My hon. Friend is right that our constituencies are particularly affected and I am delighted to see him in his place to debate this important issue. He makes an important point. The Government have set a cap of 3% and there is no room for manoeuvre unless they are willing to stand up to the insurance industry and say that there is a firm view on both sides of the House that the 75% they have currently negotiated is not good enough. They need to agree on another figure. I believe that 80% would be appropriate as a good compromise between the 90% being called for by the lawyers—they cite the financial services compensation scheme as a useful comparator—and the 70% the insurers were originally willing to accept. Furthermore, with the previous assumptions under which their lordships debated the Bill, 80% would have been 2.98% GWP over the first four years and 2.42% over 10 years. Now, with the 3% cap, under the new legal costs associated with the scheme, there is no room for manoeuvre. I find that disappointing, unless the Minister is willing to stand up to the insurance industry and discuss this.
Mesothelioma Bill [Lords]
Proceeding contribution from
Tracey Crouch
(Conservative)
in the House of Commons on Monday, 2 December 2013.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Mesothelioma Bill [Lords].
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
571 c673 
Session
2013-14
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2020-04-16 09:40:39 +0100
URI
http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Commons/2013-12-02/13120231000111
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Commons/2013-12-02/13120231000111
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Commons/2013-12-02/13120231000111