I appreciate all the effort that must have gone into achieving it. However, I am afraid that it is still not enough.
I will say a few additional words in support of Amendment 13, to which I added my name. It sets out a mechanism to try to ensure that the Bill can be a final settlement of the issue. It does so by setting out to ensure a continuing equitable balance between the various interests at play. We have heard at all stages of the Bill that there is strong support in your Lordships’ House for the percentage paid to be not less than 100% of the average damages recovered by claimants in mesothelioma cases, and for the start of the scheme to be 10 February 2010. However, at the same time, I think that your Lordships’ House recognises the strenuous efforts made by the Minister to achieve a settlement with insurers that could be delivered rapidly.
With respect to my noble friend Lord Browne, the issue is not so much the processes of Parliament as how obstructive the insurers are going to be. I appreciate that there is a risk of unpicking what the Minister has achieved and encouraging insurers to dig their heels in and be obstructive. We have seen too much evidence of the obstructive approach that they adopted in the past for that not to be a risk. Nevertheless, we can improve the Bill further, and this amendment seeks to do that.
As I understand it, the basis of the settlement, which can be achieved rapidly, is that costs should not exceed 3% of the levy. That is the point at which insurers estimate that they would have to pass on costs to employers. It is the actuarial assumptions made by insurers on this basis that have reduced the figure to less than 100% for payments under the scheme, and set the start date at 25 July 2012. Those actuarial assumptions are just assumptions. They could be questioned, and, as we have already heard, the Government’s assumptions are different. However, it may turn out that they are accurate. All assumptions at this stage can be only a best guess.
If it does turn out that these actuarial assumptions by the insurers have overestimated the cost of the scheme, the amendment will address that eventuality. If, over time, once the smoothing period is over, the cost of the scheme amounts to less than the 3% of the levy that insurers are currently willing to contribute, the end result will be that insurers will up paying less than they are currently prepared to pay—in effect, they will save money—while victims of mesothelioma will continue to receive less than many, and perhaps most, in your Lordships’ House and outside it believe that they should receive. Such an outcome would be manifestly unjust, and would lead to considerable pressure in Parliament for new legislation to put right such injustice.
The amendment seeks to avoid that situation, and all the further delays and uncertainty for victims of this disease that would result, by ensuring that such an injustice will not occur. It places no new burdens on insurers at all; it merely seeks to ensure that, whatever the outcome of the actuarial assumptions that underpin the current provisions of the Bill, insurers will pay what they are currently prepared to pay. It offers the victims of this dreadful disease the comfort that, if there is more money available as a result of those assumptions turning out to be inaccurate, it is those victims that will get it and not the insurers. This avoids the prospect of future wrangling and disputes, which I would have thought the insurers would certainly welcome. It would be in nobody’s interest to reopen the matter in this way, and this amendment offers a continuing equitable outcome. I hope that it will find favour with the Government.
Mesothelioma Bill [HL]: Impact
Lord Wills Excerpts(11 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Wills
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact on insurance companies’ balance sheets of paying mesothelioma sufferers 100 per cent of the compensation to which they are entitled under the terms of the scheme set out in the Mesothelioma Bill [HL].
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud)
My Lords, over the first 10 years of the scheme, a tariff set at 100% of average civil compensation would total £451 million. That is £129 million more than the current proposals, which are forecast to cost £322 million.
Lord Wills
I thank the Minister for that Answer. Indeed, I thank him for all that he has done personally to advance the cause of all those suffering from this dreadful disease. However, does he recognise the deep frustration felt by many in your Lordships’ House, and many outside as well, that the Medical Research Council seems unable to launch fundamental research into this dreadful disease, even when the insurers are prepared to pay millions to fund it? Does he also recognise the deep sense of injustice felt by so many that the insurers are refusing to pay 100% of all claims to all those who are entitled to them?
Lord Freud
My Lords, the point about research is that it is pretty complicated, one reason being that the Medical Research Council is constrained by the quality of the research proposals presented to it. There is a bit of a chicken-and-egg situation going on, as I see it, and I am working with my noble friend Lord Howe and the British Lung Foundation to break that situation. We are hosting a seminar on the importance of mesothelioma research shortly to try to stimulate the proposals for funding. As for the second aspect of the question, clearly there has been much debate on the exact level of compensation. In the end, this has been a very complicated and intricate deal to make sure that we can get good sums of money. We are getting an average of £87,000 a head to people who suffer from this terrible disease who have not been able to find any compensation whatever.
Mesothelioma Bill [HL]
Lord Wills Excerpts(11 years, 6 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord James of Blackheath
My Lords, before I comment on what the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, said, I declare my interests. I was an elected member of the council of Lloyd’s throughout its entire rescue period; I was chairman of the audit committee of Lloyd’s of London; and I was chairman of the committee that created Equitas, which effectively brought about a solution. I am afraid that I have lived and slept with this thing for rather too long in my life.
