Mesothelioma Bill [Lords]

Public Bill Committee, 12 December 2013.

Clause 4 - Payments

Stephen Phillips (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

I beg to move amendment 22, in clause 4, page 3, line 10, leave out from ‘dependant’ to end and add

‘apportioned in such manner as the scheme shall direct’.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Mr Davies. For whatever reason, you are being punished by having to listen to me a lot.

The amendment will allow the Minister to deal with why clause 4 provides, as I understand it, that when there is more than one eligible dependant who receives compensation under the scheme proposed under the Bill, that compensation will be equally divided between the eligible dependants. The Bill achieves that simply by stating that

“where there are two or more eligible dependants, the amount for each of them is the amount for a single eligible dependant divided by the number of eligible dependants in the case in question.”

As a result, when there is more than one eligible dependant, the compensation will be equally divided between them.

Eligible dependants are dealt with in clause 3, which we have already debated and in which their entitlements are set out. The definition of an eligible dependant under clause 18—perhaps there is something even in clause 3—is set out by reference to section 3 of the Pneumoconiosis etc (Workers’ Compensation) Act 1979. I have that Act with me, but I will not read the entire definition in it into the proceedings of the Committee; suffice it to say, as I understand it, that if the scheme is set up under the present drafting, when there is more than one eligible dependant, which would include spouses, children and those who are in the position of spouses though not formally married, the compensation would be divided equally between them.

The Minister needs to reflect on that and justify it, because there may be eligible dependants who ought to receive a greater chunk of the payout under the scheme that will be set up by the Bill—should it pass its remaining stages and receive Royal Assent—than other eligible dependants. This probing amendment is therefore an attempt to elicit from the Minister some indication of why the Government think that the compensation should be equally divided between eligible dependants in all circumstances. For example, if there is a spouse and young children, it would seem sensible for a far greater chunk of the compensation to go the spouse who is responsible for those young children, at least until they achieve their majority.

The amendment is probing, but I want an indication from the Minister of why equal division is appropriate in this scheme that he is advocating.

Mike Penning (Conservative, Hemel Hempstead)

I thank colleagues and you, Mr Davies, for being present today, so that we can make good progress on the Bill.

My hon. and learned Friend makes an important point. In the circumstances he described, the compensation would go to the spouse. If the spouse or partner was not there, it would be equally divided among the other dependants. The reason why we have taken such an approach is that we do not want to bog down the administration of the fund with disputes between family members. We feel that that is something that should be done outside the administration. I understand his point, but I do not think that it will become a problem, especially given that the fund will pay to the spouse or partner.

With that clarification, I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will withdraw his amendment. Although I understand where he is coming from, we want to keep administration costs to a minimum and we do not want to get involved in disputes.

Stephen Phillips (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

I am grateful to the Minister for his comments. From what he says, I understand it is intended that, if there is a surviving spouse, the payment will go to the spouse, and thereafter it will go to eligible dependants, such as children. Perhaps I have misunderstood, or not properly read, the definition of “dependant” in the 1979 Act but, on the basis of the Minister’s assurance—although I would like to discuss this point with him outside the confines of Committee—I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 5 - Applications and procedure

Stephen Phillips (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

I beg to move amendment 23, in clause 5, page 3, line 30, after ‘evidence’, insert

‘including the disapplication of strict rules of evidence.’.

Clause 5 deals with applications and procedure for the administration of the scheme. Subsection (1)(c) indicates that the scheme may make provision with regard to evidence. What is important about the scheme—this point has been made by the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East and other members of the Committee—is that those whom it is intended to benefit should receive the compensation, which they have for far too long been denied, without having to go through too many formal requirements. In such circumstances, it is obviously sensible that the scheme not only should be able to make provision about evidence, but should not become a quasi or pseudo-court proceeding.

My amendment would enable the scheme to make provision not only about evidence, but to disapply the strict rules of evidence. What I have in mind—the Minister might give suitable assurances in any event—is that the proceedings before the scheme administrator, whether they are in writing or howsoever they take place, should not become some sort of trial and should not involve lawyers in lengthy legal argument for which they would be able to justify the fee that we have previously discussed. The process should run as smoothly and quickly as possible without the need for the strict rules of evidence that would apply in the civil courts. In such circumstances, it would be appropriate for the scheme to make provision that the strict rules of evidence should not apply. The Minister might say—I hope that he will—that subsection (1)(c) will permit that in any event. If he is able to say that, I will be happy to withdraw the amendment.

Kate Green (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship once again, Mr Davies. I want to raise a slightly different issue regarding provision about evidence. I recently wrote to the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury regarding my worries about recent changes to the requests procedure for employment schedules for deceased persons. Evidence of employment is one of the elements that will have to be considered by the scheme administrator or the technical committee when determining whether someone is eligible to access the scheme.

On 12 November, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs published a new policy on applications for employment schedules for deceased persons, indicating that a court order will be required. Until that point, all that had been needed was the completion of a simple application form. Clearly, the implications of that change give rise to a number of concerns regarding mesothelioma sufferers. Given the long latency of the disease, a crucial aspect of any mesothelioma claims procedure is the attempted identification of previous employers and their insurers, which necessarily frequently requires the release of an employment schedule.

As we know, mesothelioma is invariably terminal, and sufferers die very quickly after diagnosis, so we cannot really hang about on ensuring that the victim—or if they have, sadly, died, his or her successors—obtains the employment schedule. Changes by HMRC to the procedure for requesting the employment history of deceased persons may therefore have a considerable and adverse impact on mesothelioma sufferers and their families.

As I said, I wrote last month to the Exchequer Secretary requesting clarification of the factors driving the changes to the request process. In anticipation of this debate, my office made several attempts this week to expedite a response from the Exchequer Secretary’s private office, but we had not received anything when I left my office first thing this morning.

I have asked for details of any consultations or impact assessments that have been undertaken before the implementation of the changes and whether the specific circumstances of mesothelioma sufferers can be, or have been, taken into consideration. In addition, I have asked for clarification of how the changes have been reconciled with the objectives of the Ministry of Justice review to streamline and simplify the claims procedure.

I appreciate that the issue is not part of the Minister’s direct remit, and I very much hoped that I would have received a satisfactory response from the Exchequer Secretary so that I would not need to trouble the Minister or the Committee with the matter. I will be happy if the Minister will offer to expedite a response from HMRC so that we have time to consider it while we are still in Committee or, if not, by the time we debate the Bill on Report. In expectation of that assurance, I shall not challenge the clause, but I hope the Minister will do what he can to get the answer we need.

Mike Penning (Conservative, Hemel Hempstead)

First, let me address the shadow Minister’s quite understandable concerns. My officials and MOJ officials have been meeting Treasury officials to discuss this matter. This is a piece of Government legislation and, as the hon. Lady can imagine, we do not want any hiccups in implementing it. We will get some answers on the issues she raised as soon as we can. If I cannot get them today, I will make sure that I or my neighbour, the Exchequer Secretary, get an answer to her. I am with him tomorrow, and my officials and I will nudge him.

I can give my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham the assurance he wants. We desperately do not want to replicate strict court processes in the guidance we give the administrator, so we have disapplied the rules, and that will be set out in the guidance. The whole principle is that we want to expedite access to the fund.

Stephen Phillips (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 6 - Reviews and appeals

Stephen Phillips (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

I beg to move amendment 24, in clause 6, page 3, line 36, after ‘scheme’, insert

‘by a person other than the person who took the original decision’.

Philip Davies (Conservative, Shipley)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 25, in clause 6, page 4, line 5, at end add—

‘(5) An appeal from the decision of the First-tier Tribunal shall lie to the relevant court, but only with the permission of that court and rules of court may be made accordingly.

(6) In this section—

(a) “First-tier Tribunal” shall mean the tribunal established by the scheme to hear appeals against a decision taken on review;

(b) “the relevant court” means—

(i) the High Court in England and Wales or Northern Ireland, or

(ii) the Court of Session in Scotland.’.

Stephen Phillips (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

Clause 6 deals with reviews and appeals, and makes provision for an applicant seeking compensation under the proposed scheme to request a review of a decision—self-evidently that would be an adverse decision. The clause is therefore an important mechanism by which those who are entitled to compensation that they are initially wrongfully denied may seek to have the decision reviewed in their favour. The amendments would expand on those rights and, in one respect, clarify them, although the Minister may, in any event, be able to clarify matters now.

At the moment, the clause provides that a review should take place, but it does not say before whom it should take place. It is obviously important that whoever reviews the initial decision is totally separate from the individual who reached it. All hon. Members have experience of authorities that make decisions and judgements about people’s rights then effectively reviewing their own decisions. That is obviously unsatisfactory and, not surprisingly, it rarely leads to original decisions being reversed.

Amendment 24 would make it clear in subsection (1) that an applicant’s right to request a review of any decision under the scheme is a right to a review by someone other than the person who made the original decision. The Minister may say that the regulations setting up the scheme will make that clear. If he is prepared to give an undertaking to the Committee that that will be in the regulations, the amendment will be unnecessary.

Amendment 25 would deal with the situation when, following a review, the decision still goes against the applicant. In those circumstances, the applicant obviously would have lost twice—on the original decision and then on the review. However, the review will be administrative—it will not take place before a court—so applicants who are twice denied the compensation to which they believe they are entitled will rightly feel aggrieved that they had never had their day in court. The amendment would therefore add two provisions to permit an appeal from the first-tier tribunal, which I understand is the body of last resort, to the relevant court: the High Court in England and Wales, and the Court of Session in Scotland. Again, the Minister may be able to satisfy me that there are alternative routes by which decisions reached wrongly and adversely to an applicant could come before the courts, such as by way of judicial review. If he can say that that is the case, or if he will reflect before Report on whether that will be the case, I will be sufficiently satisfied not to press the amendment.

The amendments would ensure that a suitable review and appeal structure was in place so that those wrongfully denied the compensation to which they are entitled under the scheme would have recourse to a process that ensures that they receive that compensation.

Mike Penning (Conservative, Hemel Hempstead)

On amendment 24, we intend to address the issue in regulations to ensure that the person who made the initial decision is not the person who looks at it on review.

On amendment 25, we do not intend to interfere with the first-tier tribunal under the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007. Its decision will be binding. However—I will be happy to discuss this with my hon. and learned Friend before Report—if an applicant is not happy with a decision, that will not stop them from going to the Court of Appeal.

Stephen Phillips (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

On the basis of the Minister’s first assurance, I will be happy to withdraw amendment 24. I will not press amendment 25 at this stage, but if he cannot satisfy me before Report, although I am sure that he will, given that he is such a good “bluerk”—

Chris Bryant (Labour, Rhondda)

How do you spell that?

Stephen Phillips (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

The hon. Gentleman should ask the hon. Member for Wansbeck.

I reserve the right to return to amendment 25 on Report, but I beg to ask leave to withdraw amendment 24.

Clause 7 - Scheme administration

Stephen Phillips (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

I beg to move amendment 26, in clause 7, page 4, line 28, leave out subsection (6).

I tabled this entirely probing amendment because I do not understand what subsection (6) does or what it says. I appreciate, as does the Committee, that I am a bear of very little brain, but all I really want to know from the Minister is what on earth it means.

Mike Penning (Conservative, Hemel Hempstead)

My notes say that removing the provision would mean that the scheme administrator would not be bound by the provisions in enactments when administering the scheme—in other words, they could make their own decision. That would mean that the scheme administrator would not have to follow the rules or any of the Bill’s provisions. It cannot be right that the administrator could move away from anything that Parliament decided in this Bill, so the subsection has been included to bind the administrator specifically within the rules of the fund that the House has set out.

Stephen Phillips (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

Just for the Committee’s benefit, I will read out subsection (6):

“For the purposes of this Act, a reference to administering the scheme includes carrying out any functions conferred by or under any enactment on the scheme administrator”.

I heard what the Minister said that the provision was designed to achieve. No doubt if anyone is troubled regarding any application under the scheme or in a court, they will read with care what the Minister said about what the subsection is designed to achieve. I have to say that I still do not really understand it; it does not seem to make much sense, even as a matter of English. However, on the basis of what the Minister said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Kate Green (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

This is an important clause for defining the operation and administration of the scheme. It allows the Secretary of State either to administer the scheme himself, or to make arrangements for another body to administer it. We all anticipate that the latter course of action is more likely. Although there are two options in the Bill, it is clear from the debates that took place in the House of Lords and the discussions that I have had with the Association of British Insurers that processes are already in motion to establish an insurer-owned body to administer the scheme, with that scheme administrator then being answerable to the Secretary of State.

In the House of Lords, my noble friend Baroness Sherlock highlighted obvious concerns about the conflict of interest that might arise

“if the same industry that has to fund successful claims not merely underwrites but administers the compensation scheme”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 May 2013; Vol. 745, c. 726.]

Even the perception of such a conflict of interest may concern victims and their families, no matter how scrupulously the scheme is administered. Baroness Sherlock made a number of alternative suggestions, such as arrangements similar to those for the Financial Ombudsman Service and the Financial Services Compensation Scheme. Those bodies are set up in statute and funded by an industry levy, which is similar to what is envisaged for this scheme, but they are administered by independent scheme operators.

The Association of Personal Injury Lawyers is equally concerned about the possibility of perceived conflicts of interest. It says:

“We have fundamental concerns that there is not enough detail on the face of the Bill to generate confidence that the scheme will be robust in serving and protecting claimants…This lack of independence is completely unsatisfactory. We submit that an independent body should be established, on a statutory basis, to review regularly the work of the scheme and the technical committee, and to ensure that the scheme is operating fairly, and in the best interests of those it has been established to compensate. The review body should report to the Secretary of State, who should then report to Parliament on an annual basis.

For the insurance industry to run the scheme without independent oversight from such a body would be of enormous concern in terms of the potential for conflict of interest. Clause 4(3)(b) for example, gives the scheme administrator the ‘power to decide when to impose conditions or what conditions to impose’. The scheme administrator will clearly be responsible for making crucial decisions about each case including, of course, the eligibility of applicants. An insurer body would have an obvious interest in keeping the number of applicants, and therefore the levy on insurers, low.

APIL has serious concerns about the prospect of the insurance industry, which has fought tooth and nail for years to avoid its responsibilities to mesothelioma sufferers, being in control of the compensation process from all sides—by running the scheme for untraced cases without independent oversight, to controlling the way cases are handled when the insurer can be traced… If the scheme is to be run by the insurance industry, there is real likelihood of conflict of interest, with insurers seeking to save costs where possible, at the expense of the claimant, even at the point of refusing an applicant entry to the scheme. The oversight committee should, therefore, monitor all decisions to ensure corners are not being cut just to save money for insurers.”

I have tabled a new clause that would establish an independent oversight committee, which was discussed in the House of Lords, to ensure that the scheme operates fairly and in the best interests of those it has been established to compensate.

There are two aspects of clause 7 that should particularly be highlighted. The first is the fact that costs associated with the scheme’s administration, including the industry’s legal fees, will be funded by the levy on the industry, thereby effectively reducing the size of the pot available to fund payments to mesothelioma sufferers by £30 million. The second concern is about the transparency of both the administration process and the tendering process that the Government intend to run for the body designated to administer the scheme.

