Mesothelioma Bill [HL] Debate
Full Debate: Read Full DebateDepartment: Department for Work and Pensions
Lord Freud
Main Page: Lord Freud (Conservative - Life peer)Department Debates - View all Lord Freud's debates with the Department for Work and Pensions
Mesothelioma Bill [HL]
Lord Freud Excerpts(10 years, 11 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Avebury
My Lords, I am glad that these things happen to other people as well as to me. The Deputy Chairman need not apologise because everyone, however careful they are with their diaries, makes these mistakes from time to time. I missed an appointment myself this morning and I am still smarting from it.
On Second Reading, the Minister said that the Bill would establish a payment scheme to make lump sum payments to eligible sufferers from mesothelioma and their eligible dependants but he later amended that and said that it was a means to create such a scheme. Clause 1 gives the Secretary of State power to create, amend, replace or abolish the scheme within the certain broad parameters referred to in Clauses 4, 5, 6 and 10. Parliament has no say in the details of the scheme or in any variations made to the scheme, although of course it does on the regulations that are made under the Bill.
My noble friend Lord German and I both commented on this at Second Reading but the Minister evidently did not consider it important enough to pick the matter up in his winding-up speech, nor is there any explanation of the drafting in the Explanatory Memorandum. We are merely told that the clause confers these wide-ranging powers on the Secretary of State without saying why Parliament is excluded from all these processes.
If the Government consider it necessary to make changes in the system of employer’s liability insurance under the 1969 Act, obviously they have to come before Parliament and seek approval, as they did for the Act itself. Under this Bill the amount of any payment is determined by regulations, but in Clause 4 there is provision for the payments to be made subject to conditions, or for the payments to be repaid in whole or in part in specified circumstances. Again, these decisions are the sole prerogative of the Secretary of State. Similarly under Clause 5, the procedure for the making and deciding of applications is part of the scheme issued by the Secretary of State without having to obtain parliamentary approval.
There are further provisions relating to the scheme in Clauses 6 and 10 which are left to the unfettered discretion of the Secretary of State. These may not be in the best interests of claimants—we simply do not know—and it would be helpful if my noble friend could say whether, before any of these decisions, drafts will be published for consultation with the stakeholders. In the period leading up to the publication of the Bill, the Minister told us at Second Reading, there were 15 meetings with the insurance industry and 11 with representatives of victims’ groups, lawyers and members of the APPG. If the Government had to come back to Parliament they would have some incentive to continue with these consultations on the scheme and on the amendments to it which may be made in the future.
I hope that my noble friend can assure us that there will be no private consultation with the insurance industry excluding organisations representing the victims of mesothelioma. According to the Guardian, firms with insurance interests have given the Tories nearly £5 million since Mr Cameron became leader of the party. I am sure that the Government would not like it to be suspected that the industry’s largesse entitled it to any special favours. Your Lordships will bear in mind that all firms providing employer’s liability insurance have a vested interest in ensuring that, as far as possible, the details of the scheme create as light a burden for them as they can achieve. If, however, the industry passes on the costs to customers, as the Data Monitor survey quoted in paragraph 97 of the 2013 impact assessment suggests, it might be more impartial if it is asked to comment on a draft before the scheme is published.
The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee says that this scheme is comparable in structure and content with the one governing a discrete, targeted social security benefit. It concludes that,
“only a most compelling explanation could justify the establishment of a scheme that is to determine rights to statutory payments, yet is not to be subject to any form of Parliamentary scrutiny”.
That says it all. I beg to move.
Lord Freud
My Lords, before there are any other contributions on this topic, it might save time if I respond rapidly to the last point mentioned by the noble Lord, around Amendments 1, 2, 4 and 5, about establishing the scheme on a statutory basis. Clearly that is the recommendation of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. We acknowledge the concerns behind it. In the time between the recess and the Committee stage it has not been possible to do more than consider the proposed changes to the Bill. I am sure that noble Lords understand exactly what I am saying. I understand their concerns about the means by which the scheme is established and we are giving the matter due attention. I hope that those remarks might save a little time today.
Lord Howarth of Newport
My Lords, I hope the Committee will allow me to speak. I apologise for arriving late. My excuse is that the document issued by the government Whips’ Office informed us that business was to begin at 3.45. I am obviously lagging behind everyone else. I apologise particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for missing the beginning of his remarks.
Obviously what the Minister has told us is strongly encouraging. It points us in the direction we all want to go—and certainly in the direction that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee wants the Government to go—and the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, was quite right to quote from that paragraph. As he says, it is very powerful on this point.
I am sure that Parliament will welcome it if the Government decide that this scheme is after all to be introduced under a statutory instrument. We received this morning the draft rules of the new scheme and while I congratulate the Minister on enabling us to have them, as he undertook to do, by the time we reached Committee, at the same time I grumble a little that we only had them during the course of this morning. We will want time to study them and no doubt revert to the issues contained within the draft proposals.
Lord Freud
Ah, I might say a few words. I hope that in my earlier intervention in the interests of saving a little time I effectively dealt with our approach on Amendments 1, 2, 4 and 5. I will turn to Amendments 3 and 6 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Howarth.
Amendment 3 requires that before the scheme is established,
“the Secretary of State shall publish his proposals and make a statement to Parliament about them”.
This falls into the area of the recommendations from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee to make the scheme rules subject to negative resolution. The result of those considerations may serve to enhance in practice the level of parliamentary scrutiny, which would make this amendment unnecessary.
One or two questions were raised. I apologise for the late arrival of the scheme rules—everything seems to be just in time today—but I was keen to get them to Committee Members before we started. Of course, we will have another day of Committee, and further stages. They are a draft at this stage and a work in progress and we will be continuing to refine them during the passage of the Bill and indeed afterwards.
I ought to deal with the question from my noble friend Lord Avebury on the meeting with the insurance industry. Bluntly, this was a negotiation with the insurance industry and you have to meet people to negotiate with them. To get a working scheme going, that was an essential job. I would have liked to have done it with rather fewer meetings, but that is what it took.
Amendment 6 requires that:
“The Secretary of State must report annually to Parliament on the performance and progress of the scheme”.
