I agree wholeheartedly with the Minister on that point. My thoughts are with the young children in Leeds who found an abandoned pile of what turned out to be asbestos dust that had not yet been mixed with water and used for its purpose. The children, being children, formed it into “snowballs” and threw them at each other and breathed in the dust. Some 40 or 50 years later, their cases are now turning up as mesothelioma cases, but who is the insurer or the employer? It is difficult to say who is the responsible party. No one could possibly argue that those young children contributed to the ill health that they are suffering later in life. The Minister rightly says that we must deal effectively with such public liability cases, and I wholeheartedly support him in trying to find a way of addressing the matter.
There are two arguments against my proposal for 100% compensation. The first—and, incidentally, the weakest—is that it would incentivise the victim to see whether there was an insurer or employer against whom a case could be taken. It is argued that the prospect of getting 100% compensation, compared with 70% under the proposed scheme of last resort, would incentivise someone—whose life expectancy was now a matter of months rather than years—to go out and hunt for the insurer or employer, using whatever resources were available to them.
Let us pause and think about that. How on earth would an ordinary citizen go about tracking down those missing people? A good argument that was made in the other place was that the incentivisation should surely work the other way round. If there is to be incentivisation through paying less compensation, surely we should make the compensation not 100% but 110%, so that the administrators of the scheme, who had access to the former insurance companies’ records, would have to go hunting to determine whether it was possible to launch a case. They should be the ones to be incentivised. I am not arguing for more than 100% compensation, by the way, although I did table a proposal to that effect in Committee.
I believe that any incentivisation should work in that way, rather than suggesting that some poor old victim whose days are numbered should turn themselves into a modern-day Perry Mason and hunt down an employer that probably no longer exists—particularly in the case of a contractor—or an insurance company that has gone into receivership or will not acknowledge its liabilities. I think that the argument about incentivisation is pretty disgusting, and I do not support it.