11 November 2022: Carter - C

All that remained was the opportunity for core participant questions (or so it seemed until Sir Brian got going with his questions):

On the use of centiles in ASHE and the potential to use these to produce a career-long earnings progression calculations; he said it could be a model but there would be caveats. There is the question of what centile to use. There are two ways of thinking about the process. One is to think about a career in three stages: early, mid, and late career. Then there is one called career potential. It might be possible to apply centiles to the three stages.

On career structures where there are set gradings, such as for teachers, and if this could be used; he said it was possible, but careers do not normally follow a single route. There may be periods of self-employment, for example. But if the career was following a graded system then the only subjective question is how far up the spinal points a person would get, including if they moved on to headship roles.

On the ASHE table when there are smaller numbers involved for centiles and whether it was possible to see how many individuals fall within each; he said it was a yes and no situation. If it is smaller numbers then it is not possible to see the numbers for those because there are not enough to do a spread of earnings.

On the case when numbers were available and if that could be used in calculations involving the prospect of getting to the upper centiles; he said it could be, but in many careers people move around, including having periods of self-employment, which is not covered by ASHE.

On the use of the mean average being used and if that improves the prospects of a person moving up the promotional chain; he said that in most careers only a small number of people reach the upper tiers, so the average tends towards the lower for the majority.

On the possible focus on male tables due to the apparently common experience of a bleeding disorder affecting mainly males; he said yes it might be possible.

On the use of comparators, being an otherwise similar person who progressed without the detriments of disability and illness; he said it is very useful to find a direct comparator, but care needs to be taken to make sure it actually is.

On the question of adjustments and in particular for those who do not achieve formal qualification but can go on to a very lucrative career; he said these can be very important because while qualifications are seen as important, people without formal qualification could go on to a very well paid career and the bonus adjustment would necessarily be large.

On the disability adjustment and how these are arrived at between parties when there may be a difference between the disability and the actual level of impairment, then also the relevance of these to different careers and the effect on wage calculations; he said the Ogden definition of disability can be problematic due to the great variety of work situations it is trying to cover, and there is the spectrum of disabilities to consider.

On the possible psychological effects on employability, including published research, when a carer who has been involved in caring for someone under difficult circumstances; he said there is no data he is aware of, although there is some on PTSD impacts.

The Chair started with his questions by pursued the immediately preceding topic of the ability of someone to cope since psychological factors might impact on the employability due to stress or diminished confidence, and who might, for example, enter or re-enter the work marketplace at a lower level than they could enter. Mr Carter agreed that could apply, and he cited the common case of woman returners. This was further discussed, and it was agreed that when the returning was after a challenging period of caring, that would increase the likelihood of a lower entry/re-entry point.

The Chair summarised the witnesses’ evidence in relation to, firstly, a court derived employment losses approach, and secondly the more general labour market aspects. Sir Brian homed in on the non-court case situation. He noted as an aside that he had not received any submissions about him saying something about court compensation other than the option must remain open for those who wish to pursue it. But the majority view appears to be a desire to see an alternative to going to court. It was seen as preferable not to go to a court-like situation of individualised assessment but to pursue a more generalised (i.e. tariff) approach. Particularly, his question in this regard was related to children who had been traumatised and missed out on many opportunities, including employment due to the circumstances within which they were growing up; both infected children and affected children. Firstly, in this regard has asked about those who might have gone to university. The witness stated that graduate earnings are recognised to be 118% greater on average compared to a non-graduate (i.e. more than double). Depending on the circumstances, a graduate’s earnings will likely go up 30% in the first five years. So, there may be a slower start for a graduate compared to someone with a trade, for example, but in the longer term the trade is likely to plateau, whereas the graduate is more likely to continue growing their earnings throughout the lifetime. On the drop-out rates the witness said it was dependent on the course and the outcome to be achieved from the particular course of learning, but there was a statistically significant reduction in sustaining a course between those growing up in a caring setting and those not. This could also be extended to a child who witnessed a very sick or even lived through the death of a parent.

The Chair pursued this towards other scenarios, including when a young person is told that they have a virus which will kill them, so they give up on their education, but somehow survive into adulthood. The witness recognised the horrific nature of the scenario, but also recognised the significant disadvantage factors in making calculations that such a circumstance would accrue anyway.

The Chair then asked about the situation with pensions. Mr Carter clarified the situation with respect to the factors including employer contributions as a loss to someone not able to work. The State pension is not enough alone, so it is increasingly the case that many more people are continuing to work after the traditional retirement ages. Even private pension may not be enough. The witness sees the retirement age shifting to 70 as this trend continues. This too led to a detailed consideration of what might be a contributing factor in calculating losses, since many will not have had the opportunity to build up a private or occupational pension. It was noted how different the situation was of the employer was a statutory body compared to a private company.

The Chair noted the witnesses’ 40 years’ experience in working out losses and wondered how long each calculation for an individual takes on average. If all the information is available and there is no need to sit down with the person the it can be done in a day. If there is more work to get a career trajectory worked out, it is maybe two or three days work. It was then established that typically the charge-out rate for an employment market analyst doing this type of work was between £150 to £200 an hour with a typical eight hour day. If it took maybe three days per person, the rate would be multiplied accordingly. This was requested by the Chair as a rough estimate of the costs when this type of service is necessary, obviously for him to consider if he decides to go down this route with his recommendations.

The Chair asked about the “But for …” and “But with …” considerations. In relation to people with bleeding disorders, the witness knew of no specific data for that cohort. Thus, without a pre-existing tool, those making submissions may have something to input to the Chair on this theme.

The Chair brought up the issue of a matrix, which has advantages of speed and the money going to people and not lawyers, but the disadvantage of it being non-specific and broad-brush. The witness saw the CICA tariff as fast but inadequate, so the Inquiry would need to result in a better system. Mr Carter admitted that it would be difficult to produce a matrix, but there were options to include to make it bespoke to the infected blood situation by including the relevant heads and multipliers. The Chair recognised the possibility within the Compensation Framework of him not having to work out a matrix since that task would fall to others.

The Chair stressed that his line of questions should not be seen as a pre-judgement on what he has decided should be the direction of travel, but he simply was seeking to extract relevant information from the witness for him to have available as he continued to develop his conclusions.

This line of questioning from the Chair produced additional questions from recognised legal representatives:

On the situation of employment impacts on spouses and partners, including the situation of them suffering bereavement; he said he did not know of any research on this matter, but thought there might be ways to incorporate certain types of impacts as losses..

On the prospect of employment market analysts being involved, would the speed of their work be enhanced by having familiarity with background and context to the issues people have faced; he said yes.

The witness was grateful to have been invited. He said that employment wasn’t just about money but also it plays a part in how society defines a person. Losing employment is a form of bereavement for some people. He would welcome the opportunity to give further advice and assistance if he can. (Since the witness was giving his closing statement, this writer thought it best to resist mentioning how welcome any further involvement would be when it would also involve him being paid at a rate of £200 per hour. Clearly, this writer does not always follow what he thinks is best to do or not do when an opportunity arises to have a little dig.)

The Chair thanked the witness for his “tremendously helpful” evidence covering the complexities involved in the matters under consideration. He also acknowledged the witnesses’ frequently bringing matters back to the individual and their situation.