I argue that it is not necessary to include this in the Bill. Scrutiny and reviews are already planned for the scheme without the need to include those in legislation. Indeed, we cannot know at this stage whether it is necessary or appropriate to report annually. We are aiming to determine the details of the reviews at a later stage. I am happy to commit to making a Statement to the House on the scheme’s performance. We will keep this under review as, over time, we expect the volume of scheme cases to reduce and for further information on the schemes to be readily available. The kind of information that the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, was talking about may become transparent effectively on a daily basis. I urge the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Alton of Liverpool
Before the Minister sits down, perhaps he could put on the record a bit more about the imbalance of the meetings that he held with the industry and the victim support groups. He may recall that I raised this issue at Second Reading. I heard from the victim support groups afterwards and they said, quite categorically:
“We met the Minister three times, however at no time were we involved in any discussions about the scheme which was unveiled on 25 July 2012. The detail and architecture of the scheme was devised by the insurers and DWP”.
That has been a source of some discontent among those who represent the victims of this awful disease.
Lord Freud
My Lords, the difficulty in doing such a negotiation is that this was pretty price-sensitive stuff in the marketplace. We had to keep it tight. I did, however, explore the angles without being specific or laying it out by saying, “Here is the architecture”. I explored the elements of what we were aiming to do with, as I say, not just the victims’ groups but the lawyers and the APPG. Keeping a balance between a commercially complicated deal and ensuring that the other side is well informed is always difficult, but that is the balance that I tried to strike.
Lord Avebury
My Lords, I certainly was not objecting to the meetings that were held with the insurance industry in the lead-up to the Bill. I mentioned that at Second Reading the Minister told us how many meetings there had been not just with the victims support group but with various other stakeholders, such as the lawyers representing the victims. I had hoped that those consultations would have been extended into the period when the details of the scheme are being formulated. We would hope that there would be equality of arms between the insurance industry and the representatives of the victims in designing the details of the scheme and in looking at any amendments that may be necessary later on. However, we have to be content with what the Minister has said this afternoon and hope that, at least by Report, we will be looking at something a little more concrete than the Minister was able to say to us. In the meanwhile, I withdraw the amendment.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I would like to add a few points to the very extensive and knowledgeable debate that has taken place. It seems that some very telling points have been made and pressed upon the Minister about the scope of the scheme before us, which it seems reasonable to address. I would just say that we would want to be doing so in a way which does not hold up the core of this scheme. I hope that we have common ground on that issue.
In relation to the self-employed, can the Minister clarify quite what definitions we are using here? Over the years in various circumstances, the differentiation between somebody who is employed and somebody who is self-employed is quite narrow. We know that in some industries—the construction industry in particular—self-employment arrangements were, in a sense, manufactured when the reality was that there was an employment. That might have been done for tax reasons or for other reasons, so clarification of the definition of “employee” and “employer” for the purposes of the Bill would be helpful.
The issues raised by my noble friend Lord Browne are of particular interest in relation to those who were not necessarily formally employed but for whom the negligence of an employer might have caused them to contract mesothelioma. That is important because through the Child Maintenance and Other Payments Act 2008—it was the other payments that related to mesothelioma—the last Government introduced a support scheme for those who contracted mesothelioma but not directly because of employment. If those employers or their insurers can now or could in the future be reached, it seems that the Government themselves have an interest in recouping some of the compensation paid, which I hope can be redeployed to improve those schemes for others.
In relation to Northern Ireland, as I understand it this provision in the Act does apply there. I also understand that the two statutory schemes which we have, in the 1979 Act and the 2008 Act, are in fact replicated by legislation in Northern Ireland. Certainly, that was negotiated at the time. There have been some very important issues raised, which I know will create some challenges for the Minister. In doing so, I hope that we will keep our eye on ensuring that we make progress on the scheme that is before us.
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 Avebury
I am sorry to interrupt my noble friend, but was it always clear whether a person was covered by the employer’s liability insurance? In the industries which have been mentioned, such as the construction industry, where the boundaries between the employed and the self-employed were not always clear, and a person comes forward and claims that he worked for such and such a firm and was employed at the time, but the employer’s liability insurance has been lost, how can the scheme be satisfied that he was qualified within the terms of the Bill?
Lord Freud
That is a very important point. As the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, was querying, 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. That is specifically allowed for.
The noble Lord, Lord Howarth, asked about estimates of exposure to people who have been washing laundry—secondary exposure in the household. We do not have those data, I fear. We have data on general environmental exposure, which would include that, and I can give that information to the noble Lord. Clearly, people who catch asbestos outside the employer liability framework can get payments under the 2008 Act. Various noble Lords thought that they were inadequate, but they are state payments established since then.
My noble friend Lord James asked about the MoD and the Admiralty in particular. The state does not have employer’s liability—
Lord James of Blackheath
If the noble Lord will forgive me, the state does not have a liability because it pulled the dirtiest trick of all time when it repealed the 1947 Act and effectively put people in a Catch-22 situation where they could only claim if they had already been identified with the disease at that time. It was only 10 years into the period. It was ridiculous.
Lord Freud
My Lords, clearly I speak for the whole Government generally. The specifics of this are really for the MoD to pursue. There will be lots of issues around this but we need to get this Bill through. If we start going into these areas within this Bill, we risk endangering the start times and the processes. But I hear my noble friend and I know the depth of his feeling on this.
Lord Wigley
Before we move on, perhaps I can pick the Minister up on the words that he used a moment ago, that the Government do not have a liability. Is there not a plethora of cases where no liability exists? In most of the cases under the Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) Act 1979, despite the fact that there was not a liability, the Government accepted their responsibility to help these people. The Minister may not be able to do it in the context of this Bill, but can he give me an assurance that he will look at this again in the future?
Lord Freud
I am sorry; if I said that, I truncated some words. What I meant to say is that the Government do not take out employer’s liability insurance, so effectively they self-insure, and different departments have different arrangements to pay compensation. Clearly, my noble friend Lord James feels that the ones at the Admiralty are not adequate.
The noble Lord, Lord Howarth, asked about the self-employed. We do not have any data on that area. Again, the core reason that we are not including the self-employed here is that, for obvious reasons, they were not required to have employer’s liability insurance.
Lord Alton of Liverpool
On that point, has the Minister seen the ABI briefing, where it says:
“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”?
Clearly the ABI has the data. Before we come back to this issue on Report, perhaps the Minister will discuss with the ABI what it based that statement on and what the numbers are.
Lord Freud
Well, my Lords, if I am cleared to speak to the insurance industry again by this Committee, I will ask it for those data, and supply them to your Lordships.
The noble Lord, Lord Moonie, made the point about those who had washed the clothes. Again, that is not covered by employer’s liability. It could be a case of public liability, so there may be something to pursue. I will look into that before the next Committee day to see if I can get a little bit more information. I do not have very much information on the legal differentiation and what actually happens there. The same question was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Browne.
