Mesothelioma Bill [HL]

Lord McKenzie of Luton Excerpts

Wednesday 5th June 2013 Grand Committee

The format in which an annual report should be published and the procedures whereby Parliament would examine that annual report and hold the Government to account on it are for consideration. However, I would suggest that its content should include details on the body that is administering the scheme, the levy, the volume of cases, the proportion of mesothelioma sufferers who are assisted by way of this scheme, the speed and ease of the procedures for claimants, information on how the portal is working, the activities of the technical committee, how many cases have gone to arbitration, the range of payments that are made under the scheme and their relation to court awards, what the legal outlays for the scheme have been, the number of appeals and of cases that go to the tribunal, the amounts recovered by the Department for Work and Pensions in different categories, the administrative costs of the scheme, and any modifications or reforms that the Secretary of State might be minded to propose. No doubt there are other matters that could usefully be included. I hope that Parliament would also make it a practice to debate the annual report each year.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, we have added our Front Bench names to Amendments 1 and 4 and concur with the two amendments of my noble friend Lord Howarth. I think that the arguments have been fully and effectively made and I do not think that I need to add anything. I take the Minister’s reply to be, “Yes, but not quite yet”, and that is comforting. It is a good way to start our deliberations today.

We are all grateful that we have now seen a draft of the scheme. It arrived this morning at 11.55 am, according to my machine. I wish to make the point that should there arise, after we have had a chance to study it, issues that we might otherwise have parsed today as these amendments go through, we could perhaps use our next opportunity to revisit them. This is not to slow up the overall process but to ensure that we make best use of the draft that we have.

We have also added our names to Amendment 6, about the annual report to Parliament. I concur with my noble friend’s list of issues to be covered. I would add that later in our deliberations we will consider our broader amendment which refers to the possibility of an oversight committee to oversee very much the same type of issues as my noble friend raised, in particular to deal with the issue that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, raised. One of the concerns that we have throughout the Bill is the extensive engagement and powers that the insurance industry has—the administrator, the technical committee, ELTO setting up the portal. The oversight committee would be one way of at least addressing that scope in the interests of the sufferers. I think that that is for debate on Monday.

My noble friend’s Amendment 3 requires the Secretary of State to publish proposals and make a Statement to Parliament before establishing the scheme. Clause 1(3) currently requires the Secretary of State to,

“publish the scheme as amended from time to time”.

Does the Minister take this requirement as covering my noble friend’s aspiration in Amendment 3? If so, will he put that on the record?

[Lord Avebury]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

Therefore, I ask the Minister to clarify: first, whether the territorial extent of the Bill means that other schemes are available in Northern Ireland; and, secondly, whether there will be consistency in this matter. I also say to the Minister that, while I understand the point about the insurers—and they have a fair point—at the end of the day we have been pushing and shoving this issue for years. Let us settle it; let us finish it; and let us do whatever we have to do. I urge that upon the Minister.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, I would like to add a few points to the very extensive and knowledgeable debate that has taken place. It seems that some very telling points have been made and pressed upon the Minister about the scope of the scheme before us, which it seems reasonable to address. I would just say that we would want to be doing so in a way which does not hold up the core of this scheme. I hope that we have common ground on that issue.

In relation to the self-employed, can the Minister clarify quite what definitions we are using here? Over the years in various circumstances, the differentiation between somebody who is employed and somebody who is self-employed is quite narrow. We know that in some industries—the construction industry in particular—self-employment arrangements were, in a sense, manufactured when the reality was that there was an employment. That might have been done for tax reasons or for other reasons, so clarification of the definition of “employee” and “employer” for the purposes of the Bill would be helpful.

The issues raised by my noble friend Lord Browne are of particular interest in relation to those who were not necessarily formally employed but for whom the negligence of an employer might have caused them to contract mesothelioma. That is important because through the Child Maintenance and Other Payments Act 2008—it was the other payments that related to mesothelioma—the last Government introduced a support scheme for those who contracted mesothelioma but not directly because of employment. If those employers or their insurers can now or could in the future be reached, it seems that the Government themselves have an interest in recouping some of the compensation paid, which I hope can be redeployed to improve those schemes for others.

