Mesothelioma Bill [Lords]

Debate between David Anderson and Tracey Crouch

Tuesday 7th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Tracey Crouch]

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East (Mr Brown), to whose contribution I listened with interest. I rise to speak to amendment 1, which stands in my name and that of other hon. Members from all parts of the House. It is an amendment on a variation of the theme: there is not a consensus, particularly among campaigners for fairer compensation for mesothelioma victims, that the current 75% figure is acceptable. Despite the excellent efforts of Lord Freud and the Minister to bring this Bill before the House, I am afraid that there is still some disappointment that the level of compensation does not go far enough. My amendment seeks to increase the level of compensation from 75% to 80%, and not to the higher percentages proposed by others. Although I recognise that 100% would be the most perfect outcome for victims, the truth is that the Bill would probably not be in front of the House today if that were the case and if that were the only option under consideration.

Although an extra 5% compensation does not sound very much, it is the equivalent of an average extra £6,000 to the victim, which is no small sum to someone trying to finalise their financial arrangements before they pass away. To those of us who seek justice on their behalf, that seems a much fairer figure, not least because they will be asked to give back 100% of the industrial disease and social security benefits that they have received as a consequence of getting mesothelioma, and that is estimated to be around £20,000 on average.

Much has already been said on that issue during previous stages of this Bill in both Houses. I will repeat what I said on Second Reading, which is that Lord Freud deserves praise for negotiating with the insurance industry and for raising the original figure for compensation from 70% to 75%. However, sources in the insurance industry told me that Lord Freud himself wanted 80%, and therefore by moving this amendment today, I am merely reiterating the Minister’s previous desire for a better outcome. Then, with the support from colleagues today, he could have a parliamentary mandate to go back to the industry to start renegotiating compensation levels.

The negotiations and their subsequent outcome were based around another figure—that of the cost of the scheme to the insurance industry being no more than 3% of gross written premium. The argument for introducing the arbitrary figure of 3% was to ensure that the insurance industry would not pass on to its own customers the cost of running the scheme. In its more recent impact assessment, the Government surprisingly stated:

“It is possible that insurers will pass the cost of the scheme onto customers via increased premiums. If it did happen the impact on customers would be relatively low, estimated at 2.46% on average per year on EL insurance premiums.”

Given that inflation is currently running higher than the estimated potential increase in employers’ liability premiums as outlined in the impact assessment, I am pretty certain that the premiums will go up regardless of this scheme. That means that the insurance industry will incur no net loss as a consequence, especially as it will still receive the same Government funding incentive to smooth the first four years of the running of the scheme. The argument being put forward about the EL insurance premium rise is a bit of a red herring. The real debate is around the assumptions of the scheme. Under previous assumptions of legal costs, the scheme could have been extended to provide compensation of 80%. We have had that debate before. We had it on Second Reading and throughout the Committee stage, and the right hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East has mentioned it again. Revised figures of costs—assumptions provided to the Department by insurance and personal injury lawyers—mean that 80% compensation would push the levy over a four-year period above the 3% figure, albeit marginally. However, over a 10-year period—the period I too prefer to look at given the longevity of the mesothelioma disease and when it is likely to occur—80% compensation is well below the threshold at 2.61%. Arguments over the precise nature of legal costs aside, albeit ones that were superbly made in Committee by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Stephen Phillips), it seems incredibly unfair that two days before Second Reading in this House, assumptions were changed, and that was wholly for the convenience of the insurance industry. Unfortunately, that means that the victims of the disease will not get the extra compensation they deserve.

I have been warned that if my amendment were to be agreed, the insurance industry would walk away from providing the scheme. I am afraid to say that that is bunkum, and it would be incredibly foolish of the industry to do such a thing. It has highly paid public affairs advisers—I should know as I was one before I entered this House—who will be telling their bosses to read the mood music from the contributions to debates on this Bill in both Houses. There have been calls for the scheme to pay out compensation of 110%, 100% and 90%. There have been calls for the legislation to extend to other asbestos diseases such as pleural plaques and to include those suffering from mesothelioma from secondary sources. There have been references to the profits made by the UK’s £40 billion insurance industry and there have been expressions of disappointment in the long-term failure of the industry to deal with this matter prior to statutory intervention via this Bill.

Do I think the insurance industry will walk away from this Bill leaving tens of thousands of mesothelioma victims without compensation? We are talking about victims who contracted a fatal disease because they did the honourable thing and went to work to provide for their family and who need this scheme because of poor record keeping by the insurance industry and/or their employers. No, I do not think that will happen.

[Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on what she has done and on what she is saying so far today. I hope that she is right, but does she not understand the track record of these insurance companies? They have challenged mesothelioma victims for decades, and I hope that we can stop them today because people are getting fed up with the way they behave.