I am worried that administration costs will effectively remove £30 million from the levy that could otherwise go to victims. The Government’s impact assessment of November 2013 states:

“The costs of the scheme are split between a levy of £371m on the insurance industry and £17m in government funding. This covers scheme payments direct to individuals (£261.4m), benefit recovery (£72.2m), applicant legal fees (£24.6m) and admin of £30.0m (including case legal fees of £24.2m, set up of £1.4m and running costs of £4.4m).”

It is not clear to me that the scheme should be paying for legal services provided to a multi-billion pound insurance industry that is the very cause of our needing the scheme in the first place. Given that it is likely that the scheme will be administered by the insurance industry, why should the industry benefit from the increased revenue derived from the scheme’s £1.4 million set-up costs and £4.4 million running costs? If administrative charges were not funded by the levy to be imposed by the Bill, the additional money could pay for at least a 5% increase in the percentage rate of average civil compensation claims. I am sure the hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham will be interested in that calculation, because it would bring us back to the 80% compensation level that he proposed earlier this week.

My second concern, on which the Minister may be able to offer some useful comments, is about the independence and transparency of the tendering process by which a scheme administrator will be appointed. On Second Reading in the House of Lords, my noble Friend Baroness Donaghy said:

“If the administration of the scheme is to be contracted out, I ask the Minister what safeguards will be written into the tender to ensure absolute independence and integrity. This would apply in particular if the insurance industry were to be the scheme administrator. The conflict of interest would be obvious, even if we were looking at an industry with a benign record. However, we are looking at one more commonly characterised by delaying tactics, spurious arguments and obfuscation.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 May 2013; Vol. 745, c. 701.]

In Grand Committee, Lord Freud said that the insurance industry was setting up a company to meet the requirements of the scheme rules. During the Bill’s passage through the House of Lords, noble Lords expressed concern about potential conflicts of interests were the insurance industry ultimately to be the successful bidder for the contract to administer the scheme. On Report, in response to suggestions that the appointment of an administrator was already a done deal with the insurance industry, Lord Freud said:

“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.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 17 July 2013; Vol. 747, c. 762.]

It is reassuring to know that there will be an open and competitive tendering process. Will the Minister tell us a little more about how he expects it to operate to ensure the appointment of the best possible administrator to run the scheme? What assurances can he give us that the administration of the scheme will be fully independent if, in the end, the contract is awarded to an insurance industry body? I look forward to hearing his response to my concerns.

Nick Brown (Labour, Newcastle upon Tyne East)

I, too, look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to the concerns expressed by my hon. Friend. In that response, however, will the Minister say a little more about who will do the choosing between the different bidders in any competitive tender? How independent will the chooser be? It would be helpful to the whole Committee if he could be as specific as possible about who will be doing the choosing and have oversight of the arrangements, which are fundamental to the operation of the rest of the scheme.

Mike Penning (Conservative, Hemel Hempstead)

I thank the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston for her comments. I understand why she has decided to speak up in the debate.

In answer to the initial concerns about ensuring that the Bill says that the tendering process will be as open as possible: it will be. As the noble Lord Freud indicated in the other House, the tender competition will be completely open—exactly the same as any other tender process. We will ensure that we have as much expertise on that committee as possible. The commercial staff in the Department for Work and Pensions will be responsible for the tender, as they are for our other tender processes—exactly as happened when the right hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East was a Minister in the Department.

The contract will obviously be chosen on the usual criteria of value for money—commercial criteria. If there is a conflict of interest, that will be exposed at that stage, as will a bidder’s ability to operate the scheme. The shadow Minister was concerned about what would happen if—a big “if”—there was a conflict of interest that allowed the insurance companies to limit or pick and choose, but the criteria are set and the administrator has no say as to who gets money from the fund other than on the basis of the specific criteria agreed by this Committee. The administrator has to abide by the regulations to follow.

The legal costs relate to support for the scheme applicants, not to the setting up of the scheme. I have a note to that effect, but I will clarify matters in a longer letter to the hon. Lady. Running costs are of course a factor, which we will take into consideration when we look at the tenders.

Kate Green (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

To press the Minister a little on the legal fees, I did understand, when I referred to case legal fees of £24.2 million, that those were specifically for dealing with the cases of applicants—they were not legal fees in relation to establishing the scheme. Will the Minister clarify absolutely, however, that they are not legal fees that are being spent in order to defend cases against applicants or to seek to thwart applicants’ claims? I was surprised that the scheme might be seeking to take legal action to protect the legal position of applicants, but perhaps that is what the Minister is saying.

Mike Penning (Conservative, Hemel Hempstead)

As I understand it, that is what I am saying. If I am wrong in that, I will, of course, come back to the Committee, but that is the position, based on the information I have before me.

Kate Green (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

I am very happy to have further clarification from the Minister, but the reason I am doubtful is that applicant legal fees are also covered, as a separate sum of £24.6 million. I just want to be absolutely clear that all these fees are being spent for the benefit of applicants.

Mike Penning (Conservative, Hemel Hempstead)

The hon. Lady is absolutely right. We will come later to clause 10, which relates to help with funding and, later, with proceedings. I will clarify the exact points the hon. Lady raised, but—I will come back to this, sadly, on many occasions—this is the deal that we have, this is the deal that was done and this is the deal that went through the House of Lords. I saw the comments from noble colleagues in the Lords, but the Bill came out of the Lords in this form. We have a structured deal so that the Bill can make its way through the House. On that basis, we are where we are. We will go through an open tendering process, and we will make sure the scrutiny of that process is exactly the same as it would have been when Opposition Members were in government.

Clause 9 - Unauthorised disclosure of information: penalties etc

Stephen Phillips (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

I beg to move amendment 27, in clause 9, page 5, line 41, after ‘director’, insert ‘(a)’.

Philip Davies (Conservative, Shipley)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 28, in clause 9, page 5, line 42, after ‘corporate;’, insert—

‘(b) in relation to a body corporate established by the Secretary of State under section 7(3), means any person exercising the functions of a director; and

(c) includes a shadow director within the meaning of section 251 of the Companies Act 2006.’.

Stephen Phillips (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

Clause 9 must be read in conjunction with clause 8, to which no amendments were tabled, and which the Committee has decided should stand part of the Bill. It deals with penalties and other provisions in relation to the unauthorised disclosure of information by those who come into possession of that information for the purposes, principally, of administering the scheme. One such group of people is the directors of bodies corporate that may, potentially, administer the scheme.

As the Committee knows from clause 7, however, one mechanism by which the scheme could be administered involves the Secretary of State setting up a body corporate to carry out the administrative functions that need to be carried out under the scheme. The body the Secretary of State sets up—if that is the route the Government choose to go down—might or might not have directors. It may be a classic body corporate in ordinary terms, or it may be a company limited by guarantee—I know not what the Secretary of State may have in mind. However, if the Secretary of State chose to set up a body corporate by some mechanism that did not result in that body corporate having directors, those who administered the scheme might not be caught by the provisions of the clause on the unauthorised disclosure of information. That is obviously not what is intended, because the information is highly personal to applicants, and they will not want it bandied about everywhere. That is why we are creating these criminal offences as part of the Bill in the first place.

Paragraph (b) of amendment 28 would include in the definition of a director for the purposes of clause 9 anybody exercising the functions of a director where the Secretary of State chooses to administer the scheme by setting up his own body corporate. Paragraph (c)—this is possibly an omission, and it should perhaps be obvious—would include not only directors, but shadow directors, so that they are caught by the criminal penalties created in clause 9. Again, that is desirable in case, for whatever reason, someone who is not properly or formerly a director but none the less is in breach of the scheme puts into the public domain information about an applicant that ought not to be there.

The amendments therefore seek to clarify that which ought to be obvious in the Bill and to make consistent the Government’s intention that there ought to be some sanction under criminal law for those who are responsible for the unauthorised disclosure of highly personal information about applicants. For that reason, even if I do not seek to test the will of the Committee on the amendment, I hope that the Minister will consider the matter on Report.

Mike Penning (Conservative, Hemel Hempstead)

I thank my hon. and learned Friend for bringing the amendments forward. Subsection (6) gives a broad definition of an officer as a

“director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body corporate”;

the subsection also encompasses a person purporting to act in one of those capacities. A person who gives orders for a company or part of it as a member of its management team cannot escape liability. That broad definition applies to officers of all forms of corporate organisation. I will look into the request made by my hon. and learned Friend and we will also look into whether we need to bolster regulations, but we feel that the definition is broad enough to fit.

Stephen Phillips (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

If the Minister looks at subsection (6)(a), he will see that the words “or other similar officer” would appear to apply only to the category of secretary; the drafting of the provision does not seem to imply a reference to a manager or other similar officer, or a director or other similar officer. Although I understand that the Minister feels that the definition was intended to be drawn sufficiently broadly to encompass the point that we are currently debating, a respectable argument could be made that a shadow director is not caught by the wording of the provision, as the words “or other similar officer” can be interpreted as applying only to the word “secretary” and not to the words “manager” or “director”.

I will not seek to test the will of the Committee at this stage but the point is one on which the Minister will need to reflect. I would be grateful if he would write to the Committee before Report—or intervene now—to give his thoughts on the matter.

Mike Penning (Conservative, Hemel Hempstead)

I am more than happy to write to the Committee on the issue. I will make sure that the Department’s legal team addresses the concerns that my hon. and learned Friend has put to the Committee.

Stephen Phillips (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

I am extremely grateful for that intervention. Given what the Minister has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 10 - Power of scheme administrator to help people bring proceedings

Stephen Phillips (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

I beg to move amendment 29, in clause 10, page 6, line 16, after ‘proceedings’, insert—

‘in the name of that person’.

Philip Davies (Conservative, Shipley)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 30, in clause 10, page 6, line 16, after ‘help’, insert—

‘including indemnities against adverse orders for the costs of any proceedings or any application made therein’.

New clause 6—Payments for legal services in civil cases: diffuse mesothelioma proceedings—

‘(1) Section 48 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (Sections 44 and 46 and diffuse mesothelioma proceedings) is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (1), omit from “mesothelioma” to the end of the subsection (including paragraphs (a) and (b)).’.

Stephen Phillips (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

Amendments 29 and 30 stand in my name, and it is to those that I therefore wish to speak.

The purpose of amendment 29, which I do not intend to press, is to confirm that the proceedings to which subsection (1) refers are proceedings that will be taken in the name of the applicant to the scheme. It may be that the Minister will be able to confirm that now.

Mike Penning (Conservative, Hemel Hempstead)

I can confirm that.

Stephen Phillips (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

I am grateful for that confirmation. On that basis, I do not need to say anything more about amendment 29.

Amendment 30 would make it clear that in helping a person to bring relevant proceedings under clause 10, the scheme administrator may offer an indemnity

“against adverse orders for the costs of any proceedings or any application made therein”

which that person might bring. Perhaps the Minister can short-circuit that. All I seek to clarify is that such help is within the powers of the scheme administrator.

Mike Penning (Conservative, Hemel Hempstead)

I can confirm that that is within the powers of the administrator.

Stephen Phillips (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

The amendments are now in the hands of the Committee. I shall say no more. After the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East has spoken on his new clause, I will seek leave to withdraw the amendment.

Paul Goggins (Labour, Wythenshawe and Sale East)

It is a pleasure to see you in the chair again, Mr Davies, and a pleasure to follow the hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham. Any member of the Committee could be forgiven for asking the straight question, what on earth has new clause 6 got to do with the Bill? If they thought that, they would have a considerable amount of my sympathy. The Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012—the LASPO Act—has absolutely nothing to do with the Mesothelioma Bill, but Ministers keep trying to connect them. I am sure they are doing so with the best intentions—to send a message that they care about the support available to those who suffer from mesothelioma—but unfortunately there is no connection. With the help of the Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston and others, I hope that we can get clarity this morning.

Kate Green (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

I am pleased to support my right hon. Friend. I first raised the issue with the Justice Secretary in Justice questions on 12 November, where I asked precisely what my right hon. Friend asks: what connection, if any, exists between LASPO 2012 and this Bill? The Justice Secretary said that he did not know, but would undertake to find out. I have not heard back from him, but as my right hon. Friend says, the Department has continued to issue statements, including a written ministerial statement last week, connecting the two. I asked again, by letter, this week if the Justice Secretary could advise me, but I am afraid that I have not had a reply.

Paul Goggins (Labour, Wythenshawe and Sale East)

I am sorry that my hon. Friend has not had a reply from the Justice Secretary. I took heart from the fact that he did not know the answer to her question and was honest enough to say so from the Dispatch Box, because at least that meant there was nothing in the front of his mind that connected the two. It gives me hope that when he finally replies to her, we might get a better answer than we have at the moment.

Sections 44 to 46 of the LASPO Act brought in the new arrangements for conditional fee agreements—so-called, no-win, no-fee arrangements. Section 48 provides an exemption from those new arrangements for mesothelioma victims, until such time as the Justice Secretary carries out a review and issues a report. Parliament made its view clear during the passage of the Act. An amendment was passed in the House of Lords that exempted mesothelioma sufferers. Hon. Members from both sides will recall our vigorous debates in the House of Commons over the issue and the strong sense that it was repulsive that people who are given a diagnosis of mesothelioma and know that they might have only months to live might have to give up 25% of their damages to pay a success fee to their lawyers and would therefore have to shop around to get the best deal from those who might represent them. The idea was repulsive. Although there was no successful vote in the House of Commons, there clearly was a strong view.

Section 48 was a compromise. The Government got the LASPO Act and Parliament got its exemption, albeit subject to the review and the report that would then be issued. However, there was no time frame on that review and report so there was a question about how long the grass would be and when the review would be carried out.

In passing, I strongly commend the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) who, throughout those debates, sought properly to work on a cross-party basis to bring forward the arguments that we cared deeply about on both sides of the House. She happens to have had considerable experience in this field before coming to the House. It is the tradition of this House that most of us are fundamentally loyal to our parties, but we sometimes reach out to those on the other side who share our concerns. It was positive of the hon. Lady to do so on that occasion.

The compromise has been beneficial. Just the other day, I was talking to Tony Whitston of the Asbestos Victims Support Group Forum UK—we have all had the benefit of his briefings—who described the new arrangements under which mesothelioma victims are exempted as a real boon, because he can now say to the victims and their families, “There is no complication. You can take this case on and if you win you keep the whole of the damages, and if you lose it costs you nothing.” It is as simple as that. For people in great distress, that is a comforting message to hear. Parliament should be pleased that the compromise produced a simpler and clearer system. We must remember that one in seven people with a diagnosis of mesothelioma do not make a claim, such is the complexity of the system. It is important to make it as simple as possible.

We had a compromise and it is working well for victims, but in July the Ministry of Justice produced “A consultation on proposals to speed up the settlement of mesothelioma claims in England and Wales”. It is about civil claims and how to speed up the system. It contains two main proposals. I do not want to dwell on the details because they are not relevant to the Committee, but one is a pre-action protocol and the other is a proposal for fixed costs. The victim support group expressed great concern about that because it believed that the two proposals would slow the system down instead of speeding it up. I am delighted that having conducted the review, Ministers in the Ministry of Justice concluded that that was correct, so they do not intend, at least at this stage, to proceed with the pre-action protocol or the fixed costs.

