Payment Scheme (Mesothelioma) Debate

Full Debate: Read Full Debate
Department: Department for Work and Pensions

Payment Scheme (Mesothelioma)

Jim Cunningham Excerpts
Monday 17th March 2014

(10 years, 8 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mike Penning Portrait Mike Penning
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I would be amazed if we did not discuss the matter again, as we have done over the years. It would be right and proper for us to do so. If we raise compensation payments to 80%, many people will receive more than they would have done through a civil court. The payment is an average, so some people would have received less in the civil courts. By raising the level from 75% to 80%, we have ensured that more people will receive more than they would have done if they had found their employer or their employer’s insurer.

Jim Cunningham Portrait Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
- Hansard - -

I apologise for being a little late. It would be interesting to know the difference in costs between payments of 80% and 100%.

Mike Penning Portrait Mike Penning
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I will write to the hon. Gentleman with that information. We debated the matter at length at each stage of the Bill, and I reiterate that the key is to stick within the 3% agreement, which is not being passed on to new business. The House agreed when we debated the subject that to pass on costs to new business would be improper.