On the Northern Ireland question asked by my noble friend Lord Empey, the Northern Ireland legislation mirrors the legislation in the rest of the UK, with the 1979-2008 legislation prevailing, and the plan is to run this there as well.
I think that I have dealt with all the questions, but possibly not to everyone’s satisfaction.
Baroness Golding
Before the Minister sits down, I ask him to define what the present circumstances are.
Lord Freud
I really will have to come back on that. It sounds to me like quite a complicated legal position. The whole point of this scheme is to try to drive through a very rapid response. In this case, of course, these things are known. There should not be a problem of not knowing who is liable for what. That is what the Bill is trying to do. I will try to get an answer to the noble Baroness’s question, but it is by way of academic interest rather than core to what we are trying to do here. I ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment
Lord Howarth of Newport
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to what we knew would be an important debate but has also turned out to be a very impressive one. The debate has revealed complexities as well as possibilities that I hope we can all reflect on and look for ways to explore constructively.
No fewer than 11 noble Lords apart from the Minister contributed, and they came from all around the United Kingdom. My noble friends Lord Wills and Lady Golding gave us case studies from their own constituency experience that were significant and revealing. The noble Lord, Lord Martin of Springburn, told us about his own industrial experience, which was illuminating; the case of the mum who did the washing was particularly poignant. My noble friend Lord Wigley from Wales and the noble Lord, Lord Empey—whom I shall also call my noble friend, if I may—from Northern Ireland illustrated the range of this issue, as of course did my noble friends Lord Moonie and Lord Browne of Ladyton. The debate benefited very much from the medical experience and expertise of the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, and my noble friend Lord Moonie.
We have had a very valuable debate, with many issues raised. My noble friend Lord Browne of Ladyton probed most determinedly and effectively as to who exactly is covered. It may be that the Minister is fortified with legal advice that enables him to declare confidently, definitively and with the utmost clarity who is covered and who is not, but we suggest that there is more to look at here, particularly in the case of family members. It seems to contravene common sense to suppose that there is no liability where someone contracts the disease as a direct consequence of the predicament of the person who was employed and was, or should have been, covered by employer’s liability insurance. It is hard to believe that such people are not covered.
My noble friend Lord McKenzie raised a question that has become increasingly pertinent over the decades in which this whole problem has been gestating: the shifting nature of self-employment. With the increase not only in contracting-out by public departments but in subcontracting by major firms, and with the rise of such practices as zero-hours employment, it becomes very difficult to say with confidence who is employed and who is not, although no doubt there is case law on this. I hope that the Minister will want to satisfy himself that the definition of self-employment sufficiently overlaps with the definition of employment in a great range of relevant situations, such that we can appropriately bring self-employed people within the compass of this scheme. I think that it is worth investigating further.
Issues arose as to public liability. My noble friend Lady Golding’s case study raised it, and the noble Lord, Lord James, talked about what the responsibility of the Lords of the Admiralty may be. I was encouraged to a degree that the Minister seemed to be saying to us that the question of the liability of the Crown and of public departments does warrant further investigation. It may be that, in the interests of getting this scheme up and running as quickly as possible—which we all want—it may not be appropriate to try to redefine the scope of the scheme or the compass of this particular Bill to take account of everyone who was in a situation of being employed by the Crown or by some other public agency when they were exposed to asbestos negligently. However, if a parallel scheme can be created, I think that that would only be right and proper.
While I would never suggest that the Minister is meagre or defensive and I completely respect and applaud his motivation in bringing this Bill before us, I hope that he will not stand pat on the deal that he has negotiated. However, we can come back to that. It seems to me that, as legislators, it is our responsibility to take a view as to what the public interest is and to amend the scheme that he is proposing to us, which he has negotiated with the industry, so that it better satisfies justice and the requirements of the public interest. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord James of Blackheath
I am sorry, but that is a true story.
We are worrying about whether we have the files on these, but Turner & Newall, which is the great case—the biggest of them all in this country—did not keep the records. We just had a general claim from Turner & Newall for everything. It was a blanket cover, which ensured that we would take any claims that came against them and sort them out according to their own merit at that time. The records that the DTI had are the best that still exist and should be taken on as part of this review. Some of them will have gone to Warren Buffett and he will be using them as part of his negotiations, probably against us. The records are not as bad as your Lordships think. They are meticulous in going back, but they are mostly blanket covers, not specific to individuals. That is the problem.
Lord Freud
My Lords, we could spend a lot of time on this. I was at Warburg when it helped to sort out Equitas, although I was not on that particular transaction—and I am grateful for that.
Amendment 9 would have the effect of ensuring that the scheme paid not only everyone with diffuse mesothelioma but any living dependant of a person who had died with diffuse mesothelioma at any time. Amendments 11 and 14 would have the effect that, once the scheme came 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 also provide that any living dependant of a person with diffuse mesothelioma who had died on or after that date would be eligible.
I think that the February 2010 date mentioned in these amendments is meant to be closely linked to the date when the last Government published their consultation paper Accessing Compensation: Supporting People Who Need to Trace Employers’ Liability Insurance. That was 11 February 2010, as the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, will vividly remember. I remind noble Lords that on that date the Government were consulting on the best way forward. They were not proposing a specific course of action, so no one had any expectation that they would be likely to get any sort of payment over and above those that the Government provide for people with diffuse mesothelioma.
I would have liked to have announced the Government’s intention on paying people with the disease much sooner than 25 July 2012, when we did announce it, but the issues involved were complex. To ensure that we have got it right, we have been working intensively with stakeholders, including the insurance industry, claimant groups and solicitors, since that consultation closed to get to this solution. This took longer than I had hoped. However, when we announced on 25 July of last year that a scheme would be set up, from that date people have had a reasonable expectation that, if they are diagnosed with the disease after that date, they will receive a payment.
In addition to creating an expectation among people with mesothelioma, the announcement put insurers on notice that we intended to bring forward the scheme, giving them legal certainty and allowing them to start to reserve against the liabilities that are created by the scheme and its associative levy that they will be responsible for paying.