[Tracey Crouch]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. Decades ago, the insurance industry would have held up its hands and said that, in hindsight, it had treated victims very badly. To be fair to the bigger players in the insurance industry, they have certainly tried, over the past five to 10 years, to improve the system of compensation for victims. They have set up the Employers' Liability Tracing Office and provided funding for research. Some of those bigger insurers have started to play catch-up for the mesothelioma victims. However, I recognise the concerns expressed by the Opposition over pleural plaques. As it happens, I was part of the insurance team that ensured that pleural plaques did not become a legislative issue in this House, and I stand by that decision today. That will remain a difference of opinion that we have on a specific asbestos-related disease. Where we do need consensus is over mesothelioma. It is a fatal condition and one that will kill somebody incredibly quickly and very painfully. I want to make sure that those victims who cannot trace their insurer or employer have access to the scheme and get the highest amount of compensation possible.

Mesothelioma Bill [Lords]

Debate between David Anderson and Tracey Crouch

Monday 2nd December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Tracey Crouch]

My hon. Friend is right that our constituencies are particularly affected and I am delighted to see him in his place to debate this important issue. He makes an important point. The Government have set a cap of 3% and there is no room for manoeuvre unless they are willing to stand up to the insurance industry and say that there is a firm view on both sides of the House that the 75% they have currently negotiated is not good enough. They need to agree on another figure. I believe that 80% would be appropriate as a good compromise between the 90% being called for by the lawyers—they cite the Financial Services Compensation Scheme as a useful comparator—and the 70% the insurers were originally willing to accept. Furthermore, with the previous assumptions under which their lordships debated the Bill, 80% would have been 2.98% GWP over the first four years and 2.42% over 10 years. Now, with the 3% cap, under the new legal costs associated with the scheme, there is no room for manoeuvre. I find that disappointing, unless the Minister is willing to stand up to the insurance industry and discuss this.

[Mr Anderson]

The hon. Lady is making a compelling case. Does she agree that, as the Minister said, the employers were 100% to blame, that the insurance companies have had 100% contributions for many years, that the Government are asking for 100% clawback on DWP benefits and that, sadly, 100% of the victims are dead? Is there not a clear moral case for this House to accept nothing less than 100% compensation for the people who have died?

[Tracey Crouch]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I was persuaded by the 100% argument, but having read the House of Lords debate, I now think that 100% would not be right. There is room for compromise on the percentage and we need to ensure that we put the victim at the heart of the compensation scheme—not the insurers and lawyers who may ultimately benefit from it.

I am also concerned about the lack of clarity on assumptions relating to the age of people diagnosed with mesothelioma. Some think that those accessing the scheme will be younger than the current age group of claimants going through civil schemes, whereas the Department has assumed that there will be an older age group. I tend to believe that, as employers’ liability insurance has been compulsory since 1972, and given this disease’s latency, those unlikely to be able to trace their insurer, making them eligible for this scheme, would surely be older and the younger workers would be fewer. Again, there is room for negotiation with the insurance industry over the compensation levy.

I understand that the industry is worried about a cohort of younger people who might access the scheme because of exposure in schools and other areas with a less obvious asbestos risk. I am afraid that that is bunkum, because not only would schools have some form of liability insurance, but it would be possible to access compensation via civil procedures. For me, the current 25% running cost of the scheme is far too high, and I genuinely think that this is a poor outcome for the sufferer and a good outcome for the industry, which, as the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson) said, has behaved poorly over many decades in this area.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tracey Crouch]

I am grateful for my hon. and learned Friend’s intervention. The irony is that, when the Bill first started in the House of Lords, the figure of £7,000 was debated, but the assumption was subsequently revised down to £2,000 and then back up to £7,000. Under the original £7,000 assumption, however, the DWP calculations were exactly the same as they were when £2,000 was being discussed. Unfortunately, it is completely unclear to anyone who has paid any attention to this Bill precisely who is paying for this, what it includes and how the victim can still be put at the heart of it all.

On one particular point, I pay tribute to the insurance industry. It improved over the years in its financing of research into mesothelioma. This began when I was working at Aviva—I am not talking all the credit for it, but it did—as an attempt to stop the last Government from following the lead of Scotland and legislating too harshly on other asbestos diseases such as pleural plaques. As it happens, I supported the last Government’s resistance to following Scotland and was pleased that the top four insurers contributed to research funding into mesothelioma instead. That said, the funding runs out next year, and there has currently been no voluntary commitment—not just from the top four, but from all EL insurers—to contribute further money into research. I think that is a dreadful shame, which will have a major impact on future treatments to alleviate suffering at a time when we expect meso-diagnosis to spike. I share the views of the British Lung Foundation—supported, I believe, by the Association of British Insurers—about building the continuation of funding directly into the Bill. It is sad that a £4 billion EL industry cannot make a voluntary offering, spread equally across all insurers. If that is so, we parliamentarians now have a statutory opportunity to force them to do so.

[Mr Anderson]

The hon. Lady is generous in giving way. Is she aware that when the pleural plaques legislation went through the other place and the Law Lords decided that it would no longer be compensated, KPMG estimated that the insurance companies had a £1.4 billion windfall, so surely a little bit of that could go into the research that she is talking about?