In relation to Northern Ireland, as I understand it this provision in the Act does apply there. I also understand that the two statutory schemes which we have, in the 1979 Act and the 2008 Act, are in fact replicated by legislation in Northern Ireland. Certainly, that was negotiated at the time. There have been some very important issues raised, which I know will create some challenges for the Minister. In doing so, I hope that we will keep our eye on ensuring that we make progress on the scheme that is before us.

[Lord Freud]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, for these amendments. Clearly, their intention is to make the payments under this scheme available to a wider group. The two groups, specifically, are the self-employed and those who caught it on a secondary basis by living in the same household as a person exposed to asbestos.

The way in which Clause 2(1)(a) works is that it requires the person with diffuse mesothelioma to have been an employee of an employer who was required, at the time of the person’s exposure to asbestos, by the compulsory insurance legislation to maintain insurance covering any liability arising because of exposure to asbestos, or who would have been had that legislation been in force at the time. I hear my noble friend Lord Empey saying, “Solve the whole thing once and for all”, but this Bill is, regrettably, designed to fix a market failure. There is a failure of insurers and employers to retain adequate records of the employer’s liability insurance, and to make sure that those employees who cannot trace through in order to bring a civil claim actually get a payment. So, widening the list of people who receive payments beyond the legal position would impose a disproportionate burden on the employer liability insurers who will fund the scheme through a levy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

What happens is that insurers have to provide that they have sufficient funds to meet their liabilities. The levy is a hypothecated tax that they have to pay so that their ability to meet their liabilities is monitored by the Financial Conduct Authority, the FCA—or the FSA, to those of us using old money. The insurer could not pre-empt the outcome of the consultation. That was something that they could not do and did not do, as I understand it.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

Can the Minister expand on that point? I understand the need to provide for liabilities, but is that not separate from the scheme payment? We only get a scheme payment if in fact the insurer is not liable, or only liable in respect of paying the levy. I do not understand the analysis that he has just made.

[Lord Freud]

What the insurer has to do, as I understand it, is to provide for future liabilities. Through an elaborate process with its accountants and the FCA, it has to provide the appropriate amount on reasonable assumptions. It is quite a formalised process. That is the process that we are looking at here.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

That is one of the central issues with imposing a levy based on the existing market share. There is a risk that that will happen if we push up the levy too much, particularly if there is a sharp increase. As noble Lords are aware, the way in which these matters normally work is through a sharing of the levy. The likelihood is that some of the levy may be passed on in the marketplace. However, the levels at which we have established the levy—and the smoothing mechanism to which the noble Lord, Lord Browne, referred was part of it—were achieved by taking some of those other payments and circulating them in the first year to give us the best possible chance that the insurance industry will absorb the bulk of the levy.

I shall now provide the figures that noble Lords have been waiting for so incredibly patiently. If this scheme started on 20 or 21 February 2010, the extra costs would be £119 million. As to the undated amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, our best estimate is that if we went back to 1968, the figure would be £747 million. Clearly, a large number of assumptions were made in reaching that figure.

I would just like to finish off the figures. I am not going to spend too much time going over the noble Lord’s “cornucopia” argument. I just want to make this simple point: one of the things that the insurance industry does, at least when it is in a competitive position, is look to build in what the returns on its reserves and its income may be when it sets rates. It is not just a kind of a surprise—“We got all this extra money out of those returns!”—but is built into the marketplace. Otherwise, everyone in the whole world would become an insurance operator, and we would all have been wasting our time because it would have been a free lunch. There is some competition in the market. Clearly it is a very interesting and complicated market, and it depends on how much capital goes in and out of it. Let us not go into that. We have had a lot of debate about the more general issues, but I just thought that I would touch on that.

As insurers were able to start the reserve only from 25 July last year, any attempt to back-date eligibility further could jeopardise the scheme and bog it down in legal challenges from insurers on the costs. I know that noble Lords would like to do more, as indeed would the Government, but we need to consider the effect of an open-ended scheme against one that can be afforded whose costs can be absorbed as much as possible by the insurance industry without putting pressure on it to increase insurance premiums and transfer the extra costs on to current employers.

Clearly, any date will mean that some people miss out. Choosing the dates in the amendments would mean that more people received the payment, but there would still be people who did not. On balance, I believe that pinning eligibility to a date when people with diffuse mesothelioma had a reasonable expectation of payment and insurers knew when they needed to start to reserve the levy, represents the best that we can do. I am not in a position to provide or mention anything on legal advice that we may or may not have received by convention, which noble Lords will be fully aware of.