Baroness Sherlock
The Minister is again speaking of reserving for the liabilities. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord James, both for sharing his considerable expertise and experience and for helping me to understand that I clearly phrased my previous question poorly. I was trying to ask the Minister whether, when he refers to insurance companies reserving for the liabilities, he makes any distinction between the fact that an insurance company would in the ordinary run of things reserve against a future liability that would crystallise if and when somebody whose employer had been insured by that insurer were to develop mesothelioma, and the fact that what an insurance company will have now is arguably not a liability but a requirement to pay something that is more like a tax. Here, I declare an interest as a member of the board of the Financial Ombudsman Service. Is this situation not more like some aspects of the levy applied by the FCA on relevant financial services companies, which requires them to contribute, for example, to the cost of the Financial Services Compensation Scheme? In other words, it is an annual cost that is fixed by the body imposing the levy and not a liability that arises directly from activities of the company. Therefore, does the question of reserving not apply at all?
Lord Freud
What happens is that insurers have to provide that they have sufficient funds to meet their liabilities. The levy is a hypothecated tax that they have to pay so that their ability to meet their liabilities is monitored by the Financial Conduct Authority, the FCA—or the FSA, to those of us using old money. The insurer could not pre-empt the outcome of the consultation. That was something that they could not do and did not do, as I understand it.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
Can the Minister expand on that point? I understand the need to provide for liabilities, but is that not separate from the scheme payment? We only get a scheme payment if in fact the insurer is not liable, or only liable in respect of paying the levy. I do not understand the analysis that he has just made.
Lord Freud
What the insurer has to do, as I understand it, is to provide for future liabilities. Through an elaborate process with its accountants and the FCA, it has to provide the appropriate amount on reasonable assumptions. It is quite a formalised process. That is the process that we are looking at here.
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 Freud
I will double-check, my Lords, but my understanding is that a reserve from an insurance company is not specified out. There would be a general sum overall and we would not be able to extract those elements. I have made clear that we are not talking about a general level of doing business but about a specific reserve created because of this particular liability. That is what we are talking about.
Lord Browne of Ladyton
If I understand correctly the background papers to this scheme, particularly the impact assessment, the Government have agreed effectively to fund this scheme from the period July 2012 until February 2015 by a process of using what will be paid to them in recovered benefits. The wording in the impact assessment is that the Government have agreed to do this. However, is not all of this argument utterly irrelevant if the insurers pass this on in the premium? Paragraph 97 of the impact assessment comes to the wrong conclusion. The argument clearly comes to the conclusion that that is what they intend to do.
Lord Freud
That is one of the central issues with imposing a levy based on the existing market share. There is a risk that that will happen if we push up the levy too much, particularly if there is a sharp increase. As noble Lords are aware, the way in which these matters normally work is through a sharing of the levy. The likelihood is that some of the levy may be passed on in the marketplace. However, the levels at which we have established the levy—and the smoothing mechanism to which the noble Lord, Lord Browne, referred was part of it—were achieved by taking some of those other payments and circulating them in the first year to give us the best possible chance that the insurance industry will absorb the bulk of the levy.
I shall now provide the figures that noble Lords have been waiting for so incredibly patiently. If this scheme started on 20 or 21 February 2010, the extra costs would be £119 million. As to the undated amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, our best estimate is that if we went back to 1968, the figure would be £747 million. Clearly, a large number of assumptions were made in reaching that figure.
I would just like to finish off the figures. I am not going to spend too much time going over the noble Lord’s “cornucopia” argument. I just want to make this simple point: one of the things that the insurance industry does, at least when it is in a competitive position, is look to build in what the returns on its reserves and its income may be when it sets rates. It is not just a kind of a surprise—“We got all this extra money out of those returns!”—but is built into the marketplace. Otherwise, everyone in the whole world would become an insurance operator, and we would all have been wasting our time because it would have been a free lunch. There is some competition in the market. Clearly it is a very interesting and complicated market, and it depends on how much capital goes in and out of it. Let us not go into that. We have had a lot of debate about the more general issues, but I just thought that I would touch on that.
As insurers were able to start the reserve only from 25 July last year, any attempt to back-date eligibility further could jeopardise the scheme and bog it down in legal challenges from insurers on the costs. I know that noble Lords would like to do more, as indeed would the Government, but we need to consider the effect of an open-ended scheme against one that can be afforded whose costs can be absorbed as much as possible by the insurance industry without putting pressure on it to increase insurance premiums and transfer the extra costs on to current employers.
Clearly, any date will mean that some people miss out. Choosing the dates in the amendments would mean that more people received the payment, but there would still be people who did not. On balance, I believe that pinning eligibility to a date when people with diffuse mesothelioma had a reasonable expectation of payment and insurers knew when they needed to start to reserve the levy, represents the best that we can do. I am not in a position to provide or mention anything on legal advice that we may or may not have received by convention, which noble Lords will be fully aware of.
I need to make the point that social security benefits and existing lump-sum schemes will continue to provide early support for people with the disease who were diagnosed from before the 25 July date. I therefore urge the noble Lord—
Lord McKenzie of Luton
Will the Minister confirm whether the £119 million is gross or net of benefit recovery?
Lord Freud
I think that it is net, but I will have to write with the right answer to that. I urge the noble Lords and the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Freud
I remind the noble Lord that Equitas and Lloyd’s were dealing with reinsurance, not primary insurance. There may be some information there, and it may be of great interest to the insurance industry—I am sure that it is looking at that—but, regrettably, I can assure him that there is no reason to pause the Bill because of that information.
Lord Howarth of Newport
I certainly accept that point, but I also noted what the noble Lord, Lord James of Blackheath, said about the incestuous character of the industry, how involuted it is and how they all insure and reinsure with each other. If we are to unravel what has happened—a later amendment to the Bill points us towards a further effort to unravel the past, the most deeply regrettable and scandalous past—in this area, the DTI archives may be an early port of call. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Freud, will not dismiss the possibility that the documentation associated with Equitas which reposes in the DTI archives may enable more people to be able to make a claim for employer’s liability if they have access to those files.
The Minister told us that he fought to get his Statement out by 25 July 2012, and I can well believe that. We praise him and thank him for getting it out even at the last moment before Parliament rose for the Summer Recess.
On the question of reserving, I venture the observation that, whatever the rules and regulations may be, they do not prevent insurers from reserving prudently against liabilities that they can reasonably foresee. I am not impressed by the Minister’s argument that the scheme’s eligibility should run only for people diagnosed after the date on which he made the formal announcement that the Government would bring in a scheme, and that it is only from then that insurers could begin to reserve against that liability. I just do not accept that. We will need to think much more carefully about the obligations on reserving, but there was never anything to prevent insurers from reserving against something which they could and should have foreseen, not just from February 2010 but from the very first date at which they began to provide employer’s liability insurance.