The noble Lord, Lord Howarth, is quite correct, but he opens up a much bigger issue, which I do not think that he has spotted. That is that in the realm of self-employed people, the Navy did not necessarily re-equip its own boiler rooms on the three vessels which have had the biggest ever death rates: HMS “Britannia”, HMS “Albion” and HMS “Furious”. Therefore, all those people who were self-employed and contracted in would come entirely within the compass of the noble Lord’s concern, and I support that.
I pre-warned the Minister that I have now set the Admiralty on the issue of the effects of the Bill for it and its former members. The noble Lord, Lord West, who was here just now, asked me to pass on the message that he is going to be very upset if he is allowed to die without being given his handout. He was one of only two commanding officers ever to be given a permit to sit in the boiler room during a major reconstruction, so he is almost certainly at high risk. The other one, who was the commander of the “Britannia”, has already died.
There is a very serious concern here regarding the naval forces. As the Minister knows as a result of our meeting the other day, there was a discussion in the House on 24 November 2008 led by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton, on behalf of the armed services at that time. She responded to my concern about the repeal of Section 10 of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947 and its replacement by the Crown Proceedings (Armed Forces) Act 1987, which had the effect of precluding any claim for asbestosis against any single person of the Armed Forces from anyone who had failed to put in a claim for an identifiable disease at that time. There were only 10 years in which such a disease could be identified, but we are talking here of a 30-year incubation period. In the region of 200 members of the Armed Forces are currently still at huge risk—it is virtually an inevitability—of suffering from this terrible disease and absolutely nil provision or obligation rests on the armed services to look after them or their dependants. I think that somewhere down the line we need to alter this Bill to allow a once-and-for-all, final opportunity for justice on their behalf. I shall return with an amendment to this effect once I have had my discussions with the Admiralty, but for the moment I just want to put down a marker.
Lord Wills
My Lords, I support my noble friend’s amendments on this issue. I first became aware of this terrible disease shortly after I was elected as the Member of Parliament for Swindon North. A man came to my surgery in the exact circumstances that my noble friend has described. He was absolutely distraught because his wife had just died from this terrible disease, which she had contracted from washing his clothes. Every day, he came back from the railway works in Swindon and gave his work clothes to his wife. She washed them and, as a result, she died from this disease. It seems completely wrong, as a matter of natural justice, that people in these circumstances should be denied any access to justice under the terms of this Bill.
Like my noble friend, I hope that the Minister will surprise us pleasantly by accepting these amendments, although I fear that we may be disappointed. If we are disappointed and the Minister relies—as I understand he may well be advised to do—on the dangers of creating a precedent by accepting these amendments, I hope that he will be able to say in exactly what circumstances he thinks such a precedent will be created. Given the very particular nature of this disease, its particular virulence and the very particular way in which it is contracted, can he say precisely what precedents he thinks will be created by accepting my noble friend’s amendments?
In the mean time, I hope that the Minister will at least agree to look again at these amendments, which seem to be absolutely consistent with the basic principles of natural justice, and I very much hope that they will find their way into this Bill in one way or another.
Lord Walton of Detchant
My Lords, I rise to support Amendment 8. I spent the greater part of my professional life practising medicine in the north-east of England. Even though I practised largely as a neurologist, I saw many patients with mesothelioma, many of whom had worked in the shipyards on the Tyne and the Wear, and who had been exposed to asbestos. However, I also saw, not under my direct care but under the care of colleagues, some women who developed mesothelioma because they had been involved in washing the clothes of their husbands, who had been exposed to asbestos—clothes which were deeply impregnated with asbestos fibre. For that reason, I would say that this issue does not rest just on the balance of probabilities; in my view, it is beyond all reasonable doubt that they developed mesothelioma because of that activity.
Lord Freud
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, for these amendments. Clearly, their intention is to make the payments under this scheme available to a wider group. The two groups, specifically, are the self-employed and those who caught it on a secondary basis by living in the same household as a person exposed to asbestos.
The way in which Clause 2(1)(a) works is that it requires the person with diffuse mesothelioma to have been an employee of an employer who was required, at the time of the person’s exposure to asbestos, by the compulsory insurance legislation to maintain insurance covering any liability arising because of exposure to asbestos, or who would have been had that legislation been in force at the time. I hear my noble friend Lord Empey saying, “Solve the whole thing once and for all”, but this Bill is, regrettably, designed to fix a market failure. There is a failure of insurers and employers to retain adequate records of the employer’s liability insurance, and to make sure that those employees who cannot trace through in order to bring a civil claim actually get a payment. So, widening the list of people who receive payments beyond the legal position would impose a disproportionate burden on the employer liability insurers who will fund the scheme through a levy.
