| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, I thought that the Minister was giving me the reply bland; but towards the end, I thought that he was giving me the reply rude. I shall not go over the argument again. When the Bill goes to another place, it will read what we have said and will see what we have tried to suggest and the
Minister will not accept. We are saying that there will be disputes. There will be disputes on the example taken by the noble Viscount, Lord Chelmsford, from the opposite Benches. There will be disputes about loss of earnings, the rate of pay and whether the pay increases should be admitted. There will be arguments about all aspects of pay and what should be allowed. There will be disputes about the other heads: care and mobility. Unless the victim has all the facts and has them as a legal entitlement, he cannot be certain that he is getting a fair crack of the whip.The issue is how much of the settlement will be offset by the insurer's demands set against each head. The victim wants to know what they are. He wants to know, and has no way of knowing or of ensuring that they are fair, that there is not overload and that the insurer is not loading unreasonably the kind of excess that the compensator should pay and not the victim. There is no way that that can be done unless there is 100 per cent. disclosure. I give way to the noble Viscount.
Viscount Chelmsford: My Lords, the noble Lord is very kind. It should not be forgotten that the insurance industry has already agreed to a whole host of provisions in this Bill which--it depends whose estimate is taken--will cost them between £50 million and £70 million a year. It has already been agreed that that will be absorbed by the insurance industry. I slightly object to the suggestion that the insurance industry is trying to load things against the claimant.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, one cannot possibly know. I do not say that the noble Viscount's company would do this or that everybody or anybody would do it. I simply say that unless this amendment is carried--or an amendment like this amendment is carried in another place--justice, fairness and equity cannot be seen to be done. In that context, I am afraid that I shall have to divide the House.
8.23 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 30; Not-Contents, 101.
Addington, L.
Blease, L.
Calverley, L.
Carlisle, E.
Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.
Carter, L.
Clancarty, E.
Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.
Dean of Beswick, L.
Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.
Desai, L.
Dormand of Easington, L.
Dubs, L.
Farrington of Ribbleton, B.
Graham of Edmonton, L.
Grantchester, L.
Harris of Greenwich, L.
Hollis of Heigham, B.
Judd, L.
McCarthy, L.
McIntosh of Haringey, L.
Mar and Kellie, E.
Monkswell, L.
Morris of Castle Morris, L. [Teller.]
Nicol, B.
Russell, E. [Teller.]
Sefton of Garston, L.
Stoddart of Swindon, L.
Taylor of Blackburn, L.
Williams of Crosby, B.
Addison, V.
Allenby of Megiddo, V.
Anelay of St. Johns, B.
Annaly, L.
Balfour, E.
Beloff, L.
Belstead, L.
Biddulph, L.
Blaker, L.
Blatch, B.
Boardman, L.
Bowness, L.
Brabazon of Tara, L.
Bridgeman, V.
Brougham and Vaux, L.
Burton, L.
Byford, B.
Cadman, L.
Caithness, E.
Carnegy of Lour, B.
Carnock, L.
Chadlington, L.
Chalker of Wallasey, B.
Chelmsford, V.
Chesham, L. [Teller.]
Courtown, E.
Craigmyle, L.
Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.] Cumberlege, B.
Dacre of Glanton, L.
De Ramsey, L
Dean of Harptree, L.
Denton of Wakefield, B.
Downshire, M.
Dundonald, E.
Ellenborough, L.
Elliott of Morpeth, L.
Elton, L.
Fraser of Carmyllie, L.
Gage, V.
Gardner of Parkes, B.
Gisborough, L.
Goschen, V.
Greenway, L.
Grimston of Westbury, L.
Hacking, L.
Haddington, E.
Hamilton of Dalzell, L.
Harlech, L.
Harmsworth, L.
Hayhoe, L.
Hemphill, L.
Henley, L.
HolmPatrick, L.
Hooper, B.
Howe, E.
Inchcape, E.
Kimball, L.
Leigh, L.
Lindsay, E.
Long, V.
Lucas, L.