However, in the written statement accompanying the decision, the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Mr Vara) said:

“The Government have carefully considered the responses and have concluded that they intend to apply sections 44 and 46 of the LASPO Act to mesothelioma cases, as for all other personal injury cases. The Government do not believe that the case has been made for mesothelioma cases to continue to be treated differently”.——[Official Report, 4 December 2013; Vol. 571, c. 56WS.]

The Minister made a clear statement that the Ministry of Justice has taken a different view from that of Parliament and that there should be no exemption for mesothelioma sufferers. It is interesting that the statement says that the case has not been made out for mesothelioma cases to continue to be treated differently, because that question was never asked in the consultation.

The review of section 48 was an afterthought in the consultation document. Clearly, Ministers thought they could tack it on to the core consultation about speeding up the process. The question that respondents were asked was:

“Do you agree that sections 44 and 46 of the LASPO Act 2012 should be brought into force in relation to mesothelioma claims, in the light of the proposed reforms described in this consultation”—

they have now been ditched—

“the increase in general damages”—

I acknowledge that a 10% increase has been put in place and is welcome—

“and costs protection described above”—

again, it has been ditched—

“and the Mesothelioma Bill”—

which this has nothing to do with. The question is pretty flawed. The actual question about whether mesothelioma victims should still be exempt was never actually put. Parliament believed there should be an exemption for mesothelioma sufferers, albeit it was a compromise and a temporary arrangement, but we made it very clear to Ministers that an exemption should be in place. It is important for Ministers to reflect that they have drawn a conclusion based on a question in a consultation that was never properly and rigorously carried out.

My new clause 6 seeks to make the exemption of mesothelioma victims from the new conditional fee agreement permanent. There are two reasons for that. The first is the human impact. I go back to the view that Parliament expressed, which is that expecting mesothelioma victims with months to live to give up 25% of their damages to lawyers as a success fee is repugnant, and Parliament should continue to be against that. We should not expect people with a terminal illness to shop around for the cheapest deal that they can get.

Secondly, the decision to proceed with the introduction of sections 44 and 46 is based on a flawed consultation. The question about whether mesothelioma victims should continue to be exempt was never put, so people were not asked to answer that specific question. Had they been, they would have provided considerable evidence to support the argument that the exemption should be allowed to continue. Based on those two arguments, the exemption should continue.

There is no connection between the two because the LASPO Act concerns civil claims where the victim knows who the employer was, knows the insurance company, and can therefore make a civil claim. The Mesothelioma Bill, which Ministers keep saying is connected with that, is about a scheme to produce a fund of last resort for those who do not know who the employer and insurance company are. Someone able to benefit from the fund introduced by the Bill would never be in a position to make a civil claim, because they would not know who the employer or insurer was.

I look forward to the Minister’s response, and I genuinely hope that in our discussions now and perhaps subsequently we can make substantial progress on the issue.

Mike Penning (Conservative, Hemel Hempstead)

The right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East is absolutely right. When I looked at new clause 6, I thought, “What has this got to do with my Bill?” I still feel the same. The majority of his speech on his new clause was to do with issues that relate to another Department, and, in all good faith, absolutely nothing to do with the Bill before the Committee today.

To the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston I can say only that I will do my personal best to make sure that a reply gets to her as soon as possible, but I am a lowly Minister, and the Ministry of Justice will work in its own way, as former Ministers know.

Although the right hon. Gentleman made an excellent speech, I cannot accept that we can introduce a separate discussion from a separate Department on a separate piece of legislation.

Stephen Phillips (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

If, as my hon. Friend says—he may well be right—his view is that the Mesothelioma Bill has nothing to do with either the amendment or section 48 of LASPO, does he agree that the reference in the written statement, to which the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East has drawn attention, to the Mesothelioma Bill is at best misplaced?

Mike Penning (Conservative, Hemel Hempstead)

I do not think I referred to section 48 in my comments; I referred specifically to the amendment. I too would like to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford. I have known her for many years and she is an extremely honourable lady. Quite understandably, she has expressed her concerns on the issue not only on the Floor of the House, but at other times, particularly during the passage of LASPO. On this occasion, unusually, I must disagree with the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East. I would ask him not to press his new clause to a vote so that we can make some progress. I do not feel that his proposals have a place in the Bill.

Stephen Phillips (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

In relation to my own amendments, I have already indicated that, with the permission of the Committee, I will withdraw them. However, if I may, I would like to say two things about the new clause tabled by the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East. First, I must say that I was not aware of the written ministerial statement to which the right hon. Gentleman has drawn the Committee’s attention, but I am afraid that I think my hon. Friend the Minister misunderstood the point that I was putting to him. None the less, it is a good point: if, as the Minister says and as seems to be obvious, the Bill has nothing to do with LASPO or section 48, then the reference to the Bill in the written ministerial statement last week seems to be at best misplaced and nothing to the point in that context.

My second point is really for the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East, because it may affect whether or not he chooses to press his new clause to a vote. Considering the meaning of section 48 of LASPO, does he think that the review that has been carried out is, in the words of that section:

“a review of the likely effect of those sections”—

44 and 46—

“in relation to…proceedings”—

for—

“a claim for damages in respect of diffuse mesothelioma”?

If that is not the case, of course, the Lord Chancellor cannot remove the exemption granted by section 48 in relation to diffuse mesothelioma claims.

Paul Goggins (Labour, Wythenshawe and Sale East)

I have some further thoughts to add. The point that the hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham has just made is correct. My contention is that the consultation was flawed because it did not ask what the effect of sections 44 and 46 on mesothelioma victims would be. That question was never asked, nor was the question of whether the exemption should be continued. There was no evaluation of how well the exemption had worked in order to see whether it should continue. The hon. and learned Gentleman makes an interesting point that the Minister may want to reflect on and discuss with his ministerial colleagues—namely, that the consultation did not fulfil the requirements set out in LASPO.

Mike Penning (Conservative, Hemel Hempstead)

I think that the points raised by Members today should be drawn to the attention of the Justice Secretary. I will write to him today with a transcript of what has been said.

Paul Goggins (Labour, Wythenshawe and Sale East)

I am grateful to the Minister for that assurance. What with his intervention and the further requests that my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston has made for an answer to her letter, alongside the other representations that I am sure are being made, I hope that the point will get through. Frankly, just as in the end we negotiated the compromise over LASPO, the issue here is not about point scoring; it is about getting the best system of support for mesothelioma victims that we possible can.

I appreciate that the Minister has been characteristically straightforward and honest with the Committee in his response to my comments. The issue is not anything to do with his Bill, but he can play an enormously important role by taking back to the Justice Secretary and his colleagues messages about the strength of feeling in the Committee. In the written ministerial statement, in correspondence and in other places, Ministers keep making a connection. They keep talking about synchronisation. Even the coming into operation of sections 44 and 46 is meant to be timed to fit with Royal Assent of this Bill, but they have absolutely nothing to do with each other.

To conclude, I do not know whether the Minister knows when the report is to be published, but let us hope it is quite soon—perhaps even before Report. When it is published, let us hope there is a rather more positive message for those diagnosed with mesothelioma, who have only months to live and who need a system of claims that is as simple as possible.

Stephen Phillips (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Stephen Phillips (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

I beg to move amendment 31, in clause 10, page 6, line 25, after paragraph (2)(b) insert—

‘( ) any proceedings before the Technical Committee established under section 15 and any reference to arbitration arising as a result of the decision of the Technical Committee, or’.

Clause 10 deals with the power of the scheme administrator to help people bring proceedings. At the moment, the help they can give relates to relevant proceedings, which subsection (2) defines as

“proceedings by the person with diffuse mesothelioma against…an employer…or…an insurer”

or as

“proceedings by any other person against the employer or insurer for damages under the fatal accidents legislation…or…any appeal arising out of”

those proceedings.

Relevant proceedings are not, therefore, defined to include action that needs to be taken by an applicant or anyone else before the technical committee established by clause 15, which we will debate in due course. Among other things, that committee will have the power to decide whether there is an insurance contract against which an applicant under the scheme might make a claim. That is obviously of fundamental importance in determining whether an applicant under the scheme has a claim. The scheme administrator may have strong views as to whether an applicant has a claim, even though the applicant might think differently. However, the administrator should have the ability to help—that is the word subsection (1) uses—an applicant who is before the technical committee, or who is dealing with an appeal after a decision by the technical committee, in relation to whether an employer carried insurance that might respond to a diffuse mesothelioma claim.

Although, again, I will not seek to test the will of the Committee, I hope that the Minister will be able to answer today the serious point I have raised or that he will take it away and deal with it, possibly by way of a Government amendment, on Report.

Mike Penning (Conservative, Hemel Hempstead)

If I understand the amendment of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, the concern is that the primary purpose will be to settle disputes over insurance before proceedings are started in court or before the application is made to the scheme. I will go away and look at this again, but I cannot envisage any circumstances in which a person would voluntarily bring a matter concerning insurance cover to the technical committee in the circumstances my hon. and learned Friend describes. I may have misunderstood him, but I do not really think what he describes is likely. However, as he suggested, I will look at the issue again between now and Report.

Stephen Phillips (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Kate Green (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

I beg to move amendment 10, in clause 10, page 6, line 34, at end insert—

‘(6) In any relevant proceedings, whether brought with the assistance of the scheme administrator or not, the court shall, at the request of the person with mesothelioma, assess claimed damages as if the person with mesothelioma had already died and the court were assessing damages, including for bereavement, pursuant to the Fatal Accidents Act 1976.’.

This amendment also relates to the level of payment a sufferer would receive. In particular, it looks at the possibility of adopting the approach taken in the Fatal Accidents Act 1976 to sufferers who are still alive when their claim is dealt with and to those who have already died.

Of course, mesothelioma is invariably terminal. Yet, despite that, the current civil compensation awards will be different for those claimants who are still alive at the time their payment is settled; they will be lower than payments made after the death and go to the benefit of the claimant’s dependants. However, if we allowed payments to be assessed on the basis of the Fatal Accidents Act 1976, regardless of whether the sufferer is alive or dead, we would be able to ensure that sufferers are able to achieve the same level of compensation. It would also have the effect of raising the average civil compensation level with benefits for those claimants applying to this scheme.

Section 1 of the 1976 Act allows claims for damages by the relatives of deceased persons. It states:

“If death is caused by any wrongful act, neglect or default which is such as would (if death had not ensued) have entitled the person injured to maintain an action and recover damages in respect thereof, the person who would have been liable if death had not ensued shall be liable to an action for damages, notwithstanding the death of the person injured.”

The Act allows claims under three headings: dependency claim, for economic loss; bereavement claim, in recognition of grief by a further restricted class of dependant; and funeral expenses. All of those should be available to mesothelioma sufferers, regardless of the time of the claim.

In contrast, as I understand it, civil employers’ liability claims are assessed under just two headings: pecuniary damages involving monetary loss, such as loss of earnings, medical and travel expenses and so on; and non-pecuniary damages involving compensation for pain and suffering and loss of amenity, such as changes in impact on lifestyle. Consequently, claims for damages after a mesothelioma sufferer has died are reportedly more generous than those that are made while the claimant is still alive. My concern is that that will have the same knock-on effect for receiving payments under this scheme, because the payments that they will receive will be pegged to average civil compensation.

It would be useful if the Minister could share with the Committee—perhaps not today—any statistics that may be available, both on average claim awards before the death of a claimant and the level of awards afterwards. Could he also let us know what proportion of claims is being settled before and after the death of a claimant, and whether similar proportions are expected for claims under this scheme?

Mike Penning (Conservative, Hemel Hempstead)

I would like to clarify something before my response. I think the hon. Lady is saying that we should, for want of a better word, interfere with the amount of compensation in the courts, so that that reflects what the Bill’s fund provides. Is that where we are?

Kate Green (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

The Minister is correct; that is what my amendment says. I do not intend to press for a vote as it is a probing amendment so that we can explore the issue. If for all sorts of justifiable reasons the Minister is unable to accept that we should use the Bill to amend the approach that takes place in the courts regarding civil claims, where an employer or insurer can be traced, I will understand. In that eventuality, would the Minister look—-not necessarily today but as the scheme is developed before regulations—at how we could offer extra support for mesothelioma sufferers through this scheme?

Stephen Phillips (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

As the hon. Lady acknowledges, this may be a broader problem, and she said she is not going to test the will of the Committee today. However, does she agree that this is matter Parliament has to look at? Mesothelioma is not, of course, the only disease that carries with it a death sentence of months or years. It might be a problem that needs to be addressed across a much broader canvas than the one her amendment contemplates.

Kate Green (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

I am grateful for that useful suggestion, with which I strongly agree. In the context of the Bill, I hope the Minister might at least be able to give thought to how in the context of this scheme we could be as generous as possible to sufferers, in the certain knowledge that the condition is invariably fatal and quickly so. I do not intend to press to a vote but I look forward to the Minister’s comments.

Mike Penning (Conservative, Hemel Hempstead)

The shadow Minister is right that I do not feel that this Bill is the right vehicle for the discussion. I agree with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, who intervened, that the issue should be discussed more widely because this is not the only disease that has such terrible effects on people’s lives and is terminal.

As I understand it, the National Institute of Economic and Social Research publishes relevant figures. If it were not to do so, I would arrange for the relevant Department to indicate how it intended to publish the figures, so that we could have a comparison going forward, because I think that that is a very important point. I am pleased to hear that the shadow Minister will not pursue the amendment.

Kate Green (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

I am grateful to have had the opportunity to raise the issue and I am grateful for the Minister’s offer to obtain the necessary statistical information. I hope that, specifically in relation to mesothelioma, that will be available to inform our continuing discussions on Report and as the regulations are debated. I also hope that the Minister will want to support what I think is a fairly widespread mood in the Committee that this issue is one that Parliament should take an early opportunity to look at in its broadest context. Any support that the Minister can give us in that endeavour would be extremely welcome. As I said, I do not intend to press the amendment to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 11 - Recovery of benefits etc from payments and recovery of payments

Stephen Phillips (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

I beg to move amendment 32, in clause 11, page 6, line 40, at end add—

‘But nothing in Schedule 1 shall be construed—

(a) as permitting the recovery of any benefits, other sums or scheme payments unless and until an eligible person or an eligible dependant has been made whole;

(b) as permitting the recovery of any benefits, other sums or scheme payments such that an eligible person or an eligible dependant would not be made whole.’.

For the purposes of this section, an eligible person or an eligible dependant has been made whole when, by means of benefits, other sums, scheme payments or compensation, that person or dependant has received an amount equivalent to the average damages which a person diagnosed with diffuse mesothelioma would recover against a relevant employer who had negligently or in breach of statutory duty caused or permitted that person to be exposed to asbestos (or, in the case of more than one eligible dependant, the relevant proportion thereof determined in accordance with the scheme).’.