As for the noble Lord’s fears that if the levy were increased to pay for a more expensive scheme, the insurers would simply pass on the extra costs to employers—well, they will pass on whatever they can to employers just as soon as they can. As I understand it, that is how insurers operate. They pitch their premiums at a level that they believe the market can afford. There is some downward pressure because of their need to compete with fellow insurers but collectively they will all rejoice in market conditions that make it possible to raise their premiums. Of course, they will use any excuse they can to raise their premiums because they want to maximise their profits. I do not see that holding down the levy is going to stop employer’s liability insurers raising their premiums just as soon as they can. Any additional costs from extending eligibility for this scheme to different categories of people or people who were diagnosed at an earlier date are not likely to make a material difference to the premiums that are sought in the market because there is a host of factors in the market that shape the level of premiums that insurers seek to be able to sell. This is only one and far from the most substantial among them.
We will return to these issues. In the mean time, I withdraw the amendment.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, we support the concept of insurers contributing to fund research to find new treatments for mesothelioma. Indeed, three years ago we were involved in encouraging the industry in what was originally a £3 million commitment over three years. However, we do that principally because of the passionate, compelling and authoritative case that we have heard over the past hour, led by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and stimulated by the comparison between the stark number that this dreadful disease kills and the funding that has gone to address and ameliorate it. The issue of stimulating a national research effort is hugely important.
Like other noble Lords, I do not know whether this is the appropriate mechanism and I shall be interested to hear the Minister’s comments, but the noble Lord, Lord Alton, seems to have covered all the issues on hypothecation, the Human Rights Act and a fee rather than a levy. That is a pretty impressive effort. Like the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, I support a variable approach rather than a fixed amount, but those are points of detail.
Will the Minister share with us his discussions with the Department of Health, which he has referred to before? In particular, have any of his extensive negotiations with the insurance industry about the payment scheme focused on ongoing contributions to research? What is the current attitude of the industry?
Lord Freud
Well, my Lords, I feel like adding my name to the amendment.
I have spent an enormous amount of time on this issue, for exactly the reason that noble Lords have all focused on. Something very odd is happening here when so little money has gone into research in this area. Bluntly, I was pursuing the concept of a one-for-one match, where the insurance industry and the state would come in. I will go into why I have hit a brick wall at every turn on that, which is why it is not in the Bill.
However, rather than being negative, I have talked to everyone but, in particular, tried to understand why we have not had state research on this. I have talked to Dame Sally Davies and the Department of Health, trying to work a way through. There is currently a bit of a chicken-and-egg situation as, before the Medical Research Council will accept research, it has to be of what the council calls “high-quality propositions”. I buy the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, on some of the quality research that is now on offer, so there is an opportunity to go forward there. The odd thing is that this is a Bill about the insurance industry and its contribution to that particular levy, when it is actually the insurance industry that has ponied up £3 million of its money and got this research going. What seems odd to me is the way that this is not happening on the other side.
I will now do what I do not want to do, which is to go into why that is so difficult with this Bill and why I have not been able to incorporate something like this. I was going to have a strap on the levy that we could just throw in and match up, but the limitation is that my department is allowed to raise funds only within its own remit, and medical research lies within the auspices of the Department of Health. We do not have the freedom to raise funds for research within a DWP-sponsored Bill. One of the issues with hypothecated research like this is that, from the point of view of the Department of Health, that cuts across its strategy of directing funds at quality research. This is how we have ended up in this odd chicken-and-egg position. I have simply not been able to find a way, in terms of the levy, to get this into the Bill.
So what is to be done? I have discussed this with my noble friend Lord Howe at considerable length. There needs to be a kick-start process to get research going here. We are proposing to get a conference going, which we will jointly host—and I would welcome as much support as possible from noble Lords—to try to get this on the agenda so that it gets the kind of support that it should.
Lord Pannick
To clarify, is the noble Lord saying that the only impediment to including a provision of this sort in this Bill is that this is a DWP Bill and research is a Department of Health matter? If that is the point, I think it will come as a great surprise to this Committee that it is not possible for two departments to liaise and come up with an agreed position to place within a Bill—not least because, as he will well know, as a matter of constitutional propriety, when a Bill talks about a Secretary of State, it covers all Secretaries of State. There is no division of responsibilities between Secretaries of State. Can the Minister think about whether it is really not possible to talk to his colleagues on these matters?
Lord Freud
I have done quite a lot of work on this, as I have said, and talked to the department. I am saying that this would have to be a Department of Health levy, but the Department of Health is not minded to legislate in this way on this matter because that is not how the structure of research provision in this country works. That is the position. I can get further clarification on this ready for Report.
Baroness Sherlock
The question of whether the Department of Health wishes to do this is a separate matter but, on whether the DWP can do this in its Bill, is the Minister saying that it cannot do it because it is not government policy that the DWP should create a levy that would be to the benefit of something that belongs to DoH, or is he saying that it is illegal for it to do so?
Lord Freud
I am not sure of the definition of illegality, but our powers are such that we cannot raise money for things that are not within our vote. Whether or not that makes it illegal, I am not sure. However, that is the position and we are held to it.
Lord Moonie
Perhaps I may add a small point from my own field in medicine. One of the problems with mesothelioma is that it is diagnosed so late that it is generally considered a hopeless condition. That was certainly the case with friends of mine who died of it some years ago. Gradually things are beginning to look a little brighter. It is important to get treatment early. We know largely who the potential case bodies are likely to comprise—those who have historically been exposed to asbestos—and the numbers should not really be added to at this stage. Therefore it ought to be possible to devise research, either through markers or through surveillance of the case load, to establish diagnosis of mesothelioma earlier and provide more hope to the patients who suffer from it. That might be a fruitful argument for the Minister to make to his colleagues in the Department of Health.
Lord Freud
I take from this a weight of feeling and, bluntly, the best thing that I can do is to take it back in to Government; my department is almost not relevant in this area. In a sense, I do not think that that is the issue. The irony is that those in the insurance industry are the only ones who have been paying anything of any substance in this area. This is, if you like, directed at the wrong area. As the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, said, why is this not of some strategic importance?
My feedback from the Department of Health and Sally Davies is that they are aware that it is odd that so little is spent on this disease. However, I think that that is where the problem lies and that it is a kind of chicken-and-egg situation. In a way, the insurance industry is in the position of the gambling industry, which has a voluntary scheme and has been spending money voluntarily. It does not need this pressure. What we need to worry about is: how much, as a country, are we spending on this disease?
