Mental Health: Cost of Living Support
Lord Freud Excerpts(10 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud) (Con)
My Lords, the association between poor mental health and poverty is clear, and it is equally clear that the best way to meet the cost of living is through work. We are committed to improving employment outcomes for people with poor mental health by supporting them to return to, and stay in, work through a combination of tailored work-focused healthcare and employment advice and by ensuring that they are supported equably in the benefit system.
Lord Touhig (Lab)
My Lords, when an alcoholic schizophrenic with mental health problems turned up at St Vincent’s community support in Cwmcarn in south Wales, the person attempting to help her by applying for the new personal independence payment had to answer more than 40 questions in an hour-long telephone conversation with the DWP, simply to get the application form. The helper said she found this very distressing. Without this intervention, this mentally ill penniless woman would be destitute. Is there nothing the Government can do to simplify the way in which people with mental health problems can get the support they need, without enduring this bureaucratic nightmare?
Lord Freud
My Lords, on the process of getting PIP, we have been taking advice from people with an interest, particularly the autism group, which I know the noble Lord will be interested in, and we have been adjusting our PIP application process to reflect the observations and points made by those groups.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, does the Minister accept that if people in those circumstances can find work, fine—but if they cannot, they need all the help they can get to access what they have a right to? Should we not therefore ensure that the citizens advice bureaux, which play a key role in these matters, have the resources they need to help such vulnerable people?
Lord Freud
My Lords, helping people with mental health problems and similar conditions is, clearly, not easy. The main problem is that they face a huge variety of problems. We need to help them as much as we can to negotiate their way through a complicated system. I have taken a huge interest in this issue myself, and in the most important area in this respect. We now have a study on what we are calling psychological well-being and work, to look at how we can help people negotiate their way into the workplace, with adequate health support on the way.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree (Con)
My Lords, is the Minister aware that although people in this category are legally allowed to claim money that will help them get to work if they are able to work, the person allocated to them from the health service to try to give them all the advice they need hardly ever tells them that they can claim money for this purpose? Will he please look at that point?
Lord Freud
My Lords, I will look at that point—but we are making real efforts now to join up the provision by the DWP and by the Department of Health. I am working very closely with Norman Lamb in this area. We have put a lot of effort into signposting, and into training our teams in the DWP and the Work Programme providers, who have put in a toolkit to help. However, I will certainly look into whether I can do more.
Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab)
My Lords, will the Minister acknowledge that when dealing with people with complex needs, which include mental health and also usually addiction, expecting them to get back to work within three months is absolutely unrealistic? I know a man who is working exceptionally hard to get ready for work; he volunteers with our organisation. Twice in the past year he has been denied benefit, then a judge at a tribunal and an appeal reinstated it. I heard that this week he has again been denied benefit and that the department is again appealing against what was said. He is doing remarkably well, but this is knocking him day in and day out. If he has to go back into treatment it will cost the Government more. Why do the Government not listen to organisations that are telling them that three months is not long enough?
Lord Freud
My Lords, if the noble Baroness will write to me with the details, I will look into it. We do not have a rigid three-month rule like that, but I will look at the particular circumstance that she is so concerned about.
Lord Alderdice
My Lords, in the Health Act there was a recognition of the importance of parity of esteem for physical and mental disturbances. However, of course the treatment of physical and mental disturbances often requires different amounts of time. A short appointment for a physical treatment may not be the right thing for the psychological treatments to which the noble Lord referred. That makes it difficult for people in work both to get the treatment that they need and stay in work. Does the Minister’s department recognise, as the health department does, that parity of esteem may mean extra time and facilities for those with mental disturbances as against those with physical diseases?
Lord Freud
My Lords, that is a vital point, which is why we are introducing the Health and Work Service, particularly to help those who are in danger of falling out of the workplace. Every year 300,000 people do that, and a quarter of those cases are due to mental health issues. We are intervening at the four-week stage to get those people signposted on to the kind of support that they need.
Universal Credit: National Rollout
Lord Freud Excerpts(10 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord McKenzie of Luton
To ask Her Majesty’s Government when they will publish an agreed plan for the national rollout of Universal Credit.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud) (Con)
Our priority is to deliver universal credit safely and securely over a four-year period to 2017. We remain committed to that objective, these timescales and the budget. We have already announced plans to expand universal credit into additional jobcentres from today and to roll out the claimant commitment nationwide by next spring. We have also said that we will provide more details around our implementation plans later in the autumn.
Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)
I thank the Minister for that Answer. Any confidence that we may have had in the Government’s ability to deliver universal credit was dramatically shaken by the NAO report last month. It concluded that the DWP was not achieving value for money and that there was,
“weak programme management, over-optimistic timescales, and a lack of openness about progress”.
Alarmingly, it stated that the department does not know to what extent its new IT systems will support national rollout. When will those systems be fit for purpose to support national rollout as well as enable detection of fraudulent claims? I also note that the department has written off £34 million-worth of abortive IT expenditure. How much more will be written off as abortive before the Government get their act together?
Lord Freud
My Lords, first, I take the opportunity to congratulate the noble Lord on taking up a slightly more relaxed lifestyle on the Back Benches with this portfolio. I pay tribute to him for his formidable contribution over many years from the Front Bench. To deal with his latest and just as formidable contribution, I remind noble Lords that the NAO said in its report:
“Spending so far is a small proportion of the total budget … and it is still entirely feasible that [universal credit] goes on to achieve considerable benefits for society”.
Lord German (LD)
Would my noble friend agree that the introduction of universal credit represents one of the largest system changes we have ever seen in the public sector in this country, sitting as it does on a hugely complex IT platform? Given the significance of universal credit in that it will always make work pay more than being on benefits, does my noble friend agree that getting it right is more important than making mistakes as we go along? But, if he will forgive my impatience, when will we see the first families with children being able to receive universal credit?
Lord Freud
My Lords, I entirely agree with the sentiment. When you are introducing a large cultural change like this, it is important to do it in a careful and controlled way, and to make sure that it is safe and secure. That is how we have been introducing our series of changes, such as child maintenance, PIP and benefit cap. I am not in a position, until we announce Howard Shiplee’s plans later this year, to give a timetable of when couples and children are brought into the migration strategy.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab)
My Lords, this is really depressing. Why do the Government not pay attention to Sir John Major? Last week in the Press Gallery he advised the Government not to pay attention to the bean counters and cheerleaders, but to the people working with the disabled, the elderly and others who are suffering. John Major also said that this was going to fail, that all these reforms were going to fail, unless Iain Duncan Smith was a genius, and he saw no proof of that. Does the Minister have any proof? Unless he does, is it not about time that for the sake of our disabled people the Government started to think again?
Lord Freud
My Lords, the party opposite is not saying that universal credit is not the right transformation. Although it voted against various aspects, it is actually saying that it is the right way to go. The issue is how to introduce it. We are introducing it safely and securely, and we are doing that exactly for the kind of people to whom the noble Lord was referring. We are making sure that we do not produce shocks by introducing a new system on one day in the way, for instance, that tax credits were introduced and which was a failure. We are doing this slowly and securely.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, as this is such a profound change, would it not be sensible to have a Joint Committee of both Houses to monitor and supervise its introduction and development?
Lord Freud
My Lords, I can assure noble Lords that there is no shortage of people overseeing this particular programme. I do not really think that there is a need for another layer.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)
My Lords, undoubtedly the Minister is right that there are an awful lot of people overseeing the process, but the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, is a good one. There may be better people to oversee the process. The noble Lord was generous in his tributes to my noble friend, but he did not answer the Question. My noble friend is still a valued member of the Front Bench and speaks on the Department for Communities and Local Government.
The DWP has estimated that a three-month delay in transferring cases to universal credit would reduce savings by £240 million in the current spending review. Will the Minister please tell the House how this reduction is to be funded?
Lord Freud
My Lords, I am not aware of any such mathematics. We have always said that we will introduce universal credit in a safe way and that we will adjust the timetable in the light of experience. We now have Howard Shiplee on board, and he is immensely experienced. He produced the Olympic Park on time, and he is working to make sure that we have a plan that will introduce this programme effectively.