Lucas of Chilworth, L.
Luke, L.
Lyell, L.
McColl of Dulwich, L.
Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.
Mackay of Drumadoon, L.
Mackintosh of Halifax, V.
Marlesford, L.
Miller of Hendon, B.
Monteagle of Brandon, L.
Montrose, D.
Mottistone, L.
Nickson, L.
Northesk, E.
O'Cathain, B.
Onslow, E.
Oxfuird, V.
Palmer, L.
Park of Monmouth, B.
Pearson of Rannoch, L.
Peel, E.
Rankeillour, L.
Rennell, L.
Renton, L.
Rotherwick, L.
Seccombe, B.
Shaw of Northstead, L.
Skelmersdale, L.
Stanley of Alderley, L.
Stodart of Leaston, L.
Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]
Thomas of Gwydir, L.
Tollemache, L.
Torrington, V.
Trumpington, B.
Wilcox, B.
Willoughby de Broke, L.
Wynford, L.
Young, B.
Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
8.31 p.m.
An amendment (privilege) made.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Before we complete the passage of this Bill, I should like to place on record my gratitude for the valuable contributions made by your Lordships and for the support that this Bill has received. As I have already noted and as other noble Lords have said, it is refreshing to deal with a Bill where all sides of the House can achieve consensus in so many areas, despite the Division we have just had. Indeed, at the Second
Reading, as your Lordships may recall, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, commented on the hat trick of welcome which the Bill received from all sides of the Chamber.Of course, we have not managed to agree on every point. Matters have arisen on which we have strong differences of opinion. However, I do not believe that these differences ought to be allowed to obscure our agreement. I am particularly grateful for the contributions made by those who perhaps I may describe as the regulars on this Bill. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, agreed with me on more occasions than either of us probably thought was good for our reputations. The noble Baroness, Lady Turner, as always, brought to these matters her practical experience; and the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, was characteristically assiduous and punchy. These amendments, I hope, have enabled us to clarify several important points. My noble friends Lord Chelmsford and Lord Clanwilliam made valuable interventions from the perspective of the insurance industry. I am grateful for their assistance, as it has been vital for us to appreciate what actually happens on the ground in what is a fairly specialist area.
Finally, in relation to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, once again I have been struck by his grasp of the detail of what is a highly technical, involved subject. I am grateful to him for the contribution he has made, and as usual he has kept me on my toes with regard to the regulation-making powers. I was not entirely sure whether his suggestion that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State was clothed in the robes of Cambyses, the King of Persia, was flattering or not, so I did some checking and I discovered that King Cambyses had what might be described as a pretty bad press--and deservedly so. Occasionally, we at social security feel that we get a bad press, but we do not deserve it. I have to say to the noble Earl that he is being very unkind to my right honourable friend. As far as the law is concerned, which really was his point, King Cambyses managed to get the judges to say that he could break the law of incest and marry his sister, so it was not quite the same as the point that the noble Earl was making.
Leaving that aside, I wish to thank those organisations and individuals who responded so positively to our consultation process. I pay particular tribute to the Law Society, the Association of British Insurers, the Clydeside Action on Asbestos and, of course, the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers, who have followed our deliberations with exemplary thoroughness.
Finally, I must not overlook the important part played by the TUC in seeking to find common ground between those consulted on the shape of the proposed scheme. As my noble friend Lord Chelmsford pointed out, all of us received a letter today urging us, if I may shorten what the letter said, to get on with the job here.
It is gratifying to be involved in a Bill which has received such a broad measure of support across the Floor of the House and outside. This is such a Bill. There are one or two areas where real disagreement remains. Those issues will have to be discussed again in the other place.
We are all agreed that this benefit recovery scheme should achieve two very valuable objectives. It will enable victims to retain their damages for pain and suffering; it will also protect the taxpayer from the phenomenon known as double compensation. As such, I am confident that the Bill will be widely welcomed and will prove to be very useful for all the parties concerned in what sometimes are very difficult and painful decisions. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.--(Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.)
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page