This amendment matters, at least as I understand the way in which the Bill is to work. Clause 11 gives effect to schedule 1 to the Bill. We will come to that in due course, but broadly, as the clause says, part 1 of schedule 1

“allows benefits and other sums to be recovered from scheme payments, Part 2 allows scheme payments to be recovered from compensation, and Part 3”—

that is not relevant for my purposes today—

“contains related amendments to do with information sharing.”

My understanding of schedule 1—I think that the Minister confirmed this on Second Reading and, indeed, when we opened the proceedings in Committee—is that where a scheme payment is made to an applicant, the applicant will lose 100% of their benefits, notwithstanding the fact that because we are enjoined to keep within the 3% of gross written premium so that the industry can swallow the costs of the scheme without passing those on to British business, applicants are to be denied a part of the compensation to which they would otherwise be entitled. My understanding, therefore, is that an applicant who is diagnosed with diffuse mesothelioma and who has no recourse against an employer or against that employer’s insurers will come to this scheme and receive, in terms of compensation, something less than is necessary and would be awarded in the courts to make that person whole, notwithstanding which all the benefits that they receive as a result of the diagnosis of diffuse mesothelioma will then be removed—100% of them. Even though they will get 75% of the damages, 100% of the relevant benefits will disappear. I cannot be the only one to perceive an injustice in that situation, although I think that I am the only one to have moved any amendment before this Committee in relation to it.

What amendment 32 seeks to do, albeit in somewhat convoluted terms, which is the way in which it has to be done for the purposes of debate, is to make clear two things: first, that people do not lose any of their benefits or anything else until such time as they have had 100% of the damages that they would achieve if there were an insurer or employer against whom they could proceed, and secondly, that nothing can be recovered by way of benefits or other sums to reduce them below that 100%, so that they receive full compensation—they are made whole in the same way as they would be if they were not driven to a scheme of last resort but were before the courts.

That seems to me to be eminently desirable, but, much more importantly, it seems to be fair to those who are diagnosed with a disease that will, without doubt, kill them in an unpleasant way and leave many of them with surviving dependents who will not only be faced with the loss of a loved one, but the loss of the income that the loved one might have produced.

It is wholly unfair and wholly wrong that anyone in those circumstances should lose 100% of their benefits or other payments to which they are entitled when they are not being fully compensated for a disease that will kill them and which they have contracted purely because— I said this when I opened the debate on the first amendment to the Bill—they have gone out to work and sought to do that which we all seek to do every day.

Although I probably will not test the Committee’s will on the amendment, I hope that the Minister listened to that. I hope he will go away, reflect and ensure that the Government move amendments on Report to make it absolutely clear that no one who is entitled to a payment under the scheme will lose more of their benefits than they will recover in terms of the percentage of the average damages that would be payable if they were not driven to a scheme of last resort.

Ian Lavery (Labour, Wansbeck)

I tend to agree fully with the hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham. Again, it looks very much as if the poor old victim is being pushed into the background and little consideration is being given either to them or their family. The Department for Work and Pensions will have 100% clawback under the regulations, but at the same time, for the reasons that we discussed at great length on Tuesday, people will receive only 75% of any potential award. That is perverse and I cannot come to terms with that in any way, shape or form.

On Second Reading, I asked the Minister whether he could convince me that that measure was right, just and in the best interests of natural justice, but he did not convince me. I am up for a full and honest explanation from him. He has been forthcoming on every other issue that we have debated in Committee, and I hope that that will be the case with this issue.

Looking at the situation, why indeed should the state have a greater right of financial recovery than the victim? Why should we as politicians be saying that the state can claw back 100% of payments, but victims will get only 75% of any award? That is not natural justice. It just isn’t cricket, and it is not fair. I am desperate for a reasonable explanation of that. Quite frankly, there is not one and I look forward to the Minister’s response. By clawing back DWP benefits at 100% when compensation is paid at 75%, claimants are penalised financially on two occasions. That cannot be right. It is illogical, grossly unjust, wholly unfair and not acceptable.

Kate Green (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

I share the position articulated by the Members who have spoken so far. It is a palpable injustice that victims should receive only a proportion of average civil compensation when 100% of benefits will be clawed back. However, I can offer some solutions to the Minister, which might help to deal with the injustice. We debated the first solution extensively on Tuesday, but sadly the Minister was not amendable to it. The pressure of the clawback of benefits would be easier to accept if the level of payment under the scheme was more generous. If the level of clawback was aligned with the percentage of the payout, the more generous the level of payment, the larger the clawback would be. I am sure that would be of great interest to Her Majesty’s Treasury.

The Government are willing to put £17 million of public money into the scheme. Rather than gifting that money to the insurance industry, it is eminently possible that they could use it to protect individuals from the clawback of their benefits. I will talk a little more about that. Although the £17 million is to be gifted to the industry, the figures from the 10-year and 40-year periods show that there is plenty of room within the 3% levy of gross written premium for the industry to pay back that sum over time. That would ensure that the Treasury is not left out of pocket and the industry is able to meet the cost of the levy without needing to pass on the additional cost to its business customers.

I hope the Minister will reflect on the strong views expressed by the hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham and my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck on the moral argument for aligning the recovery of benefits with the proportion of civil compensation that claimants receive. I hope he will also consider the practical solution that I have suggested, which would make options such as a clawback at 75% of benefits, if civil compensation remained at 75%, affordable to Her Majesty’s Treasury.

Reducing the level of benefits clawback would mean that more money would be left in the pockets of mesothelioma sufferers. At 75% compensation levels, I estimate that sufferers would be £5,000 better off. The hon. and learned Gentleman will be interested in that, because it is equivalent to raising compensation levels to nearly 80%. Claimants would end up with £72,000, at 75% compensation levels with 75% clawback rates.

Stephen Phillips (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

The hon. Lady keeps ascribing to me a desire to see the level set at 80%, but I have made it clear during the debate that I think it should be 100%. The point about the 80% is that if legal fees are £2,000, 80% can be accommodated within the 3% of gross written premium. I want to make it clear that I am not advocating 80% for any reason other than that. Mesothelioma sufferers should be made whole.

Kate Green (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

I apologise to the hon. and learned Gentleman if I gave the impression that that is not his position. He was very clear on Tuesday about his position and that those are the constraints under which that amendment would be proposed.

If we could claw back 75% of benefits at 75% payment rates, claimants would end up with £72,000 rather than £73,214 at 80% with a 100% clawback. If no clawback were to take place, claimants would be £20,000 better off, equivalent to 92% average civil compensation.

Paul Goggins (Labour, Wythenshawe and Sale East)

My hon. Friend is making an important point. Does she agree that there would be a greater incentive to the Department for Work and Pensions to try to get the industry to up their contribution to 80%, because if claims were at 80%, the clawback would be at 80%?

Kate Green (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is plenty of scope for manoeuvre with these figures, to the benefit of both the public purse and mesothelioma sufferers. I would suggest that the figures for what can be recouped by the levy over a 10-year period mean that there is plenty of room within affordability for the industry for such options to be explored.

I strongly support the sentiments that have been expressed about this amendment. I very much hope that the Minister will indicate a willingness to be imaginative in improving the position of sufferers and look forward to his response.

Mike Penning (Conservative, Hemel Hempstead)

I have listened really carefully to the contributions. I must admit, we had gone over some of this territory already about percentages, the deal and the scheme, which is based on an agreement with the insurers. Recovery legislation is quite specific. The shadow Minister knows that and Ministers who have been in that position before know that one cannot cherry-pick back and forth and make a special scheme on benefit recovery for any individual scheme. I know that the hon. Member for Wansbeck will probably not go with me all the way on this—and I fully understand why—but although some people get 100% and we are on 70%, there are people in the civil courts who get less than they would get in the scheme and there is 100% recovery of the benefits for them.

If we take the 75% out of it, there will be people who get financially less than they would from this fund—that is if they came to the fund. They cannot come to the fund, because it has been settled in court because they found their insurer and their employer. These people will get 100% recovery of the benefits they claim. So there would be a two-tier system. That is why it would not be acceptable.

Kate Green (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

I am not clear on which circumstances an individual would receive less. He might receive less in absolute financial terms, but that would be for a range of other factors. for example, his age and his dependence. I do not think that the objective basis of assessment would be less fair to people who make a claim through the civil route, even if the monetary sum that they were entitled to was lower because of their personal circumstances.

Mike Penning (Conservative, Hemel Hempstead)

That was not the point I was making. My point is that in the civil courts, one would get a 100% deduction, no matter what amount of money one had. We have a 75% scheme within the recovery legislation. There are lots of schemes: we could look at the £17 million, the change in the 3% or, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham has consistently argued for, 100%. As I said, we are in this position where we have the deal on the table. I have the legislation on recovery where it is, and that is why we are where we are. That is why I am afraid that I cannot accept the amendment.

Stephen Phillips (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

Very kindly for the Committee, the Minister wrote to everyone who contributed at Second Reading on 6 December. In his letter, he indicated that the Government were minded—at least at that stage—not to accept any amendments in this regard. I have read that letter very carefully in so far as it deals with the recovery of benefits. I do not find within it anything that is particularly palatable as to why someone who will receive at the moment 75% of the compensation to which they are entitled as a result of a diagnosis of a disease which is going to kill them, should have 100% of their benefits clawed back. It seems to me that no benefits should be clawed back at all until such time as that person has been made whole. It also seems to me that in so far as benefits are going to be clawed back, they should be clawed back proportionately.

The Minister did not say during the course of his remarks—maybe he would like to intervene on me now—that he would reflect upon this between now and when the Bill is reported to the House. While I do not in any way want to be difficult, if he can give me the assurance that he will at least reflect upon it, this will enable me to say that I was not minded to press this to a vote. As matters stand at present, I have not been given the assurance that he will at least think about it and see if he can come up with a solution. I will be happy to give way now.

Mike Penning (Conservative, Hemel Hempstead)

With regret, I have already reflected quite extensively on this. I am afraid that I cannot reflect any more. If my hon. and learned Friend wishes to push it to a vote I fully respect that position.

Stephen Phillips (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

I am grateful. I do not want to cause the Minister difficulties but I am afraid I have not heard anything to persuade me to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. In those circumstances, I am minded to test the will of the Committee.

Clause 12 - Exclusion of payments under other legislation

Stephen Phillips (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

I beg to move amendment 33, in clause 12, page 7, line 3, leave out ‘an’ and insert ‘a successful’.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time on this or any other Bill, Mr Howarth.

The clause deals with schedule 2, which contains amendments to other legislation, to ensure that, where an application is made under the scheme, a person does not receive certain other payments. The amendment, which is in part a probing amendment, would make it clear that a person should not be deprived of payments, whether under schedule 2 or otherwise, unless a successful claim has been made under the scheme. At present, that is not what the clause states. I should be happy if the Minister said that that was the Government’s intention, in case it became an issue either before a court or any other body charged with the administration of the scheme in due course. There should be no loss of payments at all, until such time as a successful claim has been made. I hope that the Minister makes it clear that that is the Government’s intention.

Mike Penning (Conservative, Hemel Hempstead)

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth.

That is exactly the Government’s intention. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend accepts that in good faith.

Stephen Phillips (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

On the basis of that assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 13 - The levy

Stephen Phillips (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

I beg to move amendment 34, in clause 13, page 7, line 8, after ‘insurers’, insert ‘and reinsurers’.

George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 37, in clause 13, page 7, line 23, after ‘insurers’, insert ‘and reinsurers’.

Amendment 38, in clause 13, page 7, line 28, after ‘insurers’, insert ‘and reinsurers’.

Amendment 40, in clause 13, page 8, line 5, at end add

“‘reinsurer” means a person who, at any time during the reference period, was a person offering reinsurance to active insurers or their reinsurers in respect of employers’ liability insurance and includes retrocessionaires.’.

Amendment 41, in clause 14, page 8, line 7, after ‘insurer’, insert ‘or reinsurer’.

Amendment 42, in clause 14, page 8, line 10, after ‘insurer’, insert ‘or reinsurer’.

Amendment 43, in clause 14, page 8, line 12, after ‘insurer’, insert ‘or reinsurer’.

Amendment 44, in clause 14, page 8, line 13, after ‘insurer’, insert ‘or reinsurer’.

Amendment 45, in clause 14, page 8, line 14, after ‘insurer’, insert ‘or reinsurer’.

Amendment 46, in clause 14, page 8, line 18, after subsection (4) add—

‘(5) In this section—

(a) “active insurer” means a person who, at any time during the reference period, was an authorised insurer within the meaning of the compulsory insurance legislation, and

(b) “reinsurer” means a person who, at any time during the reference period, was a person offering reinsurance to active insurers or their reinsurers in respect of employers’ liability insurance and includes retrocessionaires.’.

Stephen Phillips (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

During this morning’s sitting, the last amendment, which I moved and in respect of which the will of the Committee was tested, was one that I said mattered. In a sense, these amendments are not probing amendments but are similar to the one this morning, because they would give the Minister a way out of the difficulties that he has faced in Committee and on Second Reading in relation to some points made regarding the deficiencies in the proposed scheme.

The problem with the proposed scheme, which has been identified by all parties, is that there is no moral case at all, as I think every member of the Committee agrees, for anyone who suffers from mesothelioma to receive anything other than 100% of the compensation that they would receive if they could trace and successfully pursue either an employer or that employer’s compulsory liability insurers. Yet the deal that the Minister has alluded to, which has been done between the Government and their predecessor under whom the negotiations with the insurance industry began, is that to allow the insurance industry to swallow the costs of the scheme, any payments that fall due under the scheme must be accommodated within a cap of 3% of the gross written premium that the industry manages every year.

Although I may or may not agree with that cap and although I may or may not agree with the ability of the insurance industry to swallow more without passing on the cost to business, I am proceeding on the assumption that that 3% cap is what we have to live with because that is the deal that has been done. Yet if more money were available, we could fund 100% compensation. If more money were available, we could ensure that there was a research levy, as the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East urged upon the Committee. If more money were available, we could extend the scheme so that, as other Members who spoke on Second Reading suggested, it extended to those who are not at present caught by it. They are the partners or spouses who were exposed to fibrous carcinogens that have caused mesothelioma: people came back to their houses and effectively gave the disease to their spouse or partner. The scheme could then cope with children who were not employed by anybody, but who will sustain a diagnosis of mesothelioma because they were taught in classrooms where carcinogens were present.

The whole edifice of problems that have been identified with the scheme, welcome as it is, in not going far enough could be cured if there were another pot of money to which the Government could turn to ensure that everyone diagnosed with mesothelioma who has no other recourse could receive full compensation for the injuries that they have sustained and that will ultimately lead to their deaths. On reading the Bill in preparation for the Committee, as no doubt every other member of the Committee did, I not unnaturally wondered whether another such pot of money could be tapped on the basis of the rationale that underlies the Bill.

Let us be clear what that rationale is. The insurers who will essentially pay for the scheme are—in so far as they are not new entrants, and many are not—insurance companies that received over the years premiums from employers in relation to risks, which have now eventuated, that those employers would negligently have occasioned an exposure to asbestos that has caused mesothelioma in their employees. That is something that those direct insurers received payment for, which, as the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston indicated, is something that they would have reserved for at the time. They certainly should have done so. That is why they are being asked to contribute to the scheme.