Baroness Wheatcroft (Con)
My Lords, our welfare system is broken. If it takes a little while longer than we had originally hoped to put it right, surely it is right that we should take the time. Universal credit is a massive step in the right direction. Does the Minister agree that the real tragedy would be if benefits claimants were reduced to such desperate circumstances that they had to superglue themselves to benefit desks?
Lord Freud
My Lords, when you introduce a big programme of change, the important thing is that you test and trial it thoroughly. We have a major programme of testing and trialling, whether it is the intensive-activity programme, the in-work conditioning pilots, the housing demonstration projects or the 12 local authority pilots. I am hoping soon to publish the next issue of the local support service framework that is designed exactly to make sure that there is a support network for people who might otherwise look for the superglue.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham (Lab)
Like others in this House, I support universal credit and I welcome it, but I am deeply worried that it is going to be a paperless system accessible only online. A very large number of people in their 40s and 50s in limited financial circumstances on benefit do not possess computers, smart phones or computer skills. They will not be able to interrogate or correct errors on the system, and even if the Minister successfully delivers the structure, which I hope he is able to do, although I have my doubts, I am profoundly worried that an awful lot of people who should receive their full benefit will not be able to do so because they will not have access to a paper system.
Lord Freud
My Lords, we are designing the system to be digital, which must make sense in the 21st century. It also makes enormous sense to get people into the digital environment, not least because 94% of all jobs now require that kind of capability. However, our plans do not rely on everyone having to interrogate the digital system themselves. We will have back-up systems in a telephone service and a face-to-face service for those who absolutely need it. We will have a system to encourage people into the digital environment.
Scotland: Underoccupancy Charge
Lord Freud Excerpts(10 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord McAvoy
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the report published by the Scottish Parliament about the effects of the under-occupancy charge in Scotland.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud) (Con)
My Lords, the Scottish Parliament’s report is an interesting and reasoned discussion of the early months of this policy. It suggests that it is difficult to assess impact at this stage, a view that we share. That is why we are undertaking a two-year evaluation on the effects of the policy. Initial findings will be available in 2014, the final report published in late 2015.
Lord McAvoy (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer. However, the report indicates that 82,000 households in Scotland are affected by the bedroom tax, with an average cost to those households of £50 a month. Some 80% of those households include a disabled adult. Does the Minister still stand by his advice, as published in the Daily Record, that in order to cope with that cost, disabled people should take in a lodger?
Lord Freud
My Lords, there is a range of things that people can do, as I have said to the House on previous occasions. The best option will depend on the circumstances. The group of disabled people on higher-rate DLA is 17% of the total. We have provided a lot of discretionary housing payments—we topped them up—and it is interesting to read in the report that many councils are saying that they are managing with that figure at this stage but that it is too early to tell.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes (Con)
My Lords, is the Minister aware of the research reported in the press this week on this subject which said that one in 10 of the claimants affected by this policy has moved off benefits? Will he confirm or comment further on that?
Lord Freud
My Lords, I have seen the research to which my noble friend refers. Clearly, it is encouraging. I also note that the report by the Scottish Parliament states that in one area the case load has fallen already by 15%. As I said just now, we need to be cautious about early findings but this one clearly is positive.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister has stated that the bedroom tax will release larger, underoccupied properties for the waiting list but 80% of those on the waiting list want the selfsame smaller properties as the underoccupiers who have priority. This report shows that it will take three years to rehouse underoccupiers. Will the Minister therefore accept that it is false to claim that the bedroom tax will help those on the waiting list? On the contrary, their waiting times will probably double.
Lord Freud
My Lords, I must make the point that while the party opposite likes to use the expression “bedroom tax”, it is deeply misleading. A tax is when you take away money that people earn. We are limiting the amount of money that the taxpayer pays to people. There are 1.4 million one-bedroom properties, which become available at the rate of roughly 100,000 a year. Quite a lot of people are likely to want to keep an extra bedroom because they have the resources and the desire to keep it. Therefore, there will be a period of adjustment, and we are going through it. We are spending the discretionary housing payment to allow that transition to happen in an orderly way.
Lord Skelmersdale (Con)
My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that housing benefit, first, is paid for private sector accommodation and, secondly, that under the previous Labour Government it was restricted to a certain number of rooms in those circumstances?
Lord Freud
My Lords, my noble friend is right that the private rented sector basis is the local housing allowance, which is paid on the shape of the family who occupies. It is paid on the basis of how many rooms are required. Until now, there has been an imbalance between the provision in the social rented sector and the private rented sector, which this policy corrects.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, the evidence is mounting. On top of evidence from the University of York and the University of Cambridge, in the past week alone the Archbishop of Wales has slammed the effect on Wales and now we have concerns from the Scottish Government. Perhaps most telling of all is a report I read this week in the Spectator by Isabel Hardman in which she suggested that Ministers were now referring to the spare-room subsidy as “Lord Freud’s idea” in an attempt to distance themselves from it? Would the Minister like to take this opportunity to rebut that outrageous slur?
Lord Freud
My Lords, a good idea has many fathers. Clearly, everyone in this Government is responsible for the bedroom tax and I am one of them.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, I was shocked to discover that on Merseyside councils have left unused hundreds of thousands of pounds of discretionary housing payments. Will the Minister comment on that? Does he think that perhaps that money could be rolled over to future years or used in authorities where it would be used?
Lord Freud
My Lords, we are currently looking very hard at what the support should be in the next year and possibly beyond so that we will have a smooth transition for this policy. One interesting thing is that there is a real economic mismatch, which I have talked about, in what we are building for people: we have 60% of people requiring single bedrooms and we are building only 13% in any one year. There is an economic mismatch so the signals must be corrected and that is one thing that this policy does.
Universal Credit, Personal Independence Payment, Jobseeker’s Allowance and Employment and Support Allowance (Claims and Payments) Regulations 2013
Lord Freud Excerpts(10 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud) (Con)
My Lords, I should genuinely like to thank everyone who has spoken today. I want to emphasise that I listen very closely to what noble Lords say in this House and, without shame, steal as many of the good ideas as I can. This is not just with a long nose, using SSAC, which has done an extraordinary job in helping us to sort out not just the regulations on universal credit but a lot of other things, too. I shall describe some of what we have been doing since we went through that committee and some of the ideas that we debated together then which I have tried to use and embed.
I hope also to allay some of the concerns expressed by noble Lords. When one has a new canvas, as we have here, one can worry about absolutely everything. It is important to be alert to the issues that one needs to worry about and then, as the evidence comes in, to see what the real problems are and to be able to move. We have laid out this evening a range of possible things that could go wrong. Some of them may go wrong and we will need to do something about them. Others may not emerge as issues, so it is important that we are watching this like a hawk.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
I am very sorry to prolong matters. I quite understand that it has not been possible to answer all the questions asked, but will the Minister undertake to write to all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate with detailed responses to the questions that have been asked?
Lord Freud
I have tried to answer absolutely everything. I will double check. If I have missed anything, I will write on it, but my answers are on the record. I think that I answered virtually everything, but if there is anything more, I will make sure that I cover it.
Jobseeker’s Allowance (Domestic Violence) (Amendment) Regulations 2013
Lord Freud Excerpts(10 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Freud
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 8 July be approved.
Relevant document: 8th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. Considered in Grand Committee on 15 October.
Housing: Under-occupancy Charge
Lord Freud Excerpts(10 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hollis of Heigham (Lab)
My Lords, I declare an interest as chair of a housing association and I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud) (Con)
My Lords, social landlords had more than a year to design, develop and deliver strategies to mitigate the effects of under-occupancy and were advised to start building responsibly to avoid driving people into arrears. Prior to implementation, the Government, working collaboratively with the Chartered Institute of Housing, produced specific guidance for landlords, Making It Fit, and continue to fund its Making Best Use of Stock team, which assists landlords to find suitably sized accommodation for tenants. Fact sheets containing advice on home swaps, money management, payment options and how to look for and find work have also been issued. To be clear, 60% of those requiring social housing are single or couples without children, but over the last decades landlords have ignored this fact, resulting in larger homes being built, even though the greatest need is for smaller properties. Finally, £190 million has been provided this year to help vulnerable claimants.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
My Lords, a recent sample shows that half of all affected tenants are in arrears and that three-bed houses are now hard to let. Do we move tenants to smaller accommodation? It cannot be done because there is none. Do we increase income with discretionary payments? For the 90% who are ineligible, it will not be done. Do we allow arrears to soar? As this could send us into the red, it should not be done. Or do we evict vulnerable families from their three-bed homes into temporary accommodation, back into an unwanted, hard-to-let, three-bed house? That can be done if we ignore the futility, misery and cost. Which of these options does the Minister favour?
