Clause 2 - Eligible people with diffuse mesothelioma

Part of Mesothelioma Bill [Lords] – in a Public Bill Committee at 10:45 am on 10 December 2013.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Kate Green Kate Green Shadow Minister (Work and Pensions) 10:45, 10 December 2013

I agree with the intellectual thrust of that intervention, but I also accept the constraint that we discussed earlier during his speech. If Ministers feel that nothing can be done beyond the context of the 3% levy—we will be debating that proposition later—the start date of 10 February 2010, by my calculations, sits within the limit of the 3% levy over a 10-year period. The Minister may question my arithmetic, and I am sure that the whole Committee would benefit from seeing the sums properly worked through, but that is the basis on which I have been prepared to accept that most limited of start dates.

Arguably, at that point, the precise nature of the scheme began to crystallise, so the industry began to understand exactly what it would have to prepare for. However, the thrust of the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham is absolutely right. The industry has been collecting premiums for decades. It must therefore have anticipated that there was some risk associated with the collection of premiums and the carrying out of that business for decades. Why should that money not now be deployed to the benefit of sufferers?

It is also worth noting that the Motor Insurers Bureau model was the only model referred to in the consultation. The scheme’s funding is derived from any company  offering motor insurance in the UK; members contribute to the MIB levy and supply data to the motor insurance database. That is exactly the model being introduced in relation to employer liability insurers.