Behind those insurers—this appears to have eluded both this and the previous Government—sits another group of insurers: insurers of insurers. They have also received significant premiums and are being asked to contribute precisely nothing to this or any other scheme where the person who suffers from mesothelioma has no recourse to anyone else. Those individuals are in the reinsurance market, which operates in this jurisdiction and in every other jurisdiction in the developed world.

Perhaps, Mr Howarth, I may be permitted a brief excursion by way of education. An insurer does not hold on to all the risks that he collects together. That is not how the market functions. An insurer either parcels out some of those risks by way of quota share reinsurance, which effectively gives the reinsurer part of the original risk, or he might effect some form of stop-loss policy, excess of loss policy or other type of policy that will stop his losses breaching a certain amount. The purpose of the reinsurance industry is to ensure the survival of the insurance industry during various catastrophes and to smooth out results and to create capacity in the direct market.

Be that as it may, whatever that purpose is, reinsurers operating today have received significant amounts, perhaps as much as 20%—perhaps even more—of the premiums paid to direct insurers by employers to effect compulsory insurance. They are being asked to contribute precisely nothing to this or any other scheme of last resort to make whole those who suffer from mesothelioma, who have no other route of recourse. They therefore afford, as the previous Government should have appreciated and as perhaps this Government should also have appreciated, a pocket of money that is not being tapped up, but which could be used to ensure full compensation to those who have to seek recourse from the scheme; that could be used to ensure proper research into treatments and cures for mesothelioma, as urged upon the Committee by the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East; that could be used to extend the scope of the scheme, so that it covered those who have no other route of recourse and, for example, did nothing more than wash their husband’s overalls covered with asbestos fibres; and that could be used to ensure that children, who will in middle age and later life sustain diagnoses of mesothelioma, are properly compensated in circumstances in which they have no other recourse because they were not employed by anyone.

Nick Brown (Labour, Newcastle upon Tyne East)

The hon. and learned Gentleman makes a persuasive case. He is certainly carrying me with his remarks. Why does he think that the negotiators from the Association of British Insurers overlooked the point that he is making?

Stephen Phillips (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

I simply do not know the answer to that. It might be that I am completely wrong and that there is no such pot of money. Many reinsurers are large corporations not necessarily domiciled in this jurisdiction and might therefore not be represented by the ABI. If one thinks of the Swiss Res and the Munich Res of this world, I do not believe they are listed here in the UK. They of course have a significant presence here, but I do not know whether they are represented by the ABI. However, here is a group of companies and markets worldwide, in this jurisdiction and elsewhere, that could have been asked to contribute to the scheme, because they have undoubtedly received premiums in the past that have not been used to pay claims that have eventuated; yet that has not happened.

The group of amendments, in my name and that of my hon. Friends the Members for Enfield North, for Daventry and for Eastleigh, seeks to ensure that reinsurers are asked to contribute in a way that they have not been by this or the previous Government, so that we can deal with all the problems identified in Committee and on Second Reading, and so that, as the hon. Member for Wansbeck has said a number of times, we do not lose sight of what the scheme is about, which is to ensure that full compensation is given to those who have sustained an appalling diagnosis of mesothelioma, as a result of nothing more than the fact that they went to work, and who will leave behind them relatives who are very often the claimants themselves, who have to deal not only with the death of a loved one, but with having to lose the income that that loved one brought in.

Mesothelioma is, as we all know, an appalling disease, which the Government are quite properly dealing with in the scheme of last resort; but if we are to deal with these problems, I do not see why we should not ask everybody who made money from the premiums paid by employers who can no longer be traced.

Ian Lavery (Labour, Wansbeck)

The hon. and learned Gentleman is generous in giving way. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East, I am very persuaded by what the hon. and learned Gentleman has said. Many very wealthy organisations are perhaps not represented by the ABI. Does that not give the Government the opportunity to negotiate with them to make up the 75% to 100%?

Stephen Phillips (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

It may well do—the hon. Gentleman is perfectly right about that—but for one fact, which is that we need to get the Bill on the statute book now. We need it as quickly as possible, because there are people out there who have already had a diagnosis of mesothelioma and people whose loved ones have recently died of mesothelioma since the cut-off date. That is another thing that we could deal with if we had more money, but never mind. Those people need recompense as quickly as possible.

Although I want to hear from the Minister before I indicate whether I want to test the will of the Committee on the amendments, the position that I am urging on him is that, even if at this stage the Government cannot accept the amendments because there has been no write-round or negotiation with the reinsurance industry, this is something that his Department needs to look at. It needs to do some work on it, to work up proposals and approach those who carry this form of reinsurance and who made money out of this market and received reinsurance premiums for which they have not had to pay claims.

If necessary, the Minister will then need to conduct some other consultation and come back with another Bill, perhaps one that amends this one, to ensure, as every hon. Member wants, that under this scheme of last resort for those who are driven to it proper compensation is afforded for those who receive an appalling diagnosis of mesothelioma.

Kate Green (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

Good afternoon, Mr Howarth, it is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I rise briefly warmly to welcome and endorse the amendments proposed. I hope, like the hon. and learned Gentleman, that the Minister will be able to give a constructive and positive response to the proposal.

Mike Penning (Conservative, Hemel Hempstead)

I will speak to the amendments in general terms. The principle behind them was put eloquently by my hon. and learned Friend. He rightly expected me to say that I could not accept the proposal now, because the process has not gone through Government structures, as former Ministers will understand, Mr Howarth.

I will move on to a more positive tone by saying that I would like to look at the proposal in more depth. I come to this with some knowledge, to which I alluded when Mr Davies was in the Chair. He understood where I was coming from in relation to the bookmaking industry. Bookmakers lay off their risk all the time. If I went in and had a £1 million bet with Ladbrokes this afternoon—it might be able to afford it, though other bookmakers might not—it will offload that risk through the system. If that company did not pay out, I could not go to the other bookmakers where that bet had been offloaded.

The principle of reinsuring based on moving the risk down the line would need to be debated and looked at more extensively. I am happy to progress discussions with reinsurers. It may perhaps seem sometimes that they are not being represented by the ABI. Many will be the same companies that we are talking about. Because of that and the complexity it would bring, my hon. and learned Friend is right that at this stage of the Bill, being so close to getting the legislation on the statute book—

Stephen Phillips (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

Cannot the Minister just say why nobody in the other place, among officials or those advising the previous Government, thought about that point? If it is a bad point—the Minister does not appear to say it is—I would understand why nobody had thought about it. Why, when we could have given full compensation, are we having to deal with this now? I accept that we are where we are, and that it is too late. There seems to have been a catalogue of poor advice— I choose my words carefully.

George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley)

Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman should choose his words carefully and quickly.

Stephen Phillips (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

I am grateful for that. Poor advice has been given to Ministers both in this Government and the previous one.

Mike Penning (Conservative, Hemel Hempstead)

I have a great deal of sympathy with my hon. and learned Friend’s point. I was, of course, not there in the difficult discussions on who would be party to the levy and who would be a party in the Bill, which the Committee has discussed extensively Committee. Those were difficult discussions about who would be party to the levy and to the legislation before the Committee. I understand that the complexity of tracing reinsure and run off is part of the issue—most hon. Members will realise that it is the biggest issue. I give a commitment that we will continue to pursue the matter and see whether we can bring more organisations to the party, but at the same time, as my hon. and learned Friend touched on his comments, I cannot at this stage of the Bill accept the amendments, simply because they would create a difficult situation. Things are not the right way around—we have not got Treasury approval and we have not even been in discussions with the reinsurers, let alone bringing them in. Given the complexity, sadly—we may disagree on this—I cannot accept the amendment.

Stephen Phillips (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

I am grateful to the Minister for his positive indication that the Government will look at the matter. The lead amendment is in the hands of the Committee rather than in mine. For my part, on the basis of the Minister’s assurances, I will not seek to press the other amendments to a vote, and I will attempt to withdraw this one, but the Committee knows that it is not within my gift that that should necessarily occur. I beg to ask leave to withdraw amendment.

Stephen Phillips (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

I beg to move amendment 35, in clause 13, page 7, line 9, leave out

‘with a view to meeting’

and insert

‘so as to ensure that’.

George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 36, in clause 13, page 7, line 10, after ‘Scheme’, insert ‘are met’.

Stephen Phillips (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

The Bill makes provision for the Secretary of State not only to impose the levy that is dealt with in clause 13, but to impose it with a view to meeting the costs of the scheme. The scheme, in essence, picks up the costs of liabilities for which those who are funding the scheme have already been paid, by way of the premiums that they have received in the past. The amendments in my name and the name of other hon. Friends therefore seek to make it clear that it is the entirety of the costs that should be picked up by the those who have received the premiums—the insurance industry—and that no part of the cost should fall on the taxpayer. I hope the Minister will therefore indicate either that that is the intention, or that he will accept the amendments.

Mike Penning (Conservative, Hemel Hempstead)

I shall be brief. Yes, that is the intention of the Government and of the Bill. The funds are there explicitly to ensure that there is no way the levy funds can be used for anything else and that they cover the cost of the scheme. Part of the reason why there was Government investment into this and into the smoothing was to ensure that that could take place. That is the position of the Government, so I assure my hon. and learned Friend that the amendments are not required.

Stephen Phillips (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

On that basis, I am content to beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Kate Green (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

I will make a short speech on the clause, in particular to ask the Minister to expand on some of the issues discussed on Tuesday. On two separate occasions on that day, he helpfully gave two welcome assurances that the 3% levy on insurers would be protected. First, he told us:

“that the 3% is not going anywhere. The figure will be 3%, which is important. I hope that hon. Members have listened and understand my position and the Government’s position and will therefore not press their amendments.”

Later, he repeated the commitment:

“It is very important that the insurance companies know that the 3% is there. In Committee in the other place, Lord Freud committed to a review at the end of the smoothing period, after four years, to see exactly how things were going. There was certainly not a commitment to interfere. I will place that fact in regulations so that the Committee has confidence that a review will take place after the four-year smoothing period. At that point, we will have a much better idea of how much the levy collector is collecting. We may be able to spend that by increasing the percentage, or we may be able to do other things with it.”––[Official Report, Mesothelioma Public Bill Committee, 10 December 2013; c. 72 to 78.]

We were grateful for the Minister’s firm endorsement that the 3% levy would not be subject to any reduction, even if surplus funds were available within it.

Following that debate, I took another look at the impact assessment, particularly the most recent assessment that was published a couple of weeks ago. It states that the costs of the scheme are split between a £371 million levy on the insurance industry—the 3% levy—and £17 million of Government funding, which we discussed earlier. In fact, the industry cost of £371 million is mentioned eight times in the document and I cannot trace a different figure being discussed. However, by my calculations, a 3% levy on the gross written premium is approximately £432 million over 10 years, so will the Minister explain the £61 million difference?

As I said on Tuesday—this was the strong sentiment of all members of the Committee—ensuring that the levy remains at 3% is essential to prevent victims from losing out when insurers can comfortably accommodate that level of payment. I would be particularly concerned if the £371 million represents an under-assessment of what a 3% levy could raise. Will the Minister assure me absolutely that it would not be used as an opportunity for the industry to argue that a smaller total global figure should be protected, and that he will reaffirm that the 3% levy will be consistently applied across all insurers currently active for a minimum of 10 years, if not the 40 years volunteered by the ABI, and that any surplus money will be diverted to a fund for research, to extend the scheme or to enable more generous pay-out levels?

Nick Brown (Labour, Newcastle upon Tyne East)

It is a pleasure, Mr Howarth, to serve under your chairmanship and guidance. We go back some 40 years in Labour politics and my only disappointment is that now that I know exactly where you are and the good works you are engaged in, it is far too late by several years for me to make as much use of the information as I might have done a few years ago.

George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley)

Order. I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman was trying to pay me a compliment, or making a veiled threat, but neither will have any impact on the impartiality of the Chair.

Nick Brown (Labour, Newcastle upon Tyne East)

The only thing that would serve me now, Mr Howarth, would be the compliment, and of course that is what was intended. I am sure you have taken it in that spirit.

It would be wrong to leave the matters under discussion in clause 13 without referring back to the point raised by the hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham. I thought his intervention on the Minister about why the reinsurance point was overlooked, if it has been overlooked, was a powerful one. If it has not been overlooked and there is a good reason why those in the reinsurance part of the sector have not been embraced by the Bill, the Committee would like to hear what it is. Will the Minister, either later in our proceedings or on Report or Third Reading, explain what it is? If it is a genuine oversight and there is no policy reason why they should not be embraced by the Bill, will it be possible to put it right? Obviously, some consultation would be needed, but I do not think that, with good will on both sides, that would be impossible and we could return to it on Report.

Another matter that I found even more perplexing is the industry view. The Minister and his officials will have had discussions with the industry and, as far as we know, they have not raised the point, but one would have thought that it would be to their advantage if they could find another group of people with whom to share the costs. There may be some industry reason why they do not want to embrace reinsurance, but I do not know what it is. Can we possibly ask the Minister to ascertain what it is?

Stephen Phillips (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

This is a slightly odd intervention, but does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it would be very helpful to the Committee if we received a letter from the Minister, before the Bill is reported to the House, dealing with the points he identifies?

Nick Brown (Labour, Newcastle upon Tyne East)

Yes. I am getting myself more into trouble the more I speak on this Committee. First, by paying utterly deserved compliments to the Chair, now by agreeing with—

Stephen Phillips (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

A horrible Tory?

Nick Brown (Labour, Newcastle upon Tyne East)

I was going to say “a well-remunerated lawyer,” but perhaps we should just say a Member of the coalition Government. I agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman on that point. It would help if the Minister could satisfy the Committee or at least offer some explanation to us, and if it were possible to get such a thing before the Committee concludes its proceedings.

Mike Penning (Conservative, Hemel Hempstead)

Yes, of course I will write to members of the Committee, but the information will be available in the Library to all Members who want to take part in the debate on Report and Third Reading. I have no inner knowledge, but I suspect that the reinsurers are going to be almost exactly the same people who were insuring in the first place. There is not an infinite amount of companies out there insuring, but we will write to them.

There seems to have been an awful lot of oversight, if we want to look at it that way, but I do not think that this was an oversight—it is the deal that was struck. I say to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston, that I met Lord Freud, my fellow Minister in the Department for Work and Pensions, this morning. Three per cent. is 3% and we have no intention of moving away from it. I will write to her to give her more details, but my note says that the different amount, as she quoted, will add the current assumptions about the rate of volume of payments as estimated. The assumption is of the volume and rate of business, because obviously the businesses that the people were involved in were not passing it on to businesses that are buying the compulsory premium that we will have. I will write to her and explain that in more detail as we progress.

Clause 15 - Technical Committee to decide certain insurance disputes

Nick Brown (Labour, Newcastle upon Tyne East)

I beg to move amendment 68, in clause 15, page 8, line 22, after ‘which’, insert

‘must have a membership including representatives of the insurers, the potential insurance claimants and employers, and’.