Lord Freud
My Lords, it is simply premature to come to any conclusions as to the level of arrears. We will, of course, provide that information when we have the kind of reliable information that this House requires me, as a Minister, to deliver. There have been various surveys, but the samples are just too narrow. There are 1.4 million one-bedroom properties in the social rented sector and we are looking to have those managed more efficiently. I remind noble Lords that the scare stories about what would happen to our LHA reforms were very similar to the kind of stories that are being propagated now and we have not seen any poor reaction in terms of homelessness as a result of those reforms.
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, in relation to the evidence that the Minister mentions, can he give us an update on the consultation with me and others that he promised when noble Lords rejected the so-called bedroom tax repeatedly and firmly? When will that research programme be the subject of consultation with us? When is it likely to be concluded? Will he accept the evidence if it shows that what he calls the “scare stories” turn out to be true and that a good deal of disruption and hardship are caused by this measure?
Lord Freud
My Lords, as the noble Lord knows, an elaborate programme of research is going on around this measure and will take place over a two-year period. Regular reports will be provided. I believe that the first interim reports are coming out in the spring. I will, of course, be pleased to talk to the noble Lord about the research and will give a great deal of attention to what we find. If there are concerns, we will match them. As noble Lords will know, we have made changes to the discretionary housing payments system this year to reflect some of the early concerns that have developed and we have found an extra £35 million for that.
Lord Stoneham of Droxford (LD)
My Lords, I declare an interest as chair of Housing 21, a housing association. There is evidence that local authorities are not fully using the Government’s transitional support funding for ending the subsidy for under-occupied housing. What action are the Government taking to ensure that those in need get the support that the Government have provided for them?
Lord Freud
My Lords, my noble friend is right. Our very early soundings are that some local authorities are not spending all their DHP. Clearly, we provide that funding in order that vulnerable people are protected through this transition period and we have been monitoring that very closely.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon and Leeds
My Lords, is the Minister aware of the evidence that people who are leaving accommodation to avoid the under-occupancy charge are being rehoused in private accommodation at greater cost? What steps are being taken to monitor this?
Lord Freud
My Lords, as I have just pointed out, we are undertaking an elaborate set of research programmes to understand this. If a family moves into private accommodation, which is more expensive, it does not necessarily mean that there is a net cost, because it frees up larger accommodation in the social rented sector to which a family can move from the expensive private sector.
Jobseeker’s Allowance (Domestic Violence) (Amendment) Regulations 2013
Lord Freud Excerpts(10 years, 7 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Freud
That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Jobseeker’s Allowance (Domestic Violence) (Amendment) Regulations 2013.
Relevant document: 8th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud) (Con)
My Lords, the regulations are regarded as being compatible with rights under the European Convention on Human Rights.
We updated the regulations last year with the introduction of the jobseeker’s allowance domestic violence easement, which recognised the challenge that the victims of domestic violence face when making the decision to flee a perpetrator. The easement made provision for jobseeker’s allowance claimants who are victims of actual or threatened domestic violence by a partner, former partner or family member to be exempt from jobseeking conditions for an initial four-week period, which may be extended to a total of 13 weeks where evidence is provided. The period allows those affected by domestic violence the time to focus on important priorities, such as organising new accommodation or arranging alternative schooling for dependent children, without also having to focus on meeting their jobseeking conditions.
Since 31 March 2013, the Government have implemented the revised definition of domestic violence. The Home Office carried out an extensive consultation with stakeholders to establish a definition that captured the full spectrum of what form domestic violence can take. Reflecting the advice of former victims and those professionals who work to support them, the definition goes well beyond physical abuse to incorporate sexual, emotional, psychological and financial abuse. The new definition specifically introduces controlling and coercive behaviour, as well as recognising that those aged 16 and 17 may be victims.
We are seeking to update the definition of domestic violence in the jobseeker’s allowance regulations so that it corresponds with the new cross-government definition. Through our existing regulations, we already give as much weight to a single incident of domestic violence as we do to multiple incidents, and we already include 16 and 17 year-olds under Regulation 14A. However, domestic violence was previously limited to specific types of abuse. We need to ensure that we incorporate the new definition in full.
I hope that the Grand Committee will accept that the change of definition is a positive and important step. For the first time, the definition recognises that victims may be subject to different types of domestic violence and abuse. It makes it clear that domestic violence can be many things, and is certainly broader than physical violence alone. By working to a single cross-government definition, we will enable victims and those who support them to be absolutely clear about what constitutes abuse and what support is available.
We know that the first incident reported to the police or other agencies is rarely the first incident to occur; often, people have been subject to abuse on multiple occasions before they seek help. Promotion of this definition should assist victims in coming forward and seeking help.
We know from the Office for National Statistics that 31% of women and 18% of men interviewed in 2011-12 had experienced domestic abuse by a partner or family member since they were aged 16. These figures are equivalent to 5 million female victims and 2.9 million male victims. This is a substantial issue for our society.
The Crime Survey for England and Wales has estimated that around 1.1 million adults experienced coercive control in 2010-11. That is why it is important to extend the definition of domestic violence to include such behaviour. It has been widely understood for some time that it is a core part of domestic violence. As such, this move does not represent a fundamental change in the definition but a recognition that coercive control is a complex pattern of overlapping and repeated abuse perpetrated within a context of power and control that it is important to highlight.
The introduction of the jobseeker’s allowance domestic violence easement and the destitute domestic violence concession last year was welcomed by external stakeholders and front-line staff. It is the first time that the Department for Work and Pensions has specifically supported the needs of domestic violence victims and their families within the welfare regime. The policies have been designed to give victims the additional support they need to get their lives back together and to put them on a secure footing after leaving a partner.
Having introduced the policy, the department took the decision to research how its implementation had worked in practice, in order to understand how well the policies have been operating and to ensure that we continually improve our service. Work is under way to implement the recommendations from the research that was published in June this year. It includes improving the understanding of the easement and concession among front-line staff through refreshed guidance. Messages will be directed towards these staff, including benefit centre staff, and will focus not only on policies but on supporting vulnerable customers sensitively.
The work also includes the use of management information, and its distribution to different levels of the organisation to give an insight into the use of the policies by location, and work with local partnership managers to promote the benefits of dialogue with local domestic violence stakeholders. We will continue to maintain strong relationships with stakeholders at national level to ensure that those issues are dealt with, that best practice is identified and shared, and that the latest evidence and analysis is used by the policy team to determine future activity.
It is of paramount importance to me that advisers are given the learning and support that they need to help them identify and help vulnerable claimants, not just through the financial support that Jobcentre Plus can offer but by signposting to the many local organisations that support victims at such a critical point in their life.
I hope that noble Lords will agree that these changes are worth while and that applying a common cross-government definition of domestic violence and abuse will make it easier for all to understand. I believe that it is a significant improvement to the help that we offer to victims of domestic violence. On that basis, I hope that the Grand Committee will support these changes.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that very comprehensive explanation of these regulations. We on these Benches welcome the Government’s changes, not least because it is another stage in a process which began with a government amendment to the Welfare Reform Bill in this House in 2008-09.
I agree with the Minister that it is of the highest importance that victims of domestic violence are given the space and support necessary to rebuild their lives at the time that they move away from a situation of abuse. I think that the regulations have the potential to form an important part of that support. However, perhaps the Minister can reassure the Committee on a few points. First, simply in terms of the definition—which seems to be helpfully broader than the one that it succeeds—can the Minister confirm for the record that no one who is covered by the current regulations would be excluded by the extended definition?
The Minister referred to the cross-government definition of domestic violence that is now being used. It clearly makes sense to have a definition in these regulations which is coherent with that but, looking at the cross-government definition, unless I am mistaken, there seems to be a difference between the two. The new cross-government definition of domestic violence and abuse refers to:
“Any incident or pattern of incidents of controlling, coercive or threatening behaviour, violence or abuse”.