I need to make the point that social security benefits and existing lump-sum schemes will continue to provide early support for people with the disease who were diagnosed from before the 25 July date. I therefore urge the noble Lord—

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

Will the Minister confirm whether the £119 million is gross or net of benefit recovery?

[Lord Freud]

I think that it is net, but I will have to write with the right answer to that. I urge the noble Lords and the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Empey]

My Lords, I hope that the Minister did not think that I was being flippant in my earlier intervention when I said that I hoped we could finish off all the related issues. I understand what the Minister is confronted with. It is a serious business. He has put a lot of work into it and there is no doubt that there is advancement here. With so many people here supporting this amendment and talking in favour of it, he might also feel that it is not necessarily for him alone, in that there are other departmental interests to be taken into account. Perhaps between now and Report he could consult with some of his colleagues, because the contributions that have been made by people who really know what they are talking about have been very impressive.

It is amazing that as a nation we have not taken this issue sufficiently seriously, but at least we have an opportunity to spark a change. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, with his track record on this, has been trying to achieve this for a long time. Perhaps we have a confluence of events here that might actually bring this about. The levy issue is not an issue. It can be dealt with. I am unclear whether this is the right mechanism, or even the right Bill, but there is something here to be achieved and I think it can be done without a huge drain on public resources. I accept that the Minister is trying hard. Perhaps this is not the moment for him to respond to us, but perhaps he will discuss it with his colleagues in the Government.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, we support the concept of insurers contributing to fund research to find new treatments for mesothelioma. Indeed, three years ago we were involved in encouraging the industry in what was originally a £3 million commitment over three years. However, we do that principally because of the passionate, compelling and authoritative case that we have heard over the past hour, led by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and stimulated by the comparison between the stark number that this dreadful disease kills and the funding that has gone to address and ameliorate it. The issue of stimulating a national research effort is hugely important.

Like other noble Lords, I do not know whether this is the appropriate mechanism and I shall be interested to hear the Minister’s comments, but the noble Lord, Lord Alton, seems to have covered all the issues on hypothecation, the Human Rights Act and a fee rather than a levy. That is a pretty impressive effort. Like the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, I support a variable approach rather than a fixed amount, but those are points of detail.

Will the Minister share with us his discussions with the Department of Health, which he has referred to before? In particular, have any of his extensive negotiations with the insurance industry about the payment scheme focused on ongoing contributions to research? What is the current attitude of the industry?

[Lord Freud]

Well, my Lords, I feel like adding my name to the amendment.

I have spent an enormous amount of time on this issue, for exactly the reason that noble Lords have all focused on. Something very odd is happening here when so little money has gone into research in this area. Bluntly, I was pursuing the concept of a one-for-one match, where the insurance industry and the state would come in. I will go into why I have hit a brick wall at every turn on that, which is why it is not in the Bill.

However, rather than being negative, I have talked to everyone but, in particular, tried to understand why we have not had state research on this. I have talked to Dame Sally Davies and the Department of Health, trying to work a way through. There is currently a bit of a chicken-and-egg situation as, before the Medical Research Council will accept research, it has to be of what the council calls “high-quality propositions”. I buy the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, on some of the quality research that is now on offer, so there is an opportunity to go forward there. The odd thing is that this is a Bill about the insurance industry and its contribution to that particular levy, when it is actually the insurance industry that has ponied up £3 million of its money and got this research going. What seems odd to me is the way that this is not happening on the other side.

I will now do what I do not want to do, which is to go into why that is so difficult with this Bill and why I have not been able to incorporate something like this. I was going to have a strap on the levy that we could just throw in and match up, but the limitation is that my department is allowed to raise funds only within its own remit, and medical research lies within the auspices of the Department of Health. We do not have the freedom to raise funds for research within a DWP-sponsored Bill. One of the issues with hypothecated research like this is that, from the point of view of the Department of Health, that cuts across its strategy of directing funds at quality research. This is how we have ended up in this odd chicken-and-egg position. I have simply not been able to find a way, in terms of the levy, to get this into the Bill.