I hope that noble Lords can hear that I am enormously sympathetic to what lies behind the amendment, and I am not only sympathetic because I have had a hard time this afternoon; I have been spending six months of the year running around on this issue, a bit like a mad mouse in a wheel, trying to find a way through.
This debate has been valuable. The next stage is to have a major event—my noble friend Lord Howe and I even have a date in the diary—where we start to do something about this and get something going. That is really what we are looking for, rather than something more mechanistic, such as what is proposed here, which I cannot do.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
I think that we all recognise the Minister’s commitment to this issue. However, has any thought been given to whether this could be channelled through the HSE, which falls within the purview of the DWP?
Lord Freud
To be honest, I do not think that we have looked at that as an option. I will have another look around the wheel to see what there is, but where I have come out is that we need a mainstream effort with the people who are interested in this matter to push it up the agenda of the country. We need to say, “This needs research and it will take a decent share of the budget that is available for cancers in this country”.
Lord Howarth of Newport
When the Minister goes round the wheel again and has conversations with the Minister in the Cabinet Office responsible for the Office for Strategic Coordination of Health Research, and when he meets Professor Dame Sally Davies again, will he try to find out why the money has not been forthcoming so far? Is it political, because the view is taken that there are not terribly many sufferers from mesothelioma as a proportion of the population as a whole and therefore they are not a priority, or is it because this field is unfashionable among academics? We need an explanation because it is very puzzling. Given the existing structures, conventions and procedures, I cannot see any reason why the money should not already have been made available.
Lord Freud
I have actually got round to asking that question already, so I can answer it now. The reason is that it is an unfashionable area because it was believed that there was no hope. We caught it late, it was happening over a very short period and it was fatal. It was an unfashionable area to go into and therefore the people who wanted to make their careers in research turned to other cancers. As a result, good-quality research proposals were not coming in and therefore the research council did not feel that it could supply funds. That is the reason and it has been the reason for decades. With regard to breaking that cycle, the insurance industry and the voluntary groups working with the BLF have started rolling the stone down the hill, and I think that we are now in a position to get something moving. However, it is a bigger issue than just getting a little bit of money through this device.
Lord Alton of Liverpool
My Lords, the Minister said that he feels like a mad mouse going round in a wheel. Fortunately, we have some good medics on hand this evening, who, I am sure, will be happy to diagnose the problem. Whether they can come up with a cure, I am not sure, but it is the job of parliamentarians to come up with a cure to help Ministers who are clearly committed to the underlying principles enunciated in the amendment actually to achieve them. He said that he has been banging his head against a brick wall and that he has been dismayed at the failure to provide adequate resources to deal with these things. The one thing we can do for a Minister in that situation is to provide him with an amendment to the Bill, which he can then take back to the other departments involved, to the Treasury and to everybody else, saying, “In Committee, they gave me a hard time over this. We need to find some way forward”.
Although I am of course not pressing this to a Division today, the fact that 10 noble Lords participated in this debate and have spoken with such experience and conviction, all being in favour of the principles underlying the amendment, means that surely the Minister now has some ammunition in the locker to take away and use to try and promote this case.
I am indebted to everyone who has spoken in the debate. My noble friend Lord Walton of Detchant said that the amendment could be strengthened and suggested two ways of doing that. I particularly liked what he said about the National Institute for Health Research and the role that it might play. I will certainly consult him in redrafting this amendment between now and Report.
My noble and learned friend Lady Butler-Sloss said that if we could do it for gambling, why on earth can we not do it for this? The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, reminded us, as did the noble Lord, Lord Empey, that many other precedents can be invoked in such circumstances. Perhaps the Minister could ask his officials to look at the whole battery of precedents when going away to persuade those who, somewhere in the system, are clearly opposed to us putting these powers into the Bill.
My noble friend Lord Wigley reminded us of the scale and number of people affected by this horrible disease. He recognised, as did others, that a variable approach might be the right one to adopt as we recast the amendment.
My noble friend Lord Kakkar said there had there had been no strategic approach. He is right. He reminded us about the role of the meso-bank, which, as he says, will have global significance. He also referred to the possibilities that genetic research produces, but said that research has to be kick-started. In other words, there has to be some kind of seed funding—in the absence of state funding. Of course, austerity will inevitably be one of the reasons given when the Minister goes back to the Treasury or elsewhere. Other people will have their own priorities and projects, which they say that the money should be spent on. Again, we need to provide the Minister with something that overcomes those objections. The approach adopted in this amendment of a levy is one way of doing that. My noble friend Lord Kakkar also reminded us about something that I had not thought about previously: the importance of research into appropriate palliative medicines and palliative care, and the way in which we care for people during the last months of their lives. That was an important point for us to consider.
The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, reminded us of the stark numbers, and the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, who, along with others, signed a letter sent to the Times, told us about the importance of leverage and asked why a greater volume of resources was not made available for research. I was prompted to think about this issue by two Questions asked in another place by a Member of Parliament, Mr Bob Blackman. I was surprised when I saw on one of his Questions just three dotted lines where figures should have been, detailing the resources available for research into mesothelioma. When he tabled a further Question, the column simply showed three sets of zeros. I was absolutely staggered that that could be the case, given that 56,000 British people will die of this disease before it is over.
My noble friend Lady Masham said that research means hope, and she is absolutely right about that. Without research, we can offer no hope. My noble friend Lord Pannick said that there is nothing novel about this approach and that it would be quite fanciful to suggest that the Human Rights Act could in some way be invoked. That Act ought to be invoked against the state authorities in this country for not having done something about this problem for so long.
My noble friend Lord Avebury was very generous in his remarks, but in fact I am just an apprentice compared to my noble friend. He and I have been friends for a very long time. He published a pamphlet on the subject of mesothelioma in the 1970s and has campaigned on this issue throughout the whole of his parliamentary life. I stand in awe of him on this and many other matters.
The purpose of my amendment was to start the debate. There are moments when Parliament, rather than the Government, can shape policy, and this is one of them. The Minister said that there is a chicken-and-egg cycle. In that case, let us break that cycle. Although I beg leave to withdraw this amendment now, I am sure that noble Lords would expect me to bring it back on Report.
Lord Browne of Ladyton
My Lords, I support my noble friend’s amendment, although I think that there is a more elegant way of dealing with the issue. Frankly, and I hope that the Committee—particularly the Minister—will agree, I do not understand why Clause 2(1)(c) is there at all. It does not seem to make any sense.