I do not think that threatening behaviour is covered in these regulations but I may have made a mistake and perhaps the Minister can point out to me where it is. If there is a difference between what is in the regulations and what is in the cross-government definition, can the Minister explain to the Committee why that is the case?
Next, can the Minister tell us whether the Government are about to bring forward changes to the universal credit regulations? Otherwise, of course, we would be in the deeply unhappy position of having a difference between the regulations affecting those claiming jobseeker’s allowance and the very many people who I am sure will be claiming universal credit any month now. Perhaps he could reassure us as to what is happening with that. Do the Government propose to bring forward amending regulations and, if so, when? How many people will be claiming universal credit at the point at which they will be changed?
I looked at the research that has been done on both the easement and the DDV, which the Minister referred to, and very helpful it was too. The Minister referred to some action that has been taken to follow up the recommendations of that DWP research from June this year. The Committee may wish to note that I counted 15 recommendations specific to the DWP; I have chosen to pass over for the moment the recommendations for further research that are also contained in the report. Can the Minister tell the Committee which of those 15 recommendations to the department have already been implemented in full? If he does not have that information to hand, will he write to me to confirm that? It would seem important that those recommendations are implemented very soon, and the department has had since June to do that.
This matters because the research showed that, despite the fact that we have high levels of domestic violence reporting in this country, the take-up of both the easement and the other policy are actually quite low. The government report said:
“We know from official statistics that DV rates overall are high, affecting one in three women, and that it is particularly prevalent among unemployed women. Yet the Jobcentre Plus offices visited with the highest numbers of JSA DV Easement cases were reporting fewer than 20 cases overall during the course of a year”.
If I read this correctly, only 338 cases of the four-week easement and 115 cases of the full 38-week easement were taken up as part of the JSA domestic violence easement. That seems incredibly low given the levels of reported domestic violence, and the report points out that those domestic violence reported rates are higher among unemployed women. Is the Minister comfortable that the policy has been properly understood and implemented by his officials? If not, how soon does he expect to feel confidence in that situation?
I have one further question. When these regulations were debated in the other place, the question was raised as to whether the position of 16 and 17 year-olds was the same as that of those aged 18 and over. Can the Minister clarify that for the record?
Subject to the answers to those few questions, we on these Benches are pleased to welcome this definition and look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.
Lord Freud
I thank the noble Baroness for that. I know she has a concern in this area. Clearly, domestic violence is a dreadful form of abuse. We as a Government are committed to providing better support for victims. This is the first time that the definition recognises that the victims may be subject to a wide range of domestic violence and abuse.
On her specific question about whether the move from the old to the new has left any form of abuse stranded and not covered, I am happy to confirm that there is no situation covered in the old form which is not covered in the new form. The attraction of having a single definition is that it makes it much clearer to everyone—supporters and victims alike—what constitutes the abuse and that they can go to all government agencies for help with particular types of abuse.
Running through the questions in no particular order, on the 16 and 17 year-old question, our regulations are set out in such a way that they refer to all claimants. Clearly there are 16 and 17 year-olds who are claimants and therefore we do not have to specifically talk about 16 and 17 year-olds because they are automatically covered.
The other point raised about the structure of the regulations concerned why the definition is not replicated exactly. This is just about wording; the practical effect is the same. It needed to be worded in a way which, in drafting terms, was consistent with the powers in paragraph 8B of Schedule 1 to the Jobseekers Act 1995, which talked about domestic violence which is inflicted or threatened. The conduct we are defining must therefore be capable of being inflicted or threatened. In that light, the reference to “threats” and the “threat” of coercive behaviour, and “threatening behaviour”, are in practice surplus to requirements: one does not threaten to threaten. That is the trouble when one has other legislation into which one needs to fit things. That is all it is.
Housing: Under-Occupancy Charge
Lord Freud Excerpts(10 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hollis of Heigham (Lab)
My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Knight of Weymouth, and at his request, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in his name on the Order Paper.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud) (Con)
My Lords, there are no plans to suspend the removal of the spare-room subsidy policy. A formal evaluation of the policy is being carried out; this has already commenced and will be conducted over the next two years. To support people transitioned to this reform, we have more than trebled the discretionary housing payment fund to assist those facing extreme difficulties.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
My Lords, two-thirds of the families affected are disabled—fact. Half of those in a recent sample are already in arrears—fact. Most local authorities are limiting discretionary payments to three months only—fact. Furthermore, there are no smaller properties to move to—fact. So disabled families cannot work, pay, obtain financial support or move. When will the Government have the guts to admit that their policy is impossible as well as cruel and follow our commitment to repeal it?
Lord Freud
My Lords, there were a lot of issues buried there. I will just point out that, when you look at the disabled figures, and if you look at the people on DLA, which is an independent measure, the figure comes down to 27% of the total. For those with the higher rate of DLA, it is 17%. I also remind the Opposition that this is a substantial saving measure. Some £500 million has to be found, and there is a degree of cynicism about whether you can find that through closing tax loopholes. I also ask the Opposition a question—
Lord Freud
I suggest to the Opposition that they think about the challenges that they will face when they extend their extra-bedroom policy to the private rented sector, which will cost them another £500 million and rising.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
Will my noble friend explain why the Opposition are so opposed to the changes that are being proposed on the subsidy, when it will undoubtedly help people suffering from chronic overcrowding in social housing and will help young people who find it impossible to get single accommodation? Will not the effect of removing the subsidy be to correct the market failure in social housing?
Lord Freud
My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right. I have talked before about the 250,000 people living in overcrowded accommodation, with 1.8 million people on the waiting list. But the economic signals going on in the social rented sector are very odd. The demand from single people and couples represents each year 61%, for the latest year we have—and it has not changed much. The number of homes provided that have single bedrooms comes to only 13%. Over the past decade, the social rented sector has built virtually no new single bedrooms, at 30,000; that compares with the private rented sector, which has produced in that period 280,000. There is a real economic mismatch going on in terms of what we are encouraging the social rented sector to build, and we need to make sure that we are building the type of accommodation that people in this country actually need.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister is paying no attention to the effects on the people involved. Has he seen the report in the Daily Record, which says:
“The Tory minister in charge of the bedroom tax has told Scots with motor neurone disease to take in a lodger or have their benefits cut.”?
Will he apologise for this insensitivity and rethink this measure, that being just one of its many iniquities?
Lord Freud
My Lords, I have not, of course, made any specific recommendations to people. Let me just go through the point. We are monitoring this change very closely. It is in its early stages as people start to adjust. We have put in a lot of discretionary housing payments; the total is £180 million this year. The early returns—and I stress they are early returns—show that local authorities are either managing those well or are underspending at this particular time.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister accept that last week the courts ruled that a woman with multiple sclerosis was entitled to have a bedroom separate from her husband because otherwise her human rights were breached? The courts have now ruled that disabled children and disabled adults can have their own rooms. These savings are vanishing before our eyes, and there are no rooms for people to move into because there are no smaller properties. Do the Government accept that the National Housing Federation has described this policy on its six-month anniversary as being a “cruel failure”? Is that not right, and will the Government not change their mind now?
Lord Freud
First, I congratulate the noble Baroness on moving to her new position. I look forward to many constructive exchanges with her, although perhaps not this one. We are currently moving to ensure that disabled children who need spare rooms will have them, and regulations on that are going through consultation. In the case of disabled adults where there was a judicial review, the judges decided that the policy was appropriate and did not breach any equalities duty.
Mesothelioma Bill [HL]
Lord Freud Excerpts(10 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Freud
“(c) the person has not brought an action for damages in respect of the disease against the relevant employer or any insurer with whom the employer maintained employers’ liability insurance at the time of the person’s exposure to asbestos,(ca) the person is unable to bring an action for damages in respect of the disease against any employer of the person or any insurer with whom such an employer maintained employers’ liability insurance (because they cannot be found or no longer exist or for any other reason), and”
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud)
My Lords, in speaking to these amendments I hope noble Lords will not mind if I open with a few thanks. First, I thank noble Lords for their consistent and invaluable dedication to this important Bill. The Bill looks quite different now to how it did at Second Reading and it is certainly in better shape for its passage through this House. I never cease to be amazed by the attention to detail and rigour that noble Lords apply when examining a Bill and I admit that I have ruthlessly stolen as many noble Lords’ ideas as I could over the past few weeks.