George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 69, in clause 15, page 8, line 40, at end insert

‘which must include at least one representative of each of the parties mentioned in subsection (1).’.

Nick Brown (Labour, Newcastle upon Tyne East)

The clause and amendments I have tabled deal with the technical committee that will handle disputes. These are likely to fall into a number of reasonably well understood areas: whether or not a previous employer or their insurers can be found; whether or not the previous employer still exists or the person with responsibility to ensure the employer’s liability still exists; and other reasons, as set out in clauses 2 and 3 of the Bill, which we considered earlier. Very helpfully, the Minister has written to us to set out what the other reasons are. Effectively, the other reasons are circumstances in which either the employer or the insurer is bankrupt, still exists, but could not reasonably be pursued for a payment.

My question, which I hope the Minister can address when he responds, is this: if the question of whether the employer or the insurer can be found is specifically mentioned in the Bill, and if the question of whether they exist—it would be perfectly reasonable, if they did not, to put that forward as a reason for proceeding under the scheme as a last resort—is also mentioned in the Bill, why is the position in the event of bankruptcy, when the institution still exists but is in receivership and cannot make a payment, not mentioned in the Bill, rather than embraced in the catch-all phrase “other reasons”?

The obvious answer is that there are some other other reasons, apart from bankruptcy. If that is the answer, will the Minister say what they are? I understand that they will be covered in the regulations, but I have not seen those, so I do not know what they will say. There is a case to be made, if only for consistency, for setting out all the reasons in the Bill. If there is a need for a catch-all provision at the end to cover something that most people would think was reasonable, but that nobody has thought of at the moment, that should be said explicitly.

Those are the issues the technical committee will have to deal with. It is clear from our discussions on Second Reading and in Committee that there are parties coming to these questions from different points of view. There are those representing the interests of the employers, who thought they were insured; there are those representing the interests of the insurers, who were happy enough to take the premiums, and who had the obligation to provide recompense where there was a case for it; and there are the interests of the victims. The victims will typically be the employees, who are in the direst circumstances, as Members have said—I do not want to go over that again—and for whom time is strictly limited, because life expectancy with this condition is very short. They are looking for some financial compensation, in the hope that it will alleviate their pain and suffering in the months that remain and help to provide for their dependants after they have died.

Those interests are different, and the purpose of the amendments is to explore whether they should not all be explicitly represented on the technical committee. Even if the Minister does not accept that that should be stated explicitly in the Bill, I hope he will be able to tell the Committee how he intends to ensure that there is fairness on the technical committee, that there is somebody on it who will look sympathetically at the arguments that are advanced by different points of view and that it is composed not just of people who, while they should, of course, have technical expertise, earn their living in the same walk of life and, possibly, from people who represent one side of this argument, but not another.

Mike Penning (Conservative, Hemel Hempstead)

I wanted to intervene to be helpful, but it is just as easy to speak now.

The role of the technical committee is purely to decide on cover; it is for others to decide on bankruptcy, and I am sure the right hon. Gentleman knows that. However, there is an intention that the technical committee will not go unmonitored and that the Employers’ Liability Tracing Office will have stakeholders on it to give it the oversight the right hon. Gentleman was asking for. I believe that is here within these arrangements. As he mentioned, others will be covered in the draft regulations, and we are working on that as we prepare them.

Nick Brown (Labour, Newcastle upon Tyne East)

I am almost allergic to the phrase “stakeholders”, although you might look on it more benignly, Mr Howarth. The Minister’s assurances give me some hope. I assume he means that different points of view will be represented on the committee. If he could just nod, I will cheerfully not press the amendment to a vote.

Mike Penning indicated assent.

Nick Brown (Labour, Newcastle upon Tyne East)

I thank the Minister. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Stephen Phillips (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

I beg to move amendment 47, in clause 15, page 8, line 32, after ‘court’, insert ‘or which is an issue in proceedings which are before a court’.

The amendment seeks to address a deficiency in subsection (4), which makes it clear that the technical committee

“does not have jurisdiction to decide a question”—

a question of cover—

“that has already been decided by a court.”

By the same token, if a court is yet to decide a question of which it is already seized, the technical committee should equally be deprived of jurisdiction to decide the question, otherwise one might end up with the position that the clause is plainly designed to avoid whereby the technical committee comes to a different decision from a court of competent jurisdiction. Where a question is in issue in proceedings that are already extant, plainly the technical committee ought not to have jurisdiction. It is for that reason that the amendment is both desirable and, I say respectfully to the Minister, absolutely necessary.

Mike Penning (Conservative, Hemel Hempstead)

My note indicates that the amendment would provide extra clarity that the technical committee cannot give a decision on a matter that is pending before a court. Our Bill managers indicate that the technical committee cannot do that.

Stephen Phillips (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

If the Minister is right, it is fine. Why cannot the technical committee decide a question that is already in issue in proceedings that are before a court, even if there has not yet been a trial? Why not?

Mike Penning (Conservative, Hemel Hempstead)

I may have to write to my hon. and learned Friend. I am not legally trained in any way, but my understanding is that the technical committee cannot pre-empt a court’s decision. The Bill specifically states that the technical committee cannot do so, and I am more than happy to write to him before Report to explain why that is within the Bill. I hope he understands that I do not intend to accept the amendment.

Stephen Phillips (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

If I may, I will make a speech sufficiently long for a note to reach the Minister from those on his left who are scrawling it at the moment.

The Minister is saying that the amendment is unnecessary because the technical committee does not have jurisdiction to decide, or would not decide, a question on cover that had yet to be decided by a court but that is in issue in court proceedings that have already commenced. If that is right, I would be perfectly prepared to withdraw the amendment. At the moment, I cannot see why that would be the case on the basis of the Bill. I am happy for the Minister either to intervene or to make another speech.

Mike Penning (Conservative, Hemel Hempstead)

Anyone who serves on a Bill Committee as a Minister will be passed notes. As my hon. and learned Friend predicted, a note has arrived saying that the Bill does not prevent the technical committee from making such a decision, so I apologise if I have misled the Committee. The note goes on to ask why the technical committee would wish to do so. Arrangements are provided in the Bill.

Stephen Phillips (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

I think the Minister has indicated that he will write to me and to the other members of the Committee on that point before Report. No doubt it is my fault for not being clear about my concerns.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 16 - Challenging decisions of the Technical Committee

Stephen Phillips (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

I beg to move amendment 48, in clause 16, page 9, line 18, after ‘arbitration’, insert

‘or to the relevant court’.

George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 49, in clause 16, page 9, line 30, at end add—

‘(6) In this section “the relevant court” means—

(a) the High Court in England and Wales or Northern Ireland, or

(b) the Court of Session in Scotland.’.

Stephen Phillips (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

Once the technical committee established by clause 15 has reached a decision, clause 16 tells us that that decision may be challenged by a person who is dissatisfied, but the decision may be challenged under the Bill only by referring the question to arbitration. I think the Bill contemplates that one ends up with a statutory arbitration in accordance with the relevant provisions of, at least in England and Wales, the Arbitration Act 1996. That is desirable in so far as it goes. It enables a route of recourse for someone who is dissatisfied with the decision of the technical committee. But my understanding from my limited knowledge of arbitration is that parties pay their arbitrators. So an applicant who is dissatisfied with a decision of the technical committee, rather than having the right to go to court will have to refer the decision he does not like to arbitration in a private forum, which therefore will not attract publicity. More importantly he will have to pay the arbitrator or arbitrators. If the matter were appealed to court, he would not have to pay the judge because the judge is provided by the state to determine the dispute.

So it is an added cost to applicants who are dissatisfied with decisions of the technical committee in circumstances where we are trying to give applicants, whether they are those who have been diagnosed with mesothelioma or their dependants, the largest possible chunk of compensation. These amendments suggest that the applicant should have a choice to refer the matter either to arbitration, which is sometimes said to be speedier than court, although it is not always, or to the court. I venture to suggest that this is a desirable group of amendments. I hope that the Minister will feel able to accept them.

Mike Penning (Conservative, Hemel Hempstead)

The amendments were obviously tabled in good faith. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham pointed out, there is no requirement to go to arbitration but the technical committee will pay for the applicant’s costs and that will be covered by the arrangements in the Bill. As I understand it—I may need to address this is in regulations—the technical committee has it within its powers and within its funding to pay for such costs. I would agree with my hon. and learned Friend that arbitration can be quicker, and it is often cheaper and it is private.

Stephen Phillips (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

I seek some further clarification from the Minister. My understanding is that under clause 10 the scheme administrator can help a person to bring relevant proceedings. Relevant proceedings, as we have discussed in relation to one of my previous amendments, do not include proceedings before the technical committee or an appeal from the technical committee. The scheme administrator cannot help or pay for proceedings arising from a decision of the technical committee. But what I understood the Minister to say is that the technical committee itself will fund a decision to which it has come with which an applicant is dissatisfied in a statutory arbitration. That seems an odd position because any successful litigant would have to pay for his opponent’s appeal. There we are. I would be grateful for clarification that that is the position and also where I find it in the Bill.

Mike Penning (Conservative, Hemel Hempstead)

In conclusion, I understand these arrangements are allowed for in clause 15(6). There will be no requirement for me to put it in regulations.

Kate Green (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

Can the Minister also clarify whether, if the technical committee can indeed pay the arbitration costs of a disgruntled applicant, such costs are encompassed within the total costs of the scheme and therefore within the 3% levy figures that we have been discussing?

Mike Penning (Conservative, Hemel Hempstead)

They most certainly are within the 3% and within the scheme.

Stephen Phillips (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

Clause 6 or clause 15 deal with the arrangements that are made by the Secretary of State in relation to the technical committee under clause 15(1). There are three things in particular that are dealt with. The composition of the technical committee, the technical committee’s procedure and how that is to be determined and review by the technical committee of its own decisions. There is absolutely nothing about the technical committee paying for the cost of the arbitration. I am prepared to go with the Minister this far. He has now given an indication of what the regulations will contain. The technical committee is going to have to pay for that. Is the technical committee going to pay purely the cost of the arbitrator, or is it also going to pay the cost of the applicant being represented before the arbitrator or arbitrators, so that the applicant is not deprived of further amounts that they are entitled to in compensation?

Mike Penning (Conservative, Hemel Hempstead)

I will stand and speak slowly for a few seconds while a note appears from behind me. As I understand it, the arrangements may—so it is not exclusive—be paid for by the arbitrators. I will write to the hon. and learned Gentleman.

I also want to indicate to the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston that I may have misled her a moment ago when I said it was all within the 3% when it may not be. I will write to her.

Kate Green (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

May I ask the Minister to be clear about my understanding? The applicant will have no choice but to go to arbitration. He may have the cost of going to arbitration funded by the technical committee, and that may or may not fall within the amount of money raised by the 3% levy.

Mike Penning (Conservative, Hemel Hempstead)

I understand that they do not have to go to arbitration. They can go through the civil process. There is no requirement for them to go through arbitration, as I understand it.

Stephen Phillips (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

I think the sensible thing would be for the Minister to write to the Committee on this point, as he has offered to do, before the Bill is reported to the House. The letter should deal with my points and those raised by the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston. It is important to get this clear, even if it is not included in the Bill. Nobody wants an applicant to be disadvantaged. It is that with which the amendments seek to grapple. Given that the Minister has offered to write, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 17 - Regulations under this Act

Stephen Phillips (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

I beg to move amendment 50, in clause 17, page 9, line 35, leave out ‘(the scheme)’.

The Committee will no doubt have observed in its perusal of the Bill that clause 17(2) refers to

“A statutory instrument containing—

(a) the first regulations under section 1 (the scheme)”.

The Committee will also have observed that the scheme is defined in clause 18 as

“the Diffuse Mesothelioma Payment Scheme”.

The amendment seeks to deal with an issue that arises as a result. It might be suggested—based on the drafting of clause 17 with the words the scheme in parentheses after the reference to the first regulations under section 1—that the scheme can only ever be the scheme as enacted by the first set of regulations. If those regulations are subsequently amended they are not the scheme for the purposes of the Act. That is an ambiguity that it would be sensible to clarify in advance of someone seeking to do that before the technical committee, the first tier appeal tribunal, the courts or anyone else.

Mike Penning (Conservative, Hemel Hempstead)

Although I accept the point my hon. and learned Friend makes, the legal team and the parliamentary draftsmen were happy with the wording. The short title is important. On that basis, it stays in the clause as written. I understand the point he makes but do not think it is an issue, nor do my team or the parliamentary draftsmen. On that basis, I ask him to withdraw his amendment.

Stephen Phillips (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

I am not surprised the Minister and his officials understand the point because I explained it to them yesterday. On the basis that that is plainly the will of the Committee, and if the Bill therefore passes its remaining stages and receives Royal Assent, and that in due course is the interpretation, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 18 - Defined terms used in more than one section of this Act

Stephen Phillips (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

I beg to move amendment 51, in clause 18, page 10, line 5, after ‘scheme’, insert—

“‘applicant” means a person applying for a payment under the scheme.’.

Amendment 52 follows on from the previous amendment and is therefore not an amendment with which the Committee needs to concern itself. Amendment 51 simply deals with the fact that—perhaps I missed it or I am entirely wrong—there is no definition of “applicant” in the Bill. A definition is not only desirable, but probably necessary. I hope that this is one amendment, at least, that the Minister will, even if not now, be able to accept in due course.

Mike Penning (Conservative, Hemel Hempstead)

I also discussed that extensively this morning. I thank my hon. and learned Friend for the conversations and detailed work he has been doing with the Bill Committee team. I will consider the amendment as we go forward, but, at this stage of the Bill, I am content not to progress with it.

Chris Bryant (Labour, Rhondda)

But why?

Mike Penning (Conservative, Hemel Hempstead)

Because I do not feel there is a requirement to do so, and nor does the team or the parliamentary draftsman. Even though my hon. and learned Friend is very knowledgeable in this area, I have to accept the advice that I am given. I have examined it and I feel that it is fine. [ Interruption. ]

Stephen Phillips (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

There is cross-heckling of the heckler going on. I hear what the Minister says, but I do think it would be desirable to have a definition of “applicant” in the Bill. I hope that he will reflect further and no doubt discuss the position with me and with his officials, with whom I can also talk it over, and I hope that he will come back in due course with a Government amendment. On the basis of what he has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Paul Goggins (Labour, Wythenshawe and Sale East)

I was looking in clause 18 for a definition of “specified payment”. Of course, I did not find it, because clause 18 covers the definition of terms used in more than one part of the Bill. If I turn to clause 2, I find that “specified payment” is indeed defined and

“has the meaning to be given to it by the scheme.”

The scheme, however, is in clause 18, which is why I now seek to comment. My hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston made some important points when we met earlier in the week about the T&N Asbestos Trust. Without detaining the Committee on the details, because we did have some discussion about it, I am sure, Mr Howarth, that you and other members of the Committee will know that, because of the company voluntary agreement that was reached in 2006 following that company becoming insolvent, recipients of payments under the T&N scheme receive in the region of £40,000 as compensation.