Lord Wills
When the Minister talks about a disproportionate burden, does he accept that for years and years, those insurers—quite properly, because of judicial decisions—avoided making payments which we all now agree that they should have been making and which the Bill is designed to ensure that they will make in future? When he talks about a disproportionate burden, has his department made any estimate of how much money those insurers saved for all those years?
Lord Freud
My Lords, there is a deep and difficult history to this of which, I suspect, everyone in this room is aware. We are trying to ensure that we can get money to that group who have missed out. I am as dismayed as many of your Lordships that that has not happened earlier, but we are where we are. We are doing it now in a way to ensure that we can get those payments flowing rapidly. I apologise if I seem to be making a Second Reading speech. The problem is that this is such an emotive issue—the disease is so horrible—that it is very hard not to do so.
We have to come back to what is a specific deliverable. It is awful to sound so legally defensive, as I know that I am sounding here, but I am trying to get a deliverable, to get as much money as possible to people. I shall answer the specific questions. I know that I will not have the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, resounding with pleasure, as he wanted to be, but that is the underlying reason. My motivation is to get as much money as I possibly can safely, without risk—legal risk, in particular—to people.
Lord Wills
My Lords, I support these amendments. I am particularly attracted by the one tabled by my noble friend Lord Howarth. At the very least the Committee needs to know the figures that he has asked for and I hope that in his reply the Minister will undertake to provide them.
Equally, if the insurers are claiming that they might have a case of action under the Human Rights Act were an earlier date to be instituted, I would be grateful if the Government could make available their legal advice on the likelihood of such a claim succeeding. I know that the Government usually hate making legal advice available but there are precedents for it in exceptional circumstances. I am sure the Minister will agree that this is an exceptional circumstance and I hope that he will at least look at making such advice available. It bears very much on these amendments.
I am sure that the Committee understands the constraints under which the Minister is operating. Quite rightly, he is trying to get a deal agreed with the insurers and to get it through as soon as possible so that those who are suffering from this disease can get some support as quickly as possible. We all have great sympathy with the efforts that he has put in to achieve that.
At the very least we should be looking at the earlier date. My reasons for saying that are exactly those put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Alton. If nothing else, we should be doing so because that was the wholly reasonable expectation that those suffering from this disease and their families had when the previous Government brought forward their measures. I hope that the Minister will agree to look at this again and to think about bringing forward the date in the way proposed in the amendments.
Baroness Masham of Ilton
My Lords, are people with mesothelioma covered by the Disability Discrimination Act? If not, they should be.
Lord Wills
I am sure that shortly the Minister will give us an assurance that he will provide the figures that my noble friend Lord Howarth asked for in proposing his amendments. I also ask, in relation to this particular point, whether he can provide the Committee with any assessment that his department has made of the effect on insurers’ balance sheets of either of these two amendments—in other words, the one that has the start date in February 2010 and my noble friend Lord Howarth’s amendment, which would not set a date at all.
Baroness Sherlock
I would like to offer the Minister a way of reassuring us on this because we may be talking at cross-purposes.
Obviously, if an insurance company finds that its annual costs of doing business by staying in the market and providing active employer’s liability insurance are going to be higher, it will need to make sure in its usual planning that it has the resources available to enable it to pay the annual costs of doing business to stay in that market. That is not the same thing as saying it must reserve formally against liabilities that it has. That, as I understand it, is the Minister’s main argument as to why they could not have begun this process earlier. If it were about reserving for liabilities, there are clear regulatory requirements and negotiations with auditors that would constrain the point at which the insurance company could start doing this.
However, if we are simply looking at a higher annual cost—and I am not suggesting that that is not a relevant or material consideration to the company—of remaining in the market which is unrelated to the nature of the specific policies that were written, there is presumably no reason why the insurance company could not have planned for that by reading carefully, as I am sure it did, the document published by my noble friend Lord McKenzie. This showed clearly that the Government wished to intervene in this area and the options on which they were consulting, all of which would clearly have required the industry to pay out. It was clear that that was coming down the track.
A way for the Minister to solve this would be to answer my other question. Could he provide—either now or by the next sitting—some evidence of an insurance company that has reserved since the announcement was made in 2012? There must be companies that have a 2012 financial-year end date. If the Minister is right, insurance companies will presumably have reserved. Perhaps he could share that with us.
Lord Wigley
My Lords, the fact that we are at a late stage of the debate today should not stop us from speaking and pressing this most important of the amendments to the Bill that we are considering. If we get nowhere on it today, I suspect that we may need to come back to it on Report. As was rightly said a moment ago, this is something that was referred to by almost all the speakers at Second Reading, and it should not go by default at this point in time.
