In the summer time

Writing any sort of political column in the middle of August is usually a challenge as our lords and political masters are halfway through their three month summer recess. This summer looks to be the exception, however.

On the national level there is the Hutton inquiry into the circumstances leading up to David Kelly's death. Those in the insurance industry with one eye on the political scene will be gearing up for a long autumn and winter of lobbying and waiting on ministerial reports.

Employers' liability is still top of that agenda. The pressure for reform has not diminished and the hope is that the Department of Work and Pensions will recommend some significant changes to the present system.

In July, the Association of British Insurers compiled a report outlining three possible reform options. One of the key points was the rejection of the no-fault route, on the grounds it could increase legal costs while at the same time denying people access to proper legal representation.

This argument seems slightly contradictory, so the ABI has suggested an alternative - a personal injuries assessment board to keep many claims away from the adversarial legal system. Ireland is currently adopting a similar approach and although it is probably too early to judge its success, it is food for thought.

Trade bodies representing roofing and electrical contractors and the Federation of Small Businesses have also kept up the pressure, lobbying the government to remind it that the crisis in availability and affordability has not gone away.

The DWP has not set a definite date for the publication of its report but there will be disappointment if it does not appear by the end of October.

Other developments also need to be closely watched this summer. The barmy idea floated by a Home Office group that all household insurance policyholders pay a £3 levy to boost the funds of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme must be challenged. It is bad enough the government already sees the insurance industry as a soft way of raising money when there is some link between the class of business and the fund, but this takes it a stage further.

Then there is the Better Regulation Task Force, a talking shop charged with looking at the effects of the compensation culture. It seems to be presuming that something should be done to limit the growth of this new culture, an objective most in the insurance industry would endorse. There are, however, plenty ready to persuade a group like this that more could be done to facilitate wider access to the legal system.

On the life and health side, genetic testing and the use to which results might be put is about to find its way back onto the public policy agenda.

It seems we can expect another bout of questioning of life insurers by the Science and Technology Select Committee during the next six months.

This is never an enjoyable experience.