The Bill as it stands is a collaborative piece. I have listened with great interest to the concerns of noble Lords and responded to the pressure points. Since the Bill was introduced we have been able to renegotiate the rate of payment to 75%, which is in no small part thanks to the pressure exerted by this House. We have pledged to explore the creation of an oversight committee to ensure that the scheme may operate in the most efficient and just way, an idea that I cannot claim credit for. For that, and indeed much more, I must thank the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, and the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock. The noble Lord and the noble Baroness have been kind enough to give their time frequently and I am grateful for their supportive approach and their expertise.
Returning to the issue of scheme management, we have announced that the scheme administrator is to be selected through an open-tender route. I am confident that the scheme that will be set up as a result of this Bill will be the best it can be and will offer financial support to those who, through no fault of their own, have contracted this terrible disease yet cannot sue for damages. This represents a substantial achievement and, once again, one for which I cannot claim all the credit; so I thank noble Lords. My particular thanks go to those who have given so much of their time to contribute to the comprehensive debates we have had. The continued support and attention of the noble Lords, Lord Howarth, Lord Wigley and Lord Avebury, have been key.
One issue that we have discussed at length, and I know that many noble Lords feel strongly about it, was research into mesothelioma. As noble Lords will remember, I mentioned that when negotiating the terms of this Bill, I really hit a brick wall at every turn regarding research. A great debt of thanks must therefore go to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for raising the awareness of the lack of research in this area and, although we disagreed on the mechanism, the pressure of his amendment has helped me, jointly with my noble friend Lord Howe, to form a strategy for how we might encourage proposals for high-quality research into mesothelioma. On Report last week, my noble friend Lord Howe outlined this strategy, and I thank the noble Earl once again for his support and collaboration on that point. The momentum in this area created by his efforts and the efforts of this House should not be underestimated.
I have tabled one amendment for today and I apologise to the House for its tardiness. The amendment is minor and technical in nature and we will come to it in a moment, but I will quickly say that further thanks are due, this time to the noble Lord, Lord Browne. The purpose of the amendment is simply to add further clarification to Clause 2. It was the noble Lord’s careful scrutiny of that clause that alerted us to a possible source of confusion. The amendment was deemed necessary in cases where an individual had tried but failed to bring a claim against a relevant employer but, where any other relevant employer existed, the individual must attempt to bring a claim against that employer also before being able to come to the scheme. It has always been the policy intention that this scheme must be one of last resort and that all other avenues should be exhausted first. The object of the amendment is only to avoid any misinterpretation of Clause 2.
Before I conclude, I will briefly mention the sterling work of the team behind the scenes. There have been many working in DWP, MoJ, the Department of Health and parliamentary counsel to whom I extend my thanks, including, in the Box, Rose Willis and Fiona Walshe of the Bill team. I pay especial thanks to the tireless work of our redoubtable Bill manager, Lee Eplett, with whom I know many noble Lords have worked during the passage of this Bill.
I know that noble Lords have wished for the Bill to go even further than it does but I hope that they can agree with me that it is a major step forward. The issue of poor record-keeping in the industry has for far too long prevented mesothelioma sufferers from receiving the compensatory payments due to them. The Bill represents substantial progress in rectifying this injustice, and I once again thank noble Lords for their role in this achievement. I beg to move.
Lord Browne of Ladyton
My Lords, I speak in support of these amendments to the extent that they improve the Bill. I am pleased to have been of some assistance to the noble Lord, Lord Freud, in improving the Bill. I venture to suggest that at one stage he thought that I was perhaps more of an irritation than an assistance on Clause 2. However, important issues still need to be addressed and, if your Lordships’ House will bear with me for a couple of minutes, I shall explain.
My noble friend Lord McKenzie of Luton first raised concerns about Clause 2 when he moved Amendment 12 in Committee on 5 June. My noble friend’s contribution spurred my interest, and I recollect making some points of observation in debate. In his response the noble Lord, Lord Freud, initially dismissed these points, but as the debate became more engaged he promised to write. That was because he found himself—I think I quote him properly—“in deep legal territory”, or he was concerned that he might find himself in deep legal territory. He promised to write, and on 7 June he did so. He dismissed my concerns again, but I persisted. Thanks to the engagement of the Bill team, in particular the Bill manager, I was able to find a route of communication with parliamentary counsel about my concerns in relation to Clause 2.
I will not take up the House’s time by going into these in detail, but I remain unconvinced that even an amended paragraph (c) of Clause 2(1) is necessary, except in the most remote, hypothetical circumstances. I commend the ingenuity of those supporting the Minister in trying to find sets of circumstances which justify the words in the first draft of the Bill. In my view, the justifications which I was given were either wrong or showed a repeated misunderstanding of the interaction of other parts of Clause 2 with that very paragraph or, as we got deeper into the weeds in this, a misunderstanding of the relationship between Clause 10 and Clause 2, and then a misunderstanding of the relationship between Clause 2 and its provisions, and the draft set of rules which we were then given. I presume they will now form the template for the regulations which will set out the scheme.
At every point at which a justification was made for the wording there was an inconsistency, which I pointed out. However, having said that, the clarification which the Minister gave in his letter of 7 June that the phrase “the relevant employer” in Clause 2(1)(c) was a reference to the same “a relevant employer” in paragraph (a) of the same subsection, perhaps deals with the issue, at least to some extent. If the Minister finds some way of putting that explanation on the record, it may be sufficient to see off my concerns in the short term. In any event, at this stage I do not intend to persist, now that the paragraph has been divided and recast.
Amendment 1, which would put new paragraph (ca) in Clause 2(1), and Amendment 3, which would put new paragraph (ba) in Clause 3(1), are improvements. I support them without any qualification because they deal directly with my concerns about cases where an employee had multiple employers. It is a simple necessity that at the time of application the employee-applicant, or an eligible dependant, must be unable to bring an action against any of the employers or relevant insurers.
I move now to the consequences of Amendment 5. Amendment 5 is extremely interesting. It would amend Clause 18(3) so that it reads as follows:
“The scheme may specify circumstances in which a person is, or is not, to be treated as able to bring an action for the purposes of section 2(1)(ca) or 3(1)(ba)”.
This is potentially a very significant provision. Remarkably, despite all of the scrutiny it has remained totally unscrutinised. It has now been brought to my attention because of this amendment. I presume that these circumstances will now require to be set out in the regulations which will apply to the scheme—in other words, what were the draft rules that we were given copies of. I went through the draft rules in detail after I received this amendment and could find no references at all to any such circumstances. It seems therefore that a very important part of the structure of this scheme has not been subject to any form of parliamentary scrutiny. I hope that this will be corrected when the Bill goes to the other place. If this provision is necessary, the circumstances that are to be in the scheme ought to be shown to Parliament before parliamentary scrutiny of the Bill is concluded, which it has not been.
Finally, the most important point that has arisen from my engagement beyond Parliament with the Bill team is that during my conversations and in correspondence with those advising the Minister it was explained to me that it was the Government’s intention that, when a person was diagnosed with diffuse mesothelioma on or after 25 July 2012 but before the Bill comes into force as an Act, application to the scheme would have to be made and received by the scheme administrator not later than three years after the date on which it comes into force, not three years from 25 July 2012. That would be a very welcome relaxation of the limitation rules, given the nature of this dreadful disease and how quickly it can become fatal.
Unfortunately, the draft rules make no mention of that relaxation and there is no such relaxation anywhere in the Bill. However, there is a very specific relaxation in draft rule 7, where a person has died on or after 25 July 2012 and the claim is made by an eligible dependant. That very significant concession is known to me and is now known to all Members of your Lordships’ House. It requires some parliamentary acknowledgement or commitment, at the very least. More than that, it requires some commitment that the regulations will deal with this in an explicit way.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, we support these amendments, which were spoken to by the Minister some little while ago. We do so in the confidence of having received advice from my noble friend Lord Browne, to whom I pay tribute for his tenacity in pressing certain points, even at Third Reading, and for the food for thought that he has left for colleagues in another place, added to that suggested by my noble friend Lord Howarth and the noble Lord, Lord Alton.