Based on what it knows at the moment, T&N Asbestos Trust has estimates for the payments to people who will benefit from the fund, which this legislation is about to establish. At the moment, under the present terms—we hope that those terms will be improved as the Minister reflects on the arguments that have been put—the payments would be about £95,000.

Because the £40,000 payments are deemed to be specified payments, those who receive them will not be eligible to make a claim to the fund being established by the Bill. On any reading of that, it seems to be a plain injustice that people who have mesothelioma will receive inadequate payments for that illness simply because a company insolvency makes them ineligible to claim under the fund being established.

I make that point because I received specific representations from the T&N Asbestos Trust, which is based in my constituency. As the Minister draws up the regulations on what will be provided for in the scheme, will he think of the plight of those workers who face not just the dreadful prospect of a mesothelioma diagnosis, but being at least £55,000 worse off simply because of the insolvency of the company that they previously worked for?

Kate Green (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

I support my right hon. Friend’s comments. I am aware that the Minister will point out that the people who receive a payment under the Turner and Newall scheme will not suffer a clawback of benefits. None the less, the difference between a typical payment of £40,000 without benefit clawback and a payment of typically £90,000 or £95,000 even with full benefit clawback will mean in most cases that the Turner and Newall scheme beneficiaries will be disadvantaged.

I will raise another point in relation to the Turner and Newall scheme. I apologise for raising this again, but the letter that the Minister kindly sent us this morning to deal with some issues discussed in Tuesday’s debate raised further questions. I hope that he can clarify these points. In his letter, he said:

“The provision in clause 18(3) of the Bill for the scheme to specify circumstances in which a person is, or is not, to be treated as able to bring an action, is linked to the eligibility conditions in clauses 2(1)(d) and 3(1)(c). Those eligibility conditions require an applicant to the scheme to show that there is no employer or employers’ liability insurer that they can bring an action for damages against because those parties a.) cannot be found b.) no longer exist or c.) for any other reason.”

The group I refer to are not Turner and Newall employees, but employees of other businesses who used Turner and Newall products. In fact, almost any worker in the electrician sector, plumbing, shipbuilding, manufacturing and so on will have used Turner and Newall products during some period in our industrial history, because it dominated the asbestos supply market for many years.

In some cases, those workers will no longer be able to trace their employer or their employer’s liability insurer. Ostensibly, in those cases, they should be able to access the scheme provided for in the Bill. The difficulty as I understand it, however, is that the Turner and Newall schemes, which will be specified payments that preclude people from accessing this scheme, also include the possibility of people raising claims against those trusts on product liability claims, not just employment liability claims.

I am concerned that a worker who cannot trace his or her own employer but can be shown to have used Turner and Newall products, and therefore could ostensibly access the Turner and Newall product liability scheme, could be precluded from coming to the diffuse mesothelioma payment scheme. I am sure that that is not the legislation’s intention—I would be very surprised if it were—but I would be grateful if the Minister would make that absolutely clear either on Report or in regulations. The real risk is that any worker might be precluded from applying to the scheme, not just those from the manual industries, because, across the decades, so many of us will have come into contact with Turner and Newall products.

Mike Penning (Conservative, Hemel Hempstead)

Let me touch on that exact point. That is not the intention. The intention of the Bill is not only financially to assist sufferers of mesothelioma and their dependants to find out about their employer’s insurance if they were employed, but, if there is no scheme for them to go to and they have no recourse, for them to fit in with this fund of last resort.

I will look carefully at the points made by the hon. Lady, because technical issues such as litigation are involved. I will come back to her between now and Report, or on Report, which I understand will be quite soon—the day after the House returns after Christmas. It has been announced that we will be back on the Tuesday for Report and Third Reading, so I am not pre-empting an announcement by the Leader of the House. We will try to be as expansive as possible about our proposals, as I have been in the letters that I been sending to colleagues during the Committee stage.

The points made by the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East on behalf of his constituents were covered in issues discussed the other day. I know there will be disappointment in what I say, but the principle of the Bill is that the scheme is for those with no other recourse—for people who cannot make a claim elsewhere. Some will feel that that is unfair, and I understand and have sympathy with that view, but we cannot open up the terms of the Bill more than we already have. The fund has to be one of last resort. I know that that is difficult, but that is exactly what it is—that is what it says on the tin, in the Bill. I understand the concerns, but I hope that the clause is accepted.

Clause 21 - Short title

Stephen Phillips (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

I beg to move amendment 53, in clause 21, page 11, line 19, leave out ‘Mesothelioma Act 2013’ and insert

‘Diffuse Mesothelioma Payment Scheme Act 2013’.

The amendment, as much as anything else, affords an opportunity to end the Committee where we began it. The Bill has been long sought by sufferers of mesothelioma who have no recourse against an employer or insurer of the employer who cannot be found. The diagnosis that sufferers have received is possibly about the most distressing thing that could occur to anyone. To be clear, it is a diagnosis of death, as I said when I moved the first amendment in my name. It is a diagnosis of death in very unpleasant circumstances, as the hon. Member for Wansbeck said in Committee—he is absolutely right. It is also a diagnosis of death as a result of having done nothing more than go to work.

The Bill, although very welcome, does not cure mesothelioma or do away with what a diagnosis of mesothelioma means for those who are in receipt of it. I therefore venture to suggest to the Committee that it is slightly misleading in due course to describe the Bill—once it has completed its stages, if it does—as the Mesothelioma Act 2014. It will not be the Mesothelioma Act, because it does not deal with mesothelioma—it does not cure it or cure the hurt that this most awful of diseases causes. All it will do is to provide a scheme of last resort to enable those who receive a diagnosis of mesothelioma to seek some form of redress for the fact that they were negligently exposed to a carcinogen to which they should not have been exposed and which has led to such serious consequences for them and their families. For that reason, if for no other, I suggest to the Minister that the proposed short title is misleading. It would be much more sensible if, instead of being called the Mesothelioma Act 2014, the Bill in due course became the Diffuse Mesothelioma Payment Scheme Act 2014.

Mike Penning (Conservative, Hemel Hempstead)

I echo the sentiments expressed by my hon. and learned Friend. He is absolutely right that the Bill, which we hope will become an Act quite soon so that the compensation can paid out of the fund to those who have suffered so much, and to their dependants, has been long awaited. That is not a criticism of any party—the process was started under the previous Administration and we are here today. I understand the sentiment expressed by my hon. and learned Friend, but it is a short title. It does what it says on the tin and that is what the intention was. It was not supposed to be a slight on anyone at all—we just wanted a short title that described the Bill as best we could.

The short title has come through the House of Lords to us, and I know that it is right and proper for the Committee to examine it, but I think it should stand. I fully understand my hon. and learned Friend’s comments, but I hope he will understand that the Bill was named in good faith and that no slight was intended at all. I hope that the naming of the Bill is exactly what we need.

Stephen Phillips (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

New Clause 1 - Establishing additional schemes

Kate Green (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley)

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 7—Establishing additional schemes: pleural plaques—

‘(1) The Secretary of State shall, within twelve months of any scheme under this Act being implemented, prepare and lay before each House of Parliament a report assessing the costs and benefits of extending the scheme to—

(a) eligible people with pleural plaques; and

(b) eligible people with other asbestos-related industrial diseases

where there are unresolved insurance disputes.’.

Kate Green (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

Throughout our deliberations on the Bill, there has been discussion of opportunities that may or may not exist to extend the scheme in a number of ways. New clause 1 simply deals with the possibility of extending it, or additional schemes, to other asbestos-related diseases. New clause 7, which has been tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East and on which I will speak in a moment, relates specifically to the extension of a scheme to eligible people with pleural plaques.

New clause 1 asks not that an extension to other asbestos-related diseases be encompassed into the scheme provided for in the Bill, but that the Minister lays a report before Parliament within 12 months, explaining exactly what the Government intend to do and will be able to do about extending a payments scheme to a wider range of asbestos-related diseases. We recognise that the long and short titles of the Bill would exclude the possibility of doing that in this Bill, but we are also aware that there have been encouraging indications from Lord Freud and others that the Government have not ruled out the possibility of extending some other form of payments system to other asbestos-related diseases.

We do not believe that there would be a moral reason against doing such a thing. We have heard some powerful contributions, for example from my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck and from the hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, about how people have often incurred mesothelioma while going about their daily work. The same is true of other horrible asbestos-related diseases.

On Second Reading in the House of Lords, Lord Freud said:

“The Bill does not—and cannot—look to respond to all asbestos-related disease.”

However, he went on:

“The issue of individuals who have developed other asbestos-related diseases through negligence or breach of statutory duty and are unable to bring a civil claim for damages of course needs to be addressed.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 May 2013; Vol. 745, c. 690.]

I hope that the Minister will be able to provide stronger assurances about the Government’s intentions in that regard. The Government’s impact analysis states that

“extending the scheme to include other asbestos related diseases would result in approximately 4,500 extra successful applicants to the scheme. This would increase the levy by approximately £470m.”

That would effectively double the levy over 10 years. The Asbestos Victims Support Groups Forum UK strongly believes that the logic and assumptions used to arrive at that calculation are significantly flawed. Its briefing, which I am sure the Minister has seen, suggests that such an extension would add only 20% to the costs of the current scheme. The organisation states:

“This analysis is ill-researched and wholly misleading.

The author of the Analysis acknowledges that the assumptions made in the analysis are not appropriate, but because of supposed lack of evidence she relies on the inappropriate assumptions to provide an estimate of the impact of extending the scheme.

Evidence is available and we have referred to some sources below. There is no excuse for failing to cite evidence which is so easily available.

We believe her analysis should be withdrawn and a properly researched analysis should replace it.”

The organisation highlights flaws in a significant number of assumptions: the failure to distinguish the success rate for mesothelioma claims from that of claims for other occupational diseases; the failure to recognise that other asbestos-diseases, on average, attract considerably lower levels of average compensation; the failure to take into account the view that asbestosis and pleural thickening diagnoses may have already reached their peak, unlike mesothelioma, which is predicted to spike in 2015, and therefore the number of claims over the 10-year impact assessment period are likely to diminish; and finally the assumption about the average payment per claim, which the ad hoc analysis concludes will be the same value as mesothelioma payments, at £87,000. In the words of the Asbestos Victims Support Groups Forum UK, “this is preposterous”. Using its own evidenced assumptions, the organisation has conducted an impact assessment. It found the cost during the lifetime of the 10-year impact assessment to be £77 million, some £400 million less than the cost identified in the Government’s impact assessment. That is on the cusp of being affordable within the existing scheme if we accept, as I suggested earlier, that a 3% levy should raise £471 million.

Even if the administrative costs were doubled to allow for wider-ranging or new schemes—that is not included in the Asbestos Victims Support Groups Forum UK analysis—the costs incurred would be only £131.6 million, which is far below those quoted in the Government’s impact assessment. An additional 2,268 people would benefit, which is almost double the number of beneficiaries of the current scheme.

The Opposition are surprised that the Government have used such speculative figures when other, more reliable, figures are readily available from the UK asbestos working party, a working group of the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries, which is not famed for its speculative approach to statistics. Given that the criticisms made by the Asbestos Victims Support Groups Forum UK of the Government’s analysis were sent to the Department on 4 December, I am puzzled why they have not been incorporated or at least addressed in the latest ad hoc analysis published on 6 December.

I invite the Minister to commit to reviewing the figures in the latest impact assessment and providing a detailed response to the concerns and assumptions of the Asbestos Victims Support Groups Forum UK and the figures produced by the UK asbestos working party. I recognise that that, in and of itself, will not bring other asbestos-related diseases within the ambit of the Bill. Given that the Minister has been willing to give a strong assurance of the Government’s intention in relation to other asbestos-related diseases, a proper cost estimate of such an extension would be helpful to all parliamentarians.

Nick Brown (Labour, Newcastle upon Tyne East)

I shall speak to new clause 7, tabled in my name.

I would love to be able to assume that the Minister’s general assurance on looking at other asbestos-related conditions embraced, in its generosity, a commitment to look again at pleural thickening and pleural plaques, but that would be an unwise assumption—unless he wants to intervene and say something now. I see that he does not, although I would happily give way if he did.

I identify myself with everything my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston said in moving new clause 1. My new clause deals with something different and specific: pleural thickening and pleural plaques. Prior to 2007, it was possible, if the victim could find an employer and an insurer, to sue in common law for pleural plaques. Indeed, people were able to obtain substantial settlements for pleural plaques.

It might help the Committee if I set out the distinction between pleural thickening and pleural plaques, and mesothelioma. The two things have a common cause: asbestos fibre getting into the lung, with the body’s defence mechanism responding by hardening around the fibre or the fibre’s causing scarring on the lung. That is the pleural thickening or the pleural plaque. It does not, however, of itself—this is a common misconception—go on to develop into full-blown mesothelioma and that form of lung cancer.

I often find myself explaining that to constituents, because they are not just unsure, but confused and frightened, and worried that because they have been diagnosed with pleural plaque, their life expectancy has been dramatically reduced. Such a diagnosis does not necessarily mean that. It does mean, however, that they have been exposed to asbestos dust, and worry and anxiety that come with that are very real. It also means that they may have developing within them some other condition, because of the exposure to the dust.

The number of cases is substantially greater than the number identified with mesothelioma. The annual number of cases of pleural thickening, assessed for industrial injury disablement benefit, has more than trebled since 1991, reflecting changes in the criteria for compensation and the number of new cases annually. There were 460 such cases in 2012, compared to 150 in 1991. Between 1998 and 2012, nearly 15,000 cases of pleural disease were confirmed by chest scans, but there is no direct or precise estimate of the current prevalence of pleural plaques in the UK, because people would need a scan to confirm the diagnosis. However, in absolute terms, the condition is likely to be common, with one expert suggesting that as many as 36,000 to 90,000 people a year may be developing plaques. That is one expert’s estimate, and it can only be an estimate.

The question is: should people with this condition be entitled to any form of remedy at all? No person asked to be given such a thing. People get it by exposure to asbestos. Until 2007, it was possible to take a common-law case to gain compensation. That was fought by the insurers, all the way up to the House of Lords. In the decision of Rothwell v. Chemical and Insulating Co Ltd, which became the definitive case, all future such awards were stopped.

I am not telling tales out of school, Mr Howarth; you will remember this. There was a huge campaign in the Labour party when we were in government to try to get some compensation for the victims of pleural plaques. The settlement arrived at after strongly argued discussions among colleagues and friends was that those who had made claims prior to the decision would get something—the reasoning was that they had some limited expectation of success, so it would be wrong to have their hopes struck down—but that there could be no future expectation. I disagreed with the settlement then and I disagree with it now.

It is unfair that people who did not ask for the condition—the condition having been inflicted upon them without their consent—should be denied any form of redress. Had they been inflicted with an external condition, such as facial scarring rather than scarring on their lungs, they would be entitled to compensation. In any event, it is unreasonable to say that people may be inflicted with something to which they never agreed and that is bound to worry them and be a cause of distress. Moreover, the condition is an indication of exposure to asbestos and therefore results in an enhanced likelihood—we can argue about the degree of enhancement —of developing a much more serious asbestos-related condition that is almost invariably fatal.

