1. "The United States, Australia, France, Italy, Sweden, Finland and Israel compensate
their citizens for the effects of injury or death from terrorism wherever it occurs"
2. "At what cost? Doing the best that one can in an unpredictable state of affairs,
having regard to what has happened and what might happen, it is thought that £3 million
a year would present an adequate fund to meet the needs of such people."
3. "This state of affairs is a need that we must meet. The Foreign and Commonwealth
Office seeks to do it through consular assistance and advice, but not beyond that."
4. "The House of Commons Treasury Committee, in its fourth report of this Session
in February, on page 20, paragraph 2, said:
“We are especially concerned that there is insufficient awareness of exclusions
in areas such as terrorist acts ... and in particular by evidence that around ten
million United Kingdom holidaymakers in 2006 would not have been covered for medical
expenses in the event of terrorist incidents”.
5. "The British Insurance Brokers’ Association has recently published a survey showing,
from the results that it has been able to find involving 75 per cent of the market,
that 78 per cent of policies have a terrorism exclusion clause, some of which will
have a write-back provision for medical expenses—but that is an enormous proportion
of the market. Some15 per cent have no exclusion for terrorism and the existence
of that 15 per cent illustrates that the risk can be insured, economically and on
the open market. That state of affairs identified by the Treasury Committee and the
British Insurance Brokers’ Association means that the insurance market should be
the basic source for this kind of advice and assistance. The Bill seeks to use insurance
to achieve that objective."
6. "Clause 2 puts on a statutory footing that which is now a convention—namely, that
our consular officials everywhere in the world should have a statutory duty to advise
and assist our citizens in cases of terrorist attack and that the Secretary of State
should consult and publish the arrangements reached after such consultation."
7. "She [Rt Hon Tessa Jowell] has been very helpful and co-operative with those who
have been involved in seeking to implement these changes. She says that the £1 million
that the Government have given is not a compensation scheme—it is temporary relief.
In a recent letter, she stated:
8. “I recognise that this is not a compensation scheme and that there is a disparity
between the state UK compensation scheme offered to those killed or injured at home,
and the financial assistance offered to those affected abroad”."
9. "Travel insurance is very competitively priced, but the more you add on, the more
it will cost. We believe that one-third of travellers who go abroad from the United
Kingdom do not effect travel insurance and they therefore expose themselves to considerable
risks if things go wrong."
10. "Practice among insurers regarding terrorism varies and can be summarised as
follows: first, no cover at all; secondly, only medical expenses and repatriation
cover following a terrorist attack; thirdly, medical, repatriation and personal accident
cover for terrorism except in cases of nuclear, chemical or biological attacks; fourthly,
personal accident medical expenses sections which apply unless people travel to a
country or specific area where the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has advised them
not to go."
11. "I add a note of warning that, if consideration is given to extend the Criminal
Injuries Compensation Authority scheme to pay for terrorism overseas, there could
be a demand that the scheme should be extended further to pay for victims of all
violent crimes overseas."
12. "The Bill allows us to debate the nature of the relationship between citizens
and the state in today’s world and, more specifically, what citizens can expect from
13 "There should also be a debate on whether there should be an obligation on those
who travel abroad to carry proper insurance. "
Lord Davies of Oldham:
14. "..should we treat victims of terrorism differently from victims of other violent
crime? I am afraid that there are victims of horrific, life-changing crime committed
overseas and the significance of its impact on them and their families is as bad
as terrorist incidents. The Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority does not treat
victims of terrorism differently from victims of other violent crime committed within
the UK, nor does the separate Northern Ireland scheme. They are treated equally.
Therefore, to do so overseas would mean taking a different approach and we are not
confident that that would be the right decision."
15. "....we must define “British”, “injury” and “terrorism”"
16. "It is essential that when people choose travel insurance they understand exactly
what they are covered for. Travel insuranceis designed to provide immediate assistance
to individuals when travelling abroad. It is not designed to compensate them for
loss or suffering, although some policies pay out for some personal injuries."
17. "We do not believe that there is a market failure which warrants government
intervention to compel insurers to provide cover or to set up the Government as an
insurer of last resort. That is not the position that confronts us."
18. "Clause 5 of the Bill requires that sums paid by the compensation scheme following
injury or loss resulting from an act of terrorism overseas take into account an insurance
payment made to the injured person in respect of that injury or loss. However, as
I have noted, travel insurance is designed to provide immediate assistance, not to
provide compensation for long-term suffering and loss. Such a clause might well act
as a disincentive to individuals to take out terrorism insurance cover and there
would be the danger that insurance cover, if stretched too far, might be unattractive
because of the inevitable rise in premiums. "