So what is to be done? I have discussed this with my noble friend Lord Howe at considerable length. There needs to be a kick-start process to get research going here. We are proposing to get a conference going, which we will jointly host—and I would welcome as much support as possible from noble Lords—to try to get this on the agenda so that it gets the kind of support that it should.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

I take from this a weight of feeling and, bluntly, the best thing that I can do is to take it back in to Government; my department is almost not relevant in this area. In a sense, I do not think that that is the issue. The irony is that those in the insurance industry are the only ones who have been paying anything of any substance in this area. This is, if you like, directed at the wrong area. As the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, said, why is this not of some strategic importance?

My feedback from the Department of Health and Sally Davies is that they are aware that it is odd that so little is spent on this disease. However, I think that that is where the problem lies and that it is a kind of chicken-and-egg situation. In a way, the insurance industry is in the position of the gambling industry, which has a voluntary scheme and has been spending money voluntarily. It does not need this pressure. What we need to worry about is: how much, as a country, are we spending on this disease?

I hope that noble Lords can hear that I am enormously sympathetic to what lies behind the amendment, and I am not only sympathetic because I have had a hard time this afternoon; I have been spending six months of the year running around on this issue, a bit like a mad mouse in a wheel, trying to find a way through.

This debate has been valuable. The next stage is to have a major event—my noble friend Lord Howe and I even have a date in the diary—where we start to do something about this and get something going. That is really what we are looking for, rather than something more mechanistic, such as what is proposed here, which I cannot do.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

I think that we all recognise the Minister’s commitment to this issue. However, has any thought been given to whether this could be channelled through the HSE, which falls within the purview of the DWP?

[Lord Freud]

To be honest, I do not think that we have looked at that as an option. I will have another look around the wheel to see what there is, but where I have come out is that we need a mainstream effort with the people who are interested in this matter to push it up the agenda of the country. We need to say, “This needs research and it will take a decent share of the budget that is available for cancers in this country”.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

12: Clause 2, page 1, line 18, after “an” insert “successful”

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, this is, I hope, a brief and probing amendment. To be eligible for a payment under the scheme, Clause 2(1)(c) requires that a person has not brought an action against an employer or insurer and is unable to do so. The amendment requires that action to be successful. The implication is that an unsuccessful action would not preclude access to the payment scheme.

I have had some contact with the Bill team on this, and I think that the government response will be that if an action cannot be successful, it would necessarily preclude access to the payment scheme, because the conditions could not be met. I wonder whether that is necessarily so. What if an action were against an employer found not to be the right one but when the right one had gone out of business and the insurer could not be identified? Similarly, if an insurer were pursued by an action but proved to be the wrong one, why should that then preclude access to the scheme? I beg to move.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton]

My Lords, I support my noble friend’s amendment, although I think that there is a more elegant way of dealing with the issue. Frankly, and I hope that the Committee—particularly the Minister—will agree, I do not understand why Clause 2(1)(c) is there at all. It does not seem to make any sense.

The clause has two parts to it. The second part is that the person who is diagnosed with diffuse mesothelioma will be eligible for the payment only if he or she is unable to bring an action against an employer or insurer because the relevant employer or insurer cannot be found or no longer exists. I cannot envisage any circumstances in which anyone could have brought an action against some person who cannot be found or did not exist. I do not understand why that conditionality is there at all. I can envisage the sort of circumstances that my noble friend suggests, which are that an action was brought wrongfully against the wrong employer or the wrong insurer, but why should that disqualify someone from making a claim and receiving a payment from the scheme because they made a mistake in the past and thought that they had the right employer or insurer?

I urge the Minister to take that away and perhaps rephrase the clause to provide that a person who has been unable to bring an action against the relevant employer or any relevant insurer for damages in respect of the disease because the employer and insurer cannot be found or no longer exist, or for any other reason. That seems to be the answer. I do not understand why that part of the clause is there at all.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Browne for his intervention and for challenging the subsection more substantially than my probing amendment. Given that the Minister has promised to write, the best thing that I can do in the circumstances is to beg leave to withdraw the amendment and look forward to reading the correspondence in due course. It seems that we may return to this.

Amendment 12 withdrawn.