It strikes me that if someone is entitled to 100% of the compensation because of their condition, their suffering and what they have gone through, but they have not had that compensation because at some time in the past some insurer failed to deliver it, that does not in any shape or form justify a 30% abatement of what they will get. Their suffering should justify the 100% level. There may be an argument about 10% here or there, although I do not like even that, but I certainly do not like the idea of it being abated by 30%.
No doubt there has been some horse-trading on this. It would be interesting to know where the Minister started his argument. If 70% was the first offer made by the insurers, then I suspect that there is room to move up from that figure. If there is not, then this is something that Parliament should be addressing further. I do not recall with the 1979 Act that there was a reduction in the compensation on the basis that it was going to be easy. The argument put forward at the time was that it was fair compensation for the suffering. If that is the case with other legislation, why on earth should there be less for people who have suffered so much? This really is something that should be pressed.
Lord Wills
My Lords, I, too, support the amendments. I very much agree with my noble friend on the Front Bench and the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, that these amendments go to perhaps the most important issue in the Bill. I agree with everything that has been said so far although, given the hour, I do not intend to rehearse all the arguments.
I assume that this particular issue must lie very near the heart of the deal that the Minister has done with insurers. I am confident, from everything that he has said today in Committee, that he has done the very best deal that he thinks possible, particularly given the need to get a resolution quickly so that those who are suffering from this terrible illness get the support that they deserve as quickly as possible. I am sure that that has been at the forefront of his mind. He has said already in Committee that he is going to return to his discussions with insurers, and I hope that he can assure the Committee that he will convey to those insurers the strength of feeling that he has heard, at this late hour in our proceedings, about this issue. He knows it already. He has heard it at Second Reading and this has been a consistent concern throughout.
I hope he will remind his interlocutors that there is a real risk that if they do not agree what is widely conceived of as being a just settlement—and this is not a just settlement, in my view and that of every other speaker so far this evening—and, worse still, if they threaten delays or legal action as a result of anything that the Minister goes back to them with, this Bill is most unlikely to be the last word on these issues, given the strength of feeling in both Houses of Parliament on this issue, which we have seen time and again in recent years and which is responsible for this Bill coming before us. I hope that he will remind them of the risk that any future legislation may well be tougher than this Bill.
Baroness Donaghy
My Lords, briefly, we are being presented with the alternatives of finding the paperwork, in which case the process is dealt with in one way, or not finding the paperwork, in which case this new levy will apply. As a fully paid-up administrator, I think there is a range in between about the effort that is put in to find the paperwork. If we are talking about incentivisation, I would argue for 130% instead of 70% because that might make some people try a little harder to find the paperwork. I really should have put an amendment in to make it 130%. I believe that there should be some incentivisation but I would turn the argument on its head: we should try to persuade the insurance companies to try a bit harder to find the paperwork.
Education: Conservatoires
Lord Wills Excerpts(12 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Wills
My Lords, I, too, congratulate my noble friend Lord Lipsey, and I thank him for initiating this important debate. As the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, has said, the number of noble Lords who are participating indicates the importance that this House attaches to the role of these crucial institutions in our cultural life. In the couple of minutes available I want to focus, as my noble friend Lord Lipsey and the noble Lord, Lord Low, did, on the position of international students. Not only do they make an invaluable contribution with the considerable fee income that they bring in to these institutions, they are also largely responsible for an important and irreplaceable creative input, widening the diversity of excellence and musical influence, which benefits all students. It is therefore important that we should do everything possible to encourage these students to continue to come and study here.
I want to raise four particular concerns by asking the Minister four questions. First, as we have already heard, the replacement of the post-study work immigration route with a qualification through graduate employment raises particular problems. It is largely irrelevant to musicians, very few of whom go on to earn a salary. Will the Minister undertake to look at what can be done to make these provisions more appropriate for musicians? Secondly, in small institutions such as the conservatoires, with relatively few overseas students, a small number of visa refusals, sometimes for reasons way beyond the control of the conservatoires themselves, can affect their status as highly trusted sponsors. Again, will the Minister undertake to see what can be done to make these provisions more appropriate for the conservatoires?
Thirdly, the Minister will be aware, as my noble friend Lord Lipsey has already alluded, that the US federal loan board has withdrawn loans for studying at UK institutions that do not offer their own degrees, and that includes conservatoires. Can the Minister confirm that the Government are doing all they can to get the US authorities to look again at this decision and say when Ministers expect next to meet their US counterparts to discuss the issue? Finally, the Minister will accept that the decision about London Metropolitan University’s highly trusted sponsor status has created alarm among overseas students. What are the Government doing to reassure these students that they are welcome to continue to come and study here?