We have heaped praise on the Minister for all his efforts in developing and bringing forward this scheme, and we should do so again this afternoon—in particular, for his determination to have a co-operative approach to a scheme which, sadly, will have to last for many years. This has been reflected in the welcome approach of the Bill team, for which we are very grateful, and indeed in the attitude adopted by all noble Lords who have participated in this debate. I thank my noble friend Lady Sherlock in particular.
Of course, we would have hoped that the scheme would go further, especially in terms of the level of payment. However, we have something solid and substantial to build on in both another place and with a future Government.
I have a final word for all those who have campaigned on behalf of people who are or will be affected by this terrible disease. They, too, can be justifiably proud of what has been achieved so far. It will be their efforts that continue to remind us of what we still have left to do.
Lord Freud
My Lords, I shall just tidy up the questions that noble Lords have raised. I turn, first, to the concerns about the scheme rules raised by the noble Lord, Lord Browne, who takes pride of place in terms of specificity. He was looking at the draft rules, and we will update them to reflect the points that he has made. I do not have an answer for him right now concerning the discrepancy between “a relevant” and “the relevant” employer but I will write to him over the summer. If possible, I should like to borrow his expertise in the coming months. We are still seeing the Bill through and I retain overall responsibility for making sure that it gets through in good shape. Perhaps I may borrow the noble Lord to go through some of these points with the Bill team, because he seems to have been most effective and helpful.
My noble friend Lord German raised related points concerning a company which is uninsured at the point of exposure and which later moves on. If the employer still exists, a claim would have to be made against that employer. If the employer no longer exists and no employer liability insurer can be identified, the person could come to the scheme. That is relatively straightforward to address.
I should take up the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, who has been utterly assiduous in looking through the Bill, for which I thank him. I will touch on some of the points that he commends to another place. These issues are very specific, so the rate that we can pay is tied very much to the risks that the costs get passed on to British business. The start date is very much tied to the structure of the smoothing that we have, so that would be very difficult to change. We also have a problem with the household member concerned because it is cover not from employer liability but from public liability. We look at the point on annual reporting in the context of how the oversight committee works.
On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Empey, on research, we are having a meeting later this week on this issue with key players, launched by the British Lung Foundation. My noble friend Lord Howe and I will be there, and it might be a useful place to discuss how we might look at the progress of research. While we did not agree with the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, we very much agree with the sentiment behind his motivation for raising the issue because something most disturbing was happening with the lack of research. We are looking for the very best way of making sure that we have quality research. I know that my noble friend Lord Howe went through that in great detail and that he has put a lot of energy into ensuring that we transform that situation. With that, I beg to move.
Lord Freud
Lord Freud
“(b) no one has brought an action for damages in respect of the disease under the fatal accidents legislation, or on behalf of the estate of the person with the disease, against the relevant employer or any insurer with whom the employer maintained employers’ liability insurance at the time of that person’s exposure to asbestos,“(ba) no one is able to bring an action for damages in respect of the disease under the fatal accidents legislation, or on behalf of the estate of the person with the disease, against any employer of the person with the disease or any insurer with whom such an employer maintained employers’ liability insurance (because they cannot be found or no longer exist or for any other reason), and”
Lord Freud
Mesothelioma Bill [HL]
Lord Freud Excerpts(10 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Freud
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords once again for their commitment to this Bill and for their amendments. Before dealing with this group of government amendments, I will make some general remarks and explain some of the work that has gone on since we last met in Committee.
In Committee, many noble Lords expressed concern at the close working with the insurance industry that this Bill has necessitated. The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, expressed particular concern that the appointment of a scheme administrator was already a done deal with insurers. I offer my assurance that this is not the case and that we intend to run an open competition for the contract of scheme administrator, which will be chosen through the open tender process according to our commercial criteria. I hope this reassures noble Lords.
Turning to the issue of poor record-keeping practice in the industry, I think we all agree that we must work not only to support those who have fallen foul of poor record-keeping and tracing in the insurance industry but to correct it and stop it happening in the future. The creation of the Employers’ Liability Tracing Office—ELTO—was a step in the right direction, but there are still insurers that are not tracing as they should be. Since we last met, I have had a very positive meeting with the Financial Conduct Authority. I have since received a very informative letter from the FCA. I found the following extract particularly positive:
“We are further strengthening our existing rules with new requirements for firms to have effective processes for conducting tracing searches for historical policies upon receipt of a request from a consumer or a consumer’s representative. These new rules will become effective from 4 December 2013. We therefore expect any firms that do not currently have adequate tracing mechanisms in place to develop them in advance of that date”.
In brief, if an insurer is expelled from ELTO for not tracing as it should or the FCA receives other intelligence suggesting poor or non-existent tracing, this will serve as an immediate red flag to the FCA. It will then put into place its enforcement action, which can include a supervision visit from the FCA.
One further step that the FCA is taking, which was detailed in the letter, gave me particular confidence that the appropriate mechanisms are in place to ensure compliance. The letter states:
“We also look to gather market intelligence to assist us in taking a risk-based view. We are exploring the possibility of a memorandum of understanding with ELTO that, subject to the legalities of this, would allow the FCA to access the data from ELTO’s own auditing process. This would allow us to concentrate our supervision resources on higher-risk categories of firms”.
I hope that noble Lords who have been following this so intently can agree that this represents very positive progress.
Another issue that we discussed in Committee was the establishment of an oversight committee. We welcome this proposal and have been exploring with stakeholders how it might operate. As ever, there is a range of options that we need to consider, and we continue to do so. We would prefer a non-legislative solution if possible but we are aware that noble Lords may wish to see something on a more statutory footing. I ask noble Lords to consider the issues associated with trying to establish a new non-departmental public body as we discuss oversight further.
Lord Browne of Ladyton
If your Lordships’ House will permit me to intervene, I do not intend to engage in debate with the Minister at this stage on any aspects of his commendable “pre-statement”, for which I thank him. It is consistent with the attitude that he has shown to this legislation and his handling of it in the course of our consideration. However, there is another matter which, as he knows, I have been discussing with the Bill team, which is not reflected in the proposed amendments on Report and which, therefore, will not be directly raised.
My concern is about the clarity of the drafting of Clause 2 and the interaction of parts of it. Without going into the detail of that, I have been in discussion and correspondence with the Bill team, and I am grateful to the Minister for allowing that to happen. We did not bottom-out our discussions about the fundamental issue but we revealed a number of things about the interaction between the draft rules and Clause 2. Before I came into the Chamber this afternoon, I got an e-mail saying that there was a recognised tension in relation to the issue of limitation between the draft rules and the current drafting of Clause 2. If the Minister is not in a position to say anything about this now, perhaps he will make time to say something on Report so that it will be on the record and will go to the other place to be considered.
Lord Freud
My Lords, I know that the noble Lord does not want me to go into detail, but I can commit to going on working with him on this issue, which is very technical. If we work out that something needs to be adjusted, we will have time to do it in the other place.
Lord Wigley
I express my appreciation for the increase from 70% to 75%, although a lot of us would have liked to see 100%. I would like clarification on the new matter that the noble Lord introduced with regard to the review. The mechanism for this might be introduced in another place. Will he shed some light on the means by which any changes could be implemented? Will order-making procedures be available, or will it be a matter of going back to primary legislation whenever such changes are needed in the light of developments?
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 McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I have addressed it and was simply taking the opportunity to pick up a few points from the Minister’s opening statement, with which I think he was trying to be helpful in setting the scene for this. I was also trying to be helpful by saying what our position is on that. It seems to me that that is my responsibility at this Dispatch Box on behalf of the Opposition. We have tabled an amendment, so we can pick that up in due course. The key thing for us is whether the levy rate will be reduced at the end of that four-year period or whether it can be maintained at its opening level. Obviously that will have beneficial implications for the rate of payments in due course, but perhaps we will come to that on some of our later amendments. However, I support the amendment moved by the Government.
Lord Freud
My Lords, perhaps I may quickly touch on some of those issues. The point raised by my noble friend Lord Avebury will be dealt with in the third group of amendments, but, as he shrewdly spotted, the figure of 75% comes out at £75 million of costs.