Moved by

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

13: Clause 2, page 2, line 20, at end insert “but shall exclude payments made under the Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) Act 1979 and the Child Maintenance and Other Payments Act 2008”

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, Amendment 13 is another probing amendment which addresses another aspect of eligibility. Under Clause 2(1)(d), it is a requirement that a person has not received damages or a specified payment in respect of diffuse mesothelioma, specified payments to be defined in regulations. This probing amendment is to clarify that any payments receivable under the Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) Act 1979 and Section 47 of the Child Maintenance and Other Payments Act 2008 are not to be treated as specified payments. Such payments may be recoverable under benefit recovery provisions, but their receipt would not deny access to the scheme.

From a discussion with the Bill team a few days ago, I understand that that is the case, but it would be very helpful if the Minister could put that on the record and say something about what other types of arrangement—I think that term of renewal has been mentioned—will be included in specified payments.

Amendment 41 is grouped and is another probing amendment. Clause 13(2)(b) enables the Secretary of State in setting the levy to deduct the amount of any recovery of benefits. That would therefore reduce the amount borne by insurers. Clearly, the principle which should apply generally is that any benefit recovery accrues to the Government, not to insurers. However, it is understood that this provision is to apply only to the initial period of the scheme, where benefit recovery in respect of cases diagnosed from July 2012 to March 2015 will be used to fund the scheme. If that is the case, again, perhaps we can have that on the record. In any event, perhaps the Minister can explain the analysis behind the government contribution and why in the scheme of things any contribution should be made. I beg to move.

[Lord Freud]

I thank the noble Lord for the amendments. The intention of Amendment 13 is to ensure that a person who receives a state lump sum payment under the Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) Act 1979 or the Section 47 of the Child Maintenance and Other Payments Act 2008 would not be excluded from receiving a scheme payment.

One of the conditions for entitlement for a payment under the scheme was that a person has not received damages or a specified payment in respect of diffuse mesothelioma and is not eligible to receive a specified payment. The meaning of “a specified payment” will be given by regulation. Broadly speaking, specified payments are those which are not compensation but are paid in respect of the person’s mesothelioma. That does not include government lump-sum payments. Therefore, the amendment has no effect on our intentions.

The amendment does not cover the equivalent Northern Ireland legislation, so it creates an imbalance between how applications in Northern Ireland will be dealt with compared to applications made elsewhere in the United Kingdom. To go through which payments will be specified, as the noble Lord requested—it may be easier for me to supply a letter—they are the naval, military and air forces, the Armed Forces and Reserve Forces, the UK Asbestos Trust and the EL Scheme Trust established in 2006. I will write to him to get that on the record.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his explanation. It has confirmed the position, which was the reason for the probe. Could he say a little more about the imbalance with Northern Ireland? I am not sure that I altogether follow the point that he was making.

[Lord Freud]

We do not have the legislation to match. I am not sure that, off the top of my head, I can be precise about what the practical implications of that are. Let me come back in writing on that. Northern Ireland has its own schemes. I must be precise on how they interrelate in responding to the noble Lord.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

I am grateful to the noble Lord and happy to receive a letter in due course. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 13 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

15: Clause 4, page 3, line 4, at end insert “but shall be not less than 100% of the average damages recovered by claimants in mesothelioma cases”

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, as the Minister will be aware, while I am supportive of the scheme that he brings forward, there is a need for key improvements. Foremost among these is the proposed level of scheme payments. We have seen nothing definitive, but the impact assessment suggests that it could be pitched at 70% of the tariff. The tariff will be set in age bands of one year and it is understood that it will be based on average compensation awards of claimants and dependants, in respect of those diagnosed with diffuse mesothelioma. The impact assessment also states that by linking payments to age, the overall cost of the scheme will be reduced because of the rise in age of those diagnosed.

The suggested likely level of payout of 70% is the component of the scheme which most noble Lords at Second Reading considered unacceptable. An increase in this level of payment is the most important change we can make to the Bill. It is difficult to pin this down in the primary legislation but we need to have something clear in the Bill. What levels of payment are actually made depends upon the computation of average compensation claims as well as the percentage award.

As to average compensation claims, we need to be assured that this is a fair basis for constructing the tariff and that it does not unfairly depress the amount of compensation claims which would have been payable to scheme beneficiaries had they been able to access compensation on an individual basis. There is no inherent reason why the cohort of scheme claimants should not reflect the average of those accessing compensation in the usual way.