The clause has two parts to it. The second part is that the person who is diagnosed with diffuse mesothelioma will be eligible for the payment only if he or she is unable to bring an action against an employer or insurer because the relevant employer or insurer cannot be found or no longer exists. I cannot envisage any circumstances in which anyone could have brought an action against some person who cannot be found or did not exist. I do not understand why that conditionality is there at all. I can envisage the sort of circumstances that my noble friend suggests, which are that an action was brought wrongfully against the wrong employer or the wrong insurer, but why should that disqualify someone from making a claim and receiving a payment from the scheme because they made a mistake in the past and thought that they had the right employer or insurer?
I urge the Minister to take that away and perhaps rephrase the clause to provide that a person who has been unable to bring an action against the relevant employer or any relevant insurer for damages in respect of the disease because the employer and insurer cannot be found or no longer exist, or for any other reason. That seems to be the answer. I do not understand why that part of the clause is there at all.
Lord Freud
My Lords, as I understand it, the purpose of the amendment is that a person may be eligible for a payment from the scheme if they have not brought a successful action against their relevant employer or insurer for damages. However, there is another condition attached: they must also not be able to bring an action for some reason, perhaps because the employer or insurer cannot be found or no longer exists.
A person should be eligible for a payment from the scheme if they have not brought an action against a relevant employer or insurer through the courts and there are very good reasons why they are unable to do so. It is a scheme of last resort. If a person can bring proceedings, they should do so. But a person should not be eligible for a payment from the scheme if they have brought an action against a relevant employer or insurer through the courts and they have not been successful in that action because they have not been awarded civil damages. This may happen for a number of reasons. For example, the courts may consider that the employer did not expose the person to asbestos as a result of negligence or breach of statutory duty, or that the person was not an employee. It is not right in these circumstances that the person should be able to make an application to the scheme. It is a scheme of last resort, not a no-fault scheme. The scheme is correcting a market failure where employer’s liability insurers failed to keep thorough records; it is not replacing the civil system.
Lord Browne of Ladyton
My Lords, I am reluctant to intervene on the Minister when he is reading a very carefully constructed argument but, with all due respect, what he has just read defies logic. Bearing in mind that the person must have been diagnosed with mesothelioma after July 2012 and, if the draft rules become the rules of the scheme, must have brought any claim within three years of that diagnosis. It is envisaged that in that period the person would have sued somebody despite the fact that they were unable to find the relevant employer or the relevant insurer. It cannot possibly have been the relevant employer or the relevant insurer that they sued so the determination of the case is an irrelevance. I do not understand how people can sue somebody they cannot find.
I am not sure that I understand the concern. This may be because of the way in which one reads the legal language. I think the best thing I can do is write a letter spelling out exactly how the language works.
Lord Browne of Ladyton
The reason we are able to deal with these cases in this way is because of the history of the way in which mesothelioma litigation has developed. In mesothelioma cases, one can sue any employer. So if one finds a relevant employer or insurer, one can sue that person—I think that is agreed. That is part of the reason why this group of people are able to have access to this payment scheme whereas people suffering from other asbestos-related diseases cannot so easily do so. We agree on that.
Any person who has found a relevant employer or insurer to sue is disqualified from the payment scheme—full stop. It is not a question of finding one and then saying, “I cannot find the other, therefore I want to claim through the scheme”, anybody who finds one and has somebody to sue is disqualified by the second half of the clause. The first half of the clause is unnecessary.
Lord Freud
As I said, let me write to noble Lords about the necessity or otherwise of the first half of the clause, because I suspect that we are in deep legal territory.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, Amendment 13 is another probing amendment which addresses another aspect of eligibility. Under Clause 2(1)(d), it is a requirement that a person has not received damages or a specified payment in respect of diffuse mesothelioma, specified payments to be defined in regulations. This probing amendment is to clarify that any payments receivable under the Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) Act 1979 and Section 47 of the Child Maintenance and Other Payments Act 2008 are not to be treated as specified payments. Such payments may be recoverable under benefit recovery provisions, but their receipt would not deny access to the scheme.
From a discussion with the Bill team a few days ago, I understand that that is the case, but it would be very helpful if the Minister could put that on the record and say something about what other types of arrangement—I think that term of renewal has been mentioned—will be included in specified payments.
Amendment 41 is grouped and is another probing amendment. Clause 13(2)(b) enables the Secretary of State in setting the levy to deduct the amount of any recovery of benefits. That would therefore reduce the amount borne by insurers. Clearly, the principle which should apply generally is that any benefit recovery accrues to the Government, not to insurers. However, it is understood that this provision is to apply only to the initial period of the scheme, where benefit recovery in respect of cases diagnosed from July 2012 to March 2015 will be used to fund the scheme. If that is the case, again, perhaps we can have that on the record. In any event, perhaps the Minister can explain the analysis behind the government contribution and why in the scheme of things any contribution should be made. I beg to move.
Lord Freud
I thank the noble Lord for the amendments. The intention of Amendment 13 is to ensure that a person who receives a state lump sum payment under the Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) Act 1979 or the Section 47 of the Child Maintenance and Other Payments Act 2008 would not be excluded from receiving a scheme payment.
One of the conditions for entitlement for a payment under the scheme was that a person has not received damages or a specified payment in respect of diffuse mesothelioma and is not eligible to receive a specified payment. The meaning of “a specified payment” will be given by regulation. Broadly speaking, specified payments are those which are not compensation but are paid in respect of the person’s mesothelioma. That does not include government lump-sum payments. Therefore, the amendment has no effect on our intentions.
The amendment does not cover the equivalent Northern Ireland legislation, so it creates an imbalance between how applications in Northern Ireland will be dealt with compared to applications made elsewhere in the United Kingdom. To go through which payments will be specified, as the noble Lord requested—it may be easier for me to supply a letter—they are the naval, military and air forces, the Armed Forces and Reserve Forces, the UK Asbestos Trust and the EL Scheme Trust established in 2006. I will write to him to get that on the record.
Lord Wigley
I believe I am right in interpreting that there are cases that could get compensation for diffuse mesothelioma under the 1979 Act who might equally get compensation under this Act if they had not got it under the 1979 Act. That being so, I raised the question at Second Reading as to how the scales of compensation compared between the two. Is there any information that the Minister can give on that? If he has already included it in today’s letter, which I believe has been sent to my home, I apologise as I have not yet seen it.