The Countess of Mar
I am sorry to interrupt the Minister but would he please address his amendments and not the bits between?
Lord Freud
I have very little to say because very few points have been raised about the amendments, but I do want to make one point. I was asked whether the review needed primary legislation and I said that it did not. I confirm that it can be done in regulations, as I was fairly sure it could.
I would not call any Member of this House ungrateful. I have genuinely always gained an awful lot from noble Lords when we go through these really complicated matters, whether in relation to the Welfare Reform Bill or the Mesothelioma Bill. In this case, in Committee I gained an awful lot from what people were telling me and I did my very best to act on that. That said, and with the intention of satisfying the noble Countess, Lady Mar, I hope that noble Lords will agree the amendment.
Lord Freud
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 Howarth of Newport
The Minister is worried that the employer’s liability insurers will default to the position of litigious opposition to the scheme if we attempt to improve it in these modest ways. Given that insurers have accepted the principle that they should fund a scheme, surely they would have no strong legal case to make in objection. Should he not simply say, “See you in court”?
Lord Freud
I have tried desperately hard not to end up in that position, because the “See you in court” line would just end up by tying us up for years with uncertain outcomes and would stop us getting payment to the people who need it from next July, which is when I want the payments to go out. I want this scheme up and running and working in April next year so that we can start making the first payments. I have tried in every way to ensure that we do not run into that kind of problem. The noble Lord may accuse me of not being robust enough, but I assure him that even to get to where we are it could be said that we have had to be as robust as possible.
The real problem is the technical difficulty with the four-year smoothing period that we have to use. We are going to have much higher costs in the first year as it in effect bundles up two years already and one year of running costs, so we are going to have substantially elevated costs in the first year that we have to find a way of smoothing, and we are doing that over a four-year period. If we extended that smoothing back even further to work in another two years’ worth of money—that £75 million—into the scheme, that would open up the whole agreement not just with the insurers but within the Government. On our assumptions, that would in effect push the levy rate up to approximately 4% in that period. That in itself would undermine what we are trying to achieve, which is to ensure as much as we can that these costs are not just passed on to British industry through higher current employer liability rates. That is the core reason. This is always about how much money you can get safely to people, and the adjustment in the amendment would undermine that.
Of course, any start date that we choose will exclude some people. The best possible way forward is to pin eligibility to the date when people with diffuse mesothelioma had a reasonable expectation of a payment and insurers knew that they would need to start factoring in the cost of the levy as an additional business cost.
I need to remind noble Lords again that the existing provision for sufferers of mesothelioma will remain in place for those who are not eligible to come to the scheme. I thank the noble Lord and the noble Baroness again for these amendments. I understand the reason behind them, but I have given the reasons why I would like them not to press them.
I turn to the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Howarth. These seek to be helpful to a wider group of sufferers, but we cannot extend the legislation to people who are self-employed or who were secondary-exposure cases. The Bill addresses a specific failure of insurers and employers to retain adequate records of employer’s liability insurance, and would provide payments to those affected by this failure who cannot trace a liable employer or employer’s liability insurer against which to bring a civil claim.
Following our discussion in Grand Committee, we talked with the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers, which advised us that an employer would have had to have specifically added elements to their employer liability policy to cover families of their employees. The association was not able to identify any specific cases where this has happened, which leads me to suggest that this is not a common occurrence. Family members who contract mesothelioma through coming into contact with asbestos as a result of someone working with it may have recourse to civil damages through public liability insurance, but our scheme is funded by the companies currently selling employer’s liability insurance and not by insurers more widely.
Lord Browne of Ladyton
My more fundamental point is that the insurers that sold employer’s liability compulsory insurance were the same insurers that sold public liability insurance to individual employers, because they were sold in a package. That was my experience when I was the Minister for employment between 2003 and 2004 when, the noble Lord will remember, there was a significant failure of the employer’s liability compulsory insurance market that had to be resolved. His letter of 5 July to me and others confirms that that is still the case, according to his research. These insurers are not separate insurers, they are the same insurers, and I suggest that the requirement to carry cover in relation to the specific risk of asbestos would have been irrelevant to public liability.
Lord Freud
I have just made the point that the public liability may have been bundled up with employee liability but it did not necessarily cover asbestos risk. That is the issue. If we start going into this, we are just blasting open and widening the position in a way that is very complicated and difficult to deal with under the timelines we are dealing with.
Moving to the second group about the self-employed, here the matter is not so clear-cut. Some people may appear to have been self-employed but if they are able to demonstrate when making their application that in fact they were employees, they may be eligible for a payment under the scheme. There is considerable case law amassed on this and we will ensure—I can commit to the noble Lord, Lord Howarth—that the scheme will reflect this when assessing applications.
I know it is not fashionable but I should point out that there is a technical problem with the amendment, which is cumulative, but I will not go through it. As drafted, this amendment does not work because you have to be an employee and self-employed. In our spirit of co-operation, if we wanted to take it we would adjust it, but there are good reasons in both cases why we do not want to.
Baroness Masham of Ilton
My Lords, what happens to the wife who has been contaminated by her husband’s dungarees? Will she get anything?
Lord Freud
Yes, my Lords. That specifically is what the state provision is there for. In particular, the 2008 mesothelioma scheme was set up to make payments to people, such as wives, who worked with asbestos. It is a smaller payment but that is what it was designed to do. I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
I thank the Minister for his response, and all noble Lords who spoke in favour of Amendments 4 and 8. I also thank my noble friends Lord Howarth and Lord Browne for addressing the issues in Amendments 5 and 6.
To pick up the Minister’s reply, if the response to everything we have discussed tonight is basically that the scheme is locked down and there have been negotiations—this point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham; as well—we might as well go to the bar because I am not sure that we are going to shift anything tonight. We pay tribute to the Minister—
Lord Freud
I must come in on that. The group—huddle?—of noble Lords who have been working on this Bill have made enormous changes to what we are doing. Noble Lords’ concerns have fed straight in and we have made a series of changes. I do not want any Peer to feel that their views and the work they have done has not been taken, absorbed, acted on and gone right to the edge of what is possible. I assure the noble Lord that the bar is not the place for him.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
I am grateful to the noble Lord for that explanation although it is a pity about not being allowed to go to the bar. I want to make it clear that we have acknowledged, I hope fulsomely, the work the Minister has done on this. I acknowledge also the acceptance that what we have deliberated on in Committee and in meetings has influenced the Bill but if we are now saying that in a sense we have come to a full stop, I wonder what progress we can make. However, I will carry on with the argument.
As far as the start date is concerned, I simply do not accept the point that the insurers did not know until July 2012 that there was the expectation that a scheme would be set up. From what the Minister has told us, there have been two years of intense negotiations, generally with the ABI, which has had to discuss matters and negotiate with a range of insurers. There was an intense process under way, as we understand it, and therefore it must have been very clear to insurers that something was very likely to come from this and that was going to be the sort of scheme that has now emerged. I do not accept that the first insurers knew about it was the point when we said: “Here is the document. This is what we are going do”.
Lord Freud
I just want to clarify the point about the expectations or otherwise of the insurance industry. From our negotiations, which went on for a long time —more than a year; I cannot remember exactly—it would have been anticipating that the specific insurers with historic liability would have been pinned down in a completely different way from this levy. We spent an enormous amount of time working on that. As I have already told the House, my first instinct was to try to get the actual insurers that wrote the liability to find the money out of their balance sheets. I judged that the legal risks to that approach were high—not impossible, but high—and we therefore switched to this other approach. Actually, the expectations that the industry might have had would not have been set anything like as early as noble Lords might think.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
Again, I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation, but it seems to me that the expectations were not set only at the point of July 2012. On the cost that the Minister has outlined, I understand that it has reduced from the original figure of £119 million. I do not think that the figures that the Minister has given reflect any additional benefit recovery potential that would come from having two more years in the scheme, or know whether that was fed in to any analysis of how it might impact on the spreading that would arise from that. Maybe we will have to have that discussion on another occasion. I do not think that we are going to see eye to eye on this.