The feeling about that in the north-east of England is very strong. Every single Member of the previous Parliament from the region—I know the region is overwhelmingly Labour—committed themselves to a campaign to secure justice for the victims of pleural plaque.

The forecasts for sufferers of mesothelioma, which we discussed earlier, are all we have to guide us. I have no quarrel whatever with the public servants and the specialists who put together those forecasts. I am sure they have done their best, but within those figures there are, as we discussed in relation to a previous clause, a substantial number of variants. The figures cannot be absolutely relied upon, and in any event, we know that the profile of victims will be different in the coming decade from the past decade.

In the past decade communities and regions, such as the one I represent, with a preponderance of heavy engineering, shipbuilding and every single industry from thermal insulation and lagging to railway-related industries, in which asbestos was sprayed as a fire retardant with limited protection for the operatives involved, had the historical cases. My view is that future cases will be more broadly spread. We will find cases among members of the teaching profession who put pins into asbestos-clad boards and people in the construction sector who drilled into asbestos plates. At one stage, asbestos was used as a construction material for outbuildings, which were assembled by drilling into the asbestos. Victims from such industries will be coming through in the future. They will not have shown up yet, and we do not know just how many there are. I hope the predictions are correct and that the public safety measures for which the House voted have effect, but if those measures have been more honoured in the breach, or if the condition is more prevalent than the assessors say, we will have a rising profile, or at least a steady profile, of mesothelioma cases. There is no reason whatever why the profile of pleural plaque and pleural thickening cases will not follow the same broad trend.

People with such conditions are our fellow citizens. An injury for which they did not ask and that they did not want has been inflicted upon them. There should be a straightforward, simple and proportionate remedy for their condition. My new clause invites the Minister to do no more than think about it. I hope he will think about it.

Mike Penning (Conservative, Hemel Hempstead)

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for a very thoughtful speech on behalf of his constituents and many others, not just in the north-east. As he said, there will be sufferers across the country. I had the sad honour the other day of having a discussion on Radio 2 with a relatively young man who had lost his wife when she had done no more than be a teacher who wanted to make the classroom look wonderful for her pupils. She had died of mesothelioma.

As the shadow Minister said, the long title and short title of the Bill are quite defined. It is important that that is understood. However, Lord Freud made understandable commitments in the other place to work with other Departments, researchers and groups to develop better information and analysis, so that other groups could be as defined as the groups in the Bill, and also get compensation from a fund of last resort if has to happen, although we all hope that would not be the case. I reiterate that here today.

Lord Freud, Lord Howe, who spoke movingly in Committee in the other place, and I work closely together. Although the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East has left for understandable reasons, this is where the research becomes so important. The reason why the Bill has got so close to getting the money to those who desperately need it is that the research and analysis were definitive.

I pay tribute to the Asbestos and Mesothelioma Support Group. We do not always agree on the figures, but we all agree on one thing. We need to get help in this case. We will work together. That is the commitment that the shadow Minister wanted. We will try to get our figures as close to theirs as possible. I am willing to work with anybody who can come forward and show us a way to get help to people who are not getting it from any other source.

Kate Green (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

I am grateful for much of what the Minister has said about the new clause. Could he share how he intends to keep the House informed of the progress of the work? My new clause proposes a report within one year to Parliament, but I am open to other suggestions from the Minister.

Mike Penning (Conservative, Hemel Hempstead)

I hope I have already indicated to the Committee and made a commitment that the way the fund is working will be reported to Parliament each year. I do not want it to be complicated or to be full of gobbledegook. It has got to be nice and simple. We will take a similar path with the report.

Both the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston and the right hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East made really good points. However, the shadow Minister indicated at the start of her comments that she would withdraw the new clause.

Kate Green (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

I welcome a great deal of what the Minister said. He acknowledged that we already have his commitment to an annual report to Parliament in relation to the diffuse mesothelioma payment scheme. I think I heard him say that there would be a similar commitment to progress on identifying the possibility of extending schemes to other asbestos-related diseases, though I do understand the issues that he raised.

Nick Brown (Labour, Newcastle upon Tyne East)

Since I understood the Minister’s remarks to embrace my new clause as well, I will not press it.

Kate Green (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the new clause.

New Clause 2 - Medical records

Kate Green (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley)

With this it will be convenient to discuss new schedule 1—Supply of medical records—

1 The Data Protection Act 1998 is amended as follows.

2 In section 7, after subsection (11), insert—

“(12) Where the request under this section is, and is stated in the request to be, for the purpose of investigating a claim, or application for payment, arising from the development of diffuse mesothelioma by the data subject, the prescribed period shall be 14 days.’.

Kate Green (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

I hope we can dispose of this quickly with what I have to say. However, I cannot anticipate what the Minister will say in response. We are looking for assurances.

The clause would amend section 7 of the Data Protection Act 1998 so that where a request under that section is for the purpose of investigating a claim arising out of the development by the data subject of acute diffuse mesothelioma, the prescribed period shall be 14 days. Currently to make a claim for compensation a victim will also need to produce medical records. We have already discussed the need for employment records and the need to put pressure on HMRC to obtain those. Under the current data protection legislation, agencies have 40 days in which to respond to such requests.

Stephen Phillips (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

The period of 40 days may be there for reason. These are records that may be ages old, archived who knows where, covered in dust. Does she not think that 14 days is very ambitious and that it would be better for the records to be provided as quickly as possibly but not within a 14-day period as a matter of statute?

Kate Green (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

I would be concerned with “as quickly as possible”, which is a very imprecise and elastic term. I would not be at all surprised to discover that it was considerably longer than 40 days in the minds of those who might hold those records. I would certainly prefer to see a period properly specified. I assume that when the Data Protection Act was passed in Parliament, exactly that sort of concern was raised and 40 days was considered to be perfectly acceptable.

The issue with mesothelioma claims, as we have said repeatedly, is that the progress of the disease is very fast and invariably fatal. We should seek to do anything we can to minimise the waiting time and the stress that victims and their families will experience in seeking to get together the material that they need to see whether they have a valid civil claim or, if not, to access this scheme. I hope that the Minister can give some assurances about speeding up the obtaining of records; 40 days is far too long for such sufferers. I look forward to hearing his comments on that and to his acceptance, if possible, of new clause 2.

Mike Penning (Conservative, Hemel Hempstead)

I will not be able to accept new clause 2 but I can tell the shadow Minister that progress has already been made without amending the Bill. We are very aware that rapid access to medical records is needed, even though, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham pointed out, some of them may be quite difficult to get hold of. The Department of Health recently issued guidelines to medical practitioners that medical records for those who are suffering from this terrible disease should be released within 21 days. They have also been advised that sufferers of this disease should be prioritised on the provision of records.

DWP officials are already exploring with colleagues in the Department of Health, and have meetings planned for very early January, whether we can expand on that. Work is being done as we speak. It will be 21 days at the latest. While we understand that in certain circumstances it might take longer, I do not think there is any excuse for it being delayed by the Data Protection Act. That is why we have made that recommendation. The Department of Health is fully with us on that and is already issuing guidance.

Kate Green (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

I am encouraged by what the Minister says about the progress that has been made with the Department of Health. Perhaps the first annual report that we are looking forward to receiving in Parliament in a year’s time could reassure us about what has been achieved here. The progress that the Minister alludes to is extremely welcome. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the new clause.

New Clause 3 - Oversight committee

Kate Green (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

There were some good discussions in the House of Lords about the need for some kind of independent oversight of a scheme that in all probability will be run by the insurance industry itself. As I said earlier, the issue is not simply whether that industry-run scheme—if indeed that is what transpires—is run properly and with propriety, but that it is seen to be so. That is where an independent oversight committee could have a considerable effect.

When the Bill was in the House of Lords, Lord Freud wrote to peers outlining details for an oversight committee in response to a number of debates initiated by my noble friend Lord McKenzie. The new clause I have tabled would put in the Bill a requirement for an independent oversight committee with responsibility for monitoring the activities of the scheme, the tracing database, the technical committee and the portal. The oversight committee proposed by the new clause would monitor and review those elements and report to the Secretary of State on overall arrangements. The committee would include representatives of the asbestos victim support groups, which rightly have seen their work acknowledged very positively in our discussions; trade unions, which have played a significant part over the years in supporting sufferers from this disease in obtaining justice; active insurers, who clearly have a particular interest as they are to a degree bearing the burden of the actions of insurers in the past—

Stephen Phillips (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

Reinsurers.

Kate Green (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

Regrettably, my new clause does not include lawyers or indeed reinsurers. The new clause would require that the committee include representatives of the groups listed, but that list is not intended to be an exhaustive one, if there is a good case—as I am sure there is—for other groups such as lawyers or reinsurers to be represented on the committee. The new clause would also make provision for the committee to be chaired by an independent person.

Lord Freud was very positive about the idea of an oversight committee and expressed his agreement with the idea behind the amendments to that effect that were tabled by Lord McKenzie when the Bill was on Report in the House of Lords. He said:

“The suggestion was made in Committee, and since then we have been exploring available options for some form of oversight. I spent some time looking for an existing mechanism or body already within the auspices of the DWP that I could utilise, but I have not been able to find a suitable vehicle. We are therefore continuing to explore all the options.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 17 July 2013; Vol. 747, c. 843.]

Will the Minister tell us what progress has been made since that statement in the House of Lords? Obviously, if an existing body can be utilised that would undoubtedly speed up the matter, which would be very welcome. If not, we would like to hear what progress has been made in establishing a new body.

I know that the Minister is reluctant to see measures added to the Bill, but it is important that people have an absolute assurance that there will be an independent oversight committee for the scheme. The best possible way to give them that assurance would be to include reference to such a body in the Bill.

Mike Penning (Conservative, Hemel Hempstead)

We have gone through nearly two whole sitting days in Committee. Sadly, right at the end of our deliberations, I am going to have to say that I do not see the requirement for new clause 3. The main reason is that we have sought extensive opinions from stakeholders on the proposed oversight body and the representation on that body. We think that representation should be as open and expansive as possible. As a trade unionist, I personally feel that unions should be represented on the body—I am not necessarily saying that all unions should be represented, but some trade union representation is important.

We have done some work on this matter. The proposed body will monitor the performance of the scheme. It will conduct blind case checks—it is very important that there are checks on how things are being done—and will produce reports for the DWP, either for me as the Minister responsible or for Lord Freud if the responsibility goes back to him.

The feedback from stakeholders has been enormously positive. We think that we can put details about the body in the contract that the DWP will issue for the scheme administrator, so it could be fitted within that. That is what we are looking at now. It is not definitive yet, but we think that we will be able to do that. I certainly think that the oversight committee is extremely important, and it will happen; Lord Freud gave that commitment in the other place, and I reiterate that commitment today. I hope that the shadow Minister will take that in good faith. We will do everything that we can to make it as open and independent as possible, so that people from the representative bodies and stakeholders have an opportunity to be heard, and so that the body does the job that it should do of holding the scheme to account and reporting back.

Kate Green (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

I am rather concerned to hear the Minister say that the letting of a contract for an independent body would be encompassed within the letting process for the contract for the scheme administrator. One of the purposes of an independent oversight body would be to monitor and quality-assure the activity of the scheme administrator.

Mike Penning (Conservative, Hemel Hempstead)

I apologise; I have misled the hon. Lady. I completely got it wrong, and I put my hands up. It will be written into the contract of the scheme administrator that they will have to supply information to the oversight committee. How wrong could I have got it?

Kate Green (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

I am reassured by that. That is much better news. I hope that this will be supported by an obligation on those who hold such information to provide it to the oversight committee. I am pleased by the strength of the support that both this Minister and the Minister in the House of Lords have given to the notion of an independent oversight body. That will have been noted on the record, and by those who are paying close attention to this debate. I still cannot see any difficulty in including that in the Bill. I know that the Minister is concerned about ping-pong, but I cannot imagine any objections from the other place to such a clause being included in the Bill. However, the assurances are certainly very strong, and have been repeated by Ministers in both Houses. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the new clause.

Mike Penning (Conservative, Hemel Hempstead)

On a point of order, Mr Howarth. Is there a way that I can put on the record my thanks to members of the Committee, who have worked so tirelessly and hard in the past couple of days on a Bill that is very technical? I am sure that colleagues will have found the debates very stimulating and interesting. May I also put on the record that the tone of the debates, and the way that this Committee has dealt with an important and serious Bill, should be commended? Is there any way I could get that on the record?

George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley)

That is not a point of order, but it is well made.

Kate Green (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

Further to that point of order, Mr Howarth. I endorse the remarks of the Minister. It has been a pleasure to serve on this Committee; I think that all right hon. and hon. Members who have done so would agree. We found the Minister open and willing to debate all the issues that the Committee put forward. Perhaps we have been disappointed at his lesser willingness to accept some extremely constructive suggestions from across the Committee. However, I endorse the Minister’s comments, and extend our thanks to all who have helped to service and support our deliberations, including, of course, the parliamentary staff; the Minister’s team, who have been helpful to all of us; and you and Mr Davies.

Mike Penning (Conservative, Hemel Hempstead)

Further to that point of order, Mr Howarth. I forgot the Bill Committee staff and my civil servants, who have done fantastic work in bringing this Bill before the Committee.

Chris Bryant (Labour, Rhondda)

On a real point of order, Mr Howarth. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston said, we are all enormously grateful for the way in which the Minister has conducted the business, and for regularly saying that he will, on Report, come back to several of the issues raised, not least by some of his hon. and learned Friends.

The Minister has said countless times that he does not want ping-pong. I think I am right in saying that there has been a Government amendment, but it is only a technical one; the subsection that has been removed from the Bill is the one that is always in a Lords Bill that might incur some kind of charge. I suggest to the Minister, through the Chair, that were he to come forward with an amendment on Report—there are many issues on which it would ease the mind of the whole Committee if amendments were brought forward, on a cross-party basis—we Opposition Members would want to make sure that there was no delay in ping-pong of more than 24 hours, to make sure that the Bill was brought to completion.

George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley)

The hon. Gentleman knows that that is not strictly speaking a matter for the Chair, and therefore not a point of order. However, he has made his point, and I am sure that the Minister will take due note of it.

Stephen Phillips (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

On a real point of order, Mr Howarth. New clauses 4 to 6 have been debated in accordance with the Chair’s selection list. Under the programme order and the Standing Orders of the House, at this moment, there needs to be a formal opportunity for those clauses to be moved—if they are to be moved. One of them stands in my name, and two of them are in the name of the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East. Although those new clauses have been debated, they have not yet been moved.

George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley)

It is up to the Members concerned to indicate that that is what they want to do. This is a point of order; the hon. and learned Gentleman can pursue those matters if he wishes to.

Stephen Phillips (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

The right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East is unfortunately not here, and I indicate, having raised that point of order, that new clause 4 is not moved.

George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley)

In the annals of pointlessness—[Interruption.] On behalf of Mr Davies and myself, although I chaired only this afternoon’s proceedings—

Chris Bryant (Labour, Rhondda)

Lightweight.

George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley)

Indeed. I understand that proceedings have been held in good humour and expeditiously, so on behalf of both Chairs, I thank members of the Committee for that.