Lord Freud
The noble Lord is raising a slightly different question. What we are looking at here is the question of whether one can claim on the scheme even if one has received the 1979 payment. We will be dealing in later amendments with the offsetting issue. It may be easier to leave this question until those amendments.
I ask the noble Lord to withdraw these amendments.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his explanation. It has confirmed the position, which was the reason for the probe. Could he say a little more about the imbalance with Northern Ireland? I am not sure that I altogether follow the point that he was making.
Lord Freud
We do not have the legislation to match. I am not sure that, off the top of my head, I can be precise about what the practical implications of that are. Let me come back in writing on that. Northern Ireland has its own schemes. I must be precise on how they interrelate in responding to the noble Lord.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
I am grateful to the noble Lord and happy to receive a letter in due course. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
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.
Lord Freud
My Lords, the amendment seeks to set the rate of payment at 100% of the average civil award amounts. Many noble Lords expressed opinions about this at Second Reading as well as today. I know that I have the support of all present today in wanting to guarantee the maximum payment possible for those people who, through no fault of their own, cannot bring a case against a specific employer or that employer’s insurer.
To tidy up some of the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, on the tariff tables, I think he caught that they were published in an ad hoc statistical report only today. I apologise that it is so late; we will circulate all of that to Peers tomorrow. It is based on a survey of civil compensation undertaken between 2007 and 2012 registered with the Compensation Recovery Unit, so it is a broad mix of cases. That is what the figures are based on.
To make a point that is really at the heart of this, and as many noble Lords have pointed out, if we were going after the people who should pay the money, it would be a very different proposition in terms of justice as opposed to our asking for money from a group of insurers that may or may not have been doing this business during the time. We are actually asking a group of active insurers to carry a particular burden when we know that of the industry as a whole, 40% are in run-off, including many of the biggest ones involved in mesothelomia. If one looks at insurance as one industry, all in one category, that is one way of thinking; if one starts to individualise what different insurers are doing, it becomes a different debate.
Lord Howarth of Newport
I understand that argument, but can I put two other considerations to the noble Lord? When the Lloyd’s insurance market ran into very severe difficulty on account of asbestosis claims—I forget when that was—it had to act collectively to rescue the reputation of the London insurance market. I think we are in a similar situation here. I also put it to the Minister that the active insurers are advantaged by the fact that other run-off insurers have either failed or given up the business. They are the insurers who are now in the market and dominate it. Considering that they benefit from the absence of those erstwhile competitors, they are in a perfectly strong position to shoulder the moral and indeed the practical responsibilities left behind by those who have abandoned the field.
Lord Freud
It is always a dangerous thing to base it on a moral argument, particularly in this area. It is a differentiated industry. There is a group which we are now looking at to shoulder this. There was an enormous amount of negotiation in getting to this level of levy. That then feeds into the amount that we can pay eligible people. You could have an infinite amount of levy but if we went too high, the risk would be very clear. The genuine danger is that it would just go straight to British industry. Many of the insurers who will be paying it were not in business at the time or may have kept good records, so there is a differentiation within the industry.
If we could pay people more, of course we would. This is a balancing act and 70% is the compromise that we have arrived at after long negotiations. I hope that noble Lords can appreciate that there is a real achievement here in getting very substantial payments to people who are eligible, if they are afflicted by this terrible disease. I urge the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply, none of which comes as a surprise. I thank all noble Lords who have participated in this debate and supported the amendment. My noble friend Lord Wills urged the Minister to convey the strength of opinion about the level of payment. The noble Lord, Lord Wigley, referred to the fact that this sort of horse-trading did not go on when the 1979 Act scheme was being put in place. I think that my noble friend Lord Howarth dealt with the point about why it is not unreasonable for the insurers still in the market to bear the full costs of compensation. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, reminded us that everybody who spoke at Second Reading opposed this 70% level. I was rather attracted to my noble friend Lady Donaghy’s proposition of 130%; perhaps we might try that.
The Minister says that it is wrong to deal with this as a moral issue. I am not sure that that is right or something that I would agree with. I took it from what he said that the negotiation was around the rate of the levy, which then drove the compensation levels, rather than the rest. In that case, I am interested in a negotiation that would end up with a levy of 2.24%. How on earth was that arrived at? Why was it not 2.25% or 2.26%, or 3%? To have that driving the outcome seems a little strange, but in any event it is unacceptable.
I am grateful for the fact that it looks as though we will get the tariff tables tomorrow. That is obviously a key part of this. The percentage is key, but it depends what it is a percentage of. We will have to see how that all works out and which of those averages have been taken in compiling that schedule.
Lord Freud
Perhaps I may quickly clear up that matter. When you look at the totals, you have to take into account the effect of the extra two years, because we are starting with two years in hand. So the first year counts as three years, which we are going to smooth over the first four years. Therefore, in practice we start off with a much bigger amount of money. The 2.24% is a raw figure, if you like; it is not going to affect how much the levy will be when it is smoothed.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
I accept that point, but is not part of the smoothing in the early years being done by government contribution?
Lord Freud
It is a very small amount. We will actually do the smoothing over the years. Turning round the recoveries is only one year’s work, so that is a small amount of it.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
I think that £17 million is the cost of the government contribution. I still do not think that we have had a definitive answer to the question of the impact on all this, if any, of what is happening in the pre-action protocol and all the negotiations that are going on there. From submissions that we have had from the ABI, it is clear that it sees that as part of a wider integrated package. I do not know whether the Minister can say anything about the extent, if any, to which the negotiations took account of what was happening there or was likely to happen and how that impacted on the negotiations.
However, ultimately we have heard nothing that convinces us that the 2.24% is where we stop in this calculation. We will continue to press for an increase. We will help the Minister in taking this back to the industry and making it understand how strongly we feel about it, and how it must not, and cannot, rest where it does.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
I do not know whether the Minister has anything further to say.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
Before I do, is the Minister going to say anything about the MoJ consultation?
Lord Freud
There is not much that I can add to what I said at Second Reading. Clearly, there is a consultation on the level of costs, on the pre-action protocol and on the portal, but I cannot pre-judge what that might come out with. It is clearly an extensive consultation and it will be starting in a matter of months.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
Can the Minister just say whether any of that featured in the discussions and negotiations that he had around the levy?
Lord Freud
Yes. It was important to the industry that the MoJ undertook to look at those issues. That was reinforced by the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, to the LASPO Bill, which was predicated on there being a consultation ahead of pulling the mesothelioma cases inside the LASPO framework.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
I shall read the record on that and I may return to the point in due course. However, given the hour, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.