On Amendments 5 and 6, the noble Lord prayed in aid a technical deficiency of the drafting. I have done it myself; I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Deben, who advised generally against that. The thrust of the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Browne, was that, whether it is the employer liability route or the public liability route, you are basically coming back to the same insurers. Obviously, the Minister’s point about there being some hope for the self-employed —being able to argue that in certain circumstances they were de facto employees—is helpful.
We do not accept the proposition that the start date should be the 2012 date. February 2010 is a better date. That was when the expectation was effectively created. In fact, when you look at it, the insurers ended up with a lesser scheme than was proposed in February, so their expectation should have been of a higher obligation arising from that. A broader bureau was consulted on at that time. Having said all that, I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Freud
Lord Freud
Lord Freud
Lord James of Blackheath
My Lords, before the Minister replies, I should like to return to a point that came up in Committee and to try to set the industry context in which these misunderstandings, particularly those of the noble Lord, Lord Browne, are occurring. I should declare my interests. I was an elected member of the Council of Lloyd’s throughout the whole six years of its rescue; I was in the somewhat unhappy position of being chairman of its audit committee for those six years; and, finally, I was chairman of the committee that created Equitas. I have twice stood trial in America for the fraudulent signing of the audit certificate of Lloyd’s, of which I was fortunately acquitted each time, as it was a 25-year mandatory sentence. I therefore have some perspective on these affairs.
The noble Lord, Lord Browne, has a fundamental misunderstanding. There is no such thing as an insurance industry in the context in which all these liabilities were first conceived. Insurance companies do not exist. They have morphed into what is now, effectively, a vast international reinsurance market, where all these liabilities have been swept up and eventually reinsured with each other until they are all divided up against the entire global insurance market. Lloyd’s itself is now wholly owned by Berkshire Hathaway and the negotiations will, therefore, have to be entirely with Berkshire Hathaway and its chairman—good luck in getting charity from him.
The context, therefore, is not that there are a lot of companies waiting to have separate negotiations. You have to hold negotiations with something like Swiss Re, as it will represent the entire financial community which has come together to provide a collective bond to underwrite, first of all, Lloyd’s, and then everywhere else. The negotiation is very difficult for the Minister to undertake and it is in that context that I know he will now answer us.
Lord Freud
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for tabling these amendments. I will start with those relating to the rate of payment and then I will turn to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, on the recovery of payments over £110,000. The amendments tabled by the noble Lords, Lord McKenzie and Lord Wigley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, seek to ensure a minimum level of scheme payment at either 100% or 80% of the value of an average mesothelioma civil damages claim. I completely understand and appreciate that noble Lords would like to see payment levels that are closer to, if not equal to or above, those of average civil damages. Equally, I take from our debates that I have noble Lords’ full support in wanting to guarantee that we get the maximum possible payment for people who, through no fault of their own, clearly cannot bring a case against an employer or their employer’s insurers. As we have often discussed, the funds to provide these payments are to be raised through a levy imposed on the active insurance market. The amount of levy to be imposed, and consequently the amount we can pay eligible people, has been determined following considerable work and negotiation.
Perhaps I may pick up the point about incentives made by the noble Lord, Lord Howarth. We have not made that argument. To the extent that it has appeared in some of the earlier texts on this Bill, I think it reflects a shape that was somewhat different when that argument might have applied. We have not made it. It is not relevant to this particular scheme. The noble Lord, Lord Browne, made the point in reverse. I actually give the credit for the 130% to the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, who proposed it originally. I have taken that point in a somewhat different way. That is what has driven the discussions with the FCA and led to its much tighter determination to have an effective incentive for insurance companies to do the tracing that they should do and to ramp up the tracing effect.
We have a duty here to do our best to ensure that costs are not passed on willy-nilly to British industry and that the levy works in that way. At that time, many of the insurers were not necessarily in the business on the same scale that they are today. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Browne, has asked for a full analysis. My noble friend Lord James gave him a picture of the kind of capital pools we are talking about. That is what insurance essentially is, with companies acting as agents. It is extraordinarily hard, but there is already a big split—I do not have reliable figures: I thought I had, but they are not reliable enough to quote in public—between a large number of run-off companies that are not active anymore, many of which are in run-off, which is the polite way of saying they have given up administration, because of some of the liabilities that they took. That needs to be monitored, which is difficult to do. There is also the matter of the market share of these companies. They may have been active for 50 years, but their market share may have changed dramatically. There is also the fact that some may have kept very good records while others have not, leading to a double whammy effect. Those that have paid up, because they have really good records, are probably those from which we are trying to take more money through this levy. I do not have a market analysis of the kind that the noble Lord, Lord Browne, wants, but I am confident in saying that nobody else has either.
Let us move on to where we have got to. Thanks to the combined and consistent pressure on the insurance industry from both the Government and noble Lords, we have secured what I could call a reluctant agreement from insurers that the scheme payments will now be set at 75% of average civil compensation. I emphasise again the important role played by noble Lords in getting that outcome. I am grateful for that. I have already talked about the different assumptions of the Government and the industry regarding the volume of applications. The insurers have based their calculations on their own figures, which they think will require a levy of close to 3% of their gross written premium.
This has been a tough negotiation and even those with whom the Government were negotiating have had a tough job persuading others in that industry that there is an affordable package here. We want more, but this is a significant move from the insurance industry. If we could pay people more, we would, but this is a balancing act. If we were to go up to 80% or 100%, we would be very concerned about the costs being passed straight on to British industry. Indeed, a key concern that I have had about the structure of the scheme is that that should not happen, or that the risks of it happening should be minimised, and that is what the smoothing mechanism for the first four years is about. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Browne, will not like me saying this but there could be delay and delay and a full renegotiation is quite a painful process, as I know he will understand better than virtually anyone else.
On the point about the 3% made by the noble Lord, Lord Wills, I have been fully on the record since the beginning of the afternoon about the two points relating to the CPI and, more importantly, about our intention to review the matter at the end of the smoothing period. I hope that he appreciates how far that goes towards meeting his concerns.
Your Lordships have been very generous in what they have said about this matter but I think that a real expression of gratitude here would be if the noble Lord did not call a vote on this. That is the kind of gratitude that I understand and appreciate.
Before I close, I shall turn quickly to the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, which would allow the scheme to recover a scheme payment already paid only if the amount of the payment was above £110,000. Clause 4 is intended to allow the scheme to recover any payment, or part payment, in specified circumstances. Those specified circumstances will form part of the regulations setting up the scheme and will be debated in due course. However, the intention is that a payment that has been made in error will be subject to repayment. This amendment would allow the scheme to recover a payment made in error only if that payment was above £110,000. Payments of £110,000 or less could never be recovered.
If someone receives a payment and it is subsequently established that the payment was made in error or obtained as a result of some fraud or misrepresentation—it does not happen very often but there are one or two examples—it is right that the person who received that sort of payment should be asked to repay it, regardless of the level of the payment. It would not be appropriate to allow someone to keep any payment if it had been established that they were not eligible for it. It would clearly be unfair to allow one person to keep a payment of £110,000 but to recover a payment of £110,000 and a penny paid to someone else.
It may be that the noble Lord’s amendment is intended to address the recovery of social security benefits and government lump sums from scheme payments, but the amendment as drafted does not achieve that. Provision for compensation recovery is dealt with in Clause 11 and Part 1 of Schedule 1, although I acknowledge that, like one or two other bits of the Bill, they are somewhat impenetrable.
The noble Lord’s intention may be to prevent the scheme administrator reducing scheme payments in order to offset the cost of repaying recoverable benefits and lump sums to the Secretary of State of £110,000 or less. Recovery of benefits legislation applies where a person makes any payment to or in respect of another person in consequence of an accident, injury or disease and specified social security benefits or lump-sum payments have been paid in respect of the same incident. This is the basic principle of not receiving money or being compensated twice—the use of the word “compensation” here is more casual than legal—and we believe that that principle should apply here.
The other effect is that a person could receive a scheme payment plus benefits and a lump sum. That would mean that some people could well end up in a more advantageous position than someone receiving the full amount of compensation directly from an employer or traced insurer, which clearly cannot be right. I appreciate the noble Lord’s intention to maximise the amount that people with mesothelioma can receive but this is simply not the way to achieve that end. Therefore, I urge him not to press the amendment.
Lord Freud