We have seen the national institute’s statistical note, which merits more detailed scrutiny. However, we have not seen that translated into a tariff schedule which supports the impact assessment levy calculations. When might this be available? The national institute note sets out various measures of average compensation, including the arithmetic mean, the median and a variety of trimmed means. Which average is to be used?

Table 3.4 of the paper sets down some average compensation tabulations but it is unclear whether either of model 2 or model 4 will be adopted. Further, it would appear that in Scotland, for example, actual awards are on average some £60,000 higher than in the rest of the UK. Is this right and are there any other large regional disparities of which we should be aware?

At Second Reading the Minister referred to setting payment figures at 70% as a “real juggling act”. The argument runs that if the levy is small, in a reasonably competitive market providers will absorb it and not seek to pass the cost on to British industry. The impact assessment points to research both ways on this matter, although it also suggests that it is worth noting that even if insurers did pass the costs on to employers the impact on employer customers is likely to be relatively low.

The argument being used to significantly depress payments to sufferers of mesothelioma is thin to say the least. Where is the evidence that at a 3% level they will absorb the costs but above that they will not? Is it not the case that there is a variety of issues and costs which will feature in employer’s liability insurance pricing and that these policies might anyway be bundled with other insurance products? Even taking the Government’s argument at face value, their position cannot be justified.

Taking into account the government contribution in year one, the levy on insurers is, on average, estimated to be 2.24% of a 70% level of payment. This would imply an average level of some 3.2% if the payment were set at a 100% level, an extra 1% of gross written premiums, or £15 million per year over the 10-year period. From the point of view of the insurance industry, this would not appear to be an unmanageable additional amount.

It should be borne in mind that the industry is still not bearing the costs of other asbestos-related and long-term diseases where employer’s liability policies cannot be traced. The Minister has suggested that the diffuse mesothelioma scheme covers 70% of the payment amount that would fall due if there were full coverage, so there is benefit still accruing to the sector just because old policies have been lost or destroyed.

However, this aside, we should not be looking at this only from the point of view of the insurance sector. We need to give full consideration to those affected by this terrible disease. If their condition is a result of negligent workplace practices, why should support for them be discounted by 30%? Indeed, on a matter that we have to pursue in the future, we remain to be convinced that the scheme payment could not be subject to greater benefit recovery than a composite level of compensation payment. However, we will return to that issue.

If it is right—and it is—that payments should be made, they should be the full compensation equivalent. It has taken a long time for a scheme to be developed and we continue to pay tribute to the Minister for advancing this, but there is no excuse for now short-changing those who, we all agree, should get justice. I beg to move.

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

My Lords, my Amendment 18 is grouped with Amendment 15, just moved by my noble friend Lord McKenzie, and it drives at very much the same purpose. Both of us seek to ensure that the scheme payments will match the average of court awards for people in comparable circumstances, thereby lifting the figure from 70% of the tariff to 100%.

I have not been able to discern any principled basis for this figure of 70%. I think that it was the best deal that the Minister could secure. I do not underestimate his achievement in securing that deal against an insurance industry that for decades fought a rearguard action to try to escape from its proper liabilities. At Second Reading, the Minister told the House of the press investigations into the mesothelioma scandal in its various dimensions from 1965 onwards. As time went by, we understand that policies went missing wholesale. As the Minister also told us at Second Reading, it was not until 1999 that the industry created a code of practice for the better tracing of employer’s liability policies.

As I said in an earlier debate, I do not think that Parliament needs to feel that it is bound by the deal that the Minister has secured with the industry. We respect the Minister’s efforts in securing that deal but it is our duty to take a view on where the public interest lies, and I do not believe that it lies in palpable injustice or in the convenience of the insurance industry at the expense of mesothelioma victims. It is surely unacceptable that mesothelioma victims should be penalised because, through no fault of theirs, documents have gone missing, and it is unacceptable that the insurers, whose duty it was to keep proper files, should benefit to the tune of 30% in precisely those cases where they failed in their responsibilities.

The Minister will argue to us again, I think, that there needs to be a discount in order to incentivise claimants to go to the courts first. However, I am not persuaded by that argument because it seems to me that the procedures of the scheme—the portal and the remit of the technical committee—will all ensure that they do go to the courts first if they can and that they pursue that avenue until they find that they cannot proceed satisfactorily or successfully along it. Be that as it may, in any case a 30% discount is simply too large. The Financial Services Compensation Scheme provides cover for 90% of the liabilities of insolvent insurers where insurance is compulsory. That 90% should be the very minimum and 100% would be right.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

It is always a dangerous thing to base it on a moral argument, particularly in this area. It is a differentiated industry. There is a group which we are now looking at to shoulder this. There was an enormous amount of negotiation in getting to this level of levy. That then feeds into the amount that we can pay eligible people. You could have an infinite amount of levy but if we went too high, the risk would be very clear. The genuine danger is that it would just go straight to British industry. Many of the insurers who will be paying it were not in business at the time or may have kept good records, so there is a differentiation within the industry.

If we could pay people more, of course we would. This is a balancing act and 70% is the compromise that we have arrived at after long negotiations. I hope that noble Lords can appreciate that there is a real achievement here in getting very substantial payments to people who are eligible, if they are afflicted by this terrible disease. I urge the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply, none of which comes as a surprise. I thank all noble Lords who have participated in this debate and supported the amendment. My noble friend Lord Wills urged the Minister to convey the strength of opinion about the level of payment. The noble Lord, Lord Wigley, referred to the fact that this sort of horse-trading did not go on when the 1979 Act scheme was being put in place. I think that my noble friend Lord Howarth dealt with the point about why it is not unreasonable for the insurers still in the market to bear the full costs of compensation. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, reminded us that everybody who spoke at Second Reading opposed this 70% level. I was rather attracted to my noble friend Lady Donaghy’s proposition of 130%; perhaps we might try that.

The Minister says that it is wrong to deal with this as a moral issue. I am not sure that that is right or something that I would agree with. I took it from what he said that the negotiation was around the rate of the levy, which then drove the compensation levels, rather than the rest. In that case, I am interested in a negotiation that would end up with a levy of 2.24%. How on earth was that arrived at? Why was it not 2.25% or 2.26%, or 3%? To have that driving the outcome seems a little strange, but in any event it is unacceptable.

I am grateful for the fact that it looks as though we will get the tariff tables tomorrow. That is obviously a key part of this. The percentage is key, but it depends what it is a percentage of. We will have to see how that all works out and which of those averages have been taken in compiling that schedule.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

Perhaps I may quickly clear up that matter. When you look at the totals, you have to take into account the effect of the extra two years, because we are starting with two years in hand. So the first year counts as three years, which we are going to smooth over the first four years. Therefore, in practice we start off with a much bigger amount of money. The 2.24% is a raw figure, if you like; it is not going to affect how much the levy will be when it is smoothed.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

I accept that point, but is not part of the smoothing in the early years being done by government contribution?

[Lord Freud]

It is a very small amount. We will actually do the smoothing over the years. Turning round the recoveries is only one year’s work, so that is a small amount of it.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

I think that £17 million is the cost of the government contribution. I still do not think that we have had a definitive answer to the question of the impact on all this, if any, of what is happening in the pre-action protocol and all the negotiations that are going on there. From submissions that we have had from the ABI, it is clear that it sees that as part of a wider integrated package. I do not know whether the Minister can say anything about the extent, if any, to which the negotiations took account of what was happening there or was likely to happen and how that impacted on the negotiations.

However, ultimately we have heard nothing that convinces us that the 2.24% is where we stop in this calculation. We will continue to press for an increase. We will help the Minister in taking this back to the industry and making it understand how strongly we feel about it, and how it must not, and cannot, rest where it does.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Colwyn)]

Does the noble Lord wish to withdraw the amendment?

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

I do not know whether the Minister has anything further to say.

[Lord Freud]

I simply urge the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

Before I do, is the Minister going to say anything about the MoJ consultation?

[Lord Freud]

There is not much that I can add to what I said at Second Reading. Clearly, there is a consultation on the level of costs, on the pre-action protocol and on the portal, but I cannot pre-judge what that might come out with. It is clearly an extensive consultation and it will be starting in a matter of months.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

Can the Minister just say whether any of that featured in the discussions and negotiations that he had around the levy?

[Lord Freud]

Yes. It was important to the industry that the MoJ undertook to look at those issues. That was reinforced by the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, to the LASPO Bill, which was predicated on there being a consultation ahead of pulling the mesothelioma cases inside the LASPO framework.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

I shall read the record on that and I may return to the point in due course. However, given the hour, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 15 withdrawn.