My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply, none of which comes as a surprise. I thank all noble Lords who have participated in this debate and supported the amendment. My noble friend Lord Wills urged that Minister to convey the strength of opinion about the level of payment. The noble Lord, Lord Wigley, referred to the fact that this sort of horse-trading did not go on when the 1979 Act scheme was being put in place. I think that my noble friend Lord Howarth dealt with the point about why it is not unreasonable for the insurers still in the market to bear the full costs of compensation. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, reminded us that everybody who spoke at Second Reading opposed this 70% level. I was rather attracted to my noble friend Lady Donaghy’s proposition of 130%; perhaps we might try that.
The Minister says that it is wrong to deal with this as a moral issue. I am not sure that that is right or something that I would agree with. I took it from what he said that the negotiation was around the rate of the levy, which then drove the compensation levels, rather than the rest. In that case, I am interested in a negotiation that would end up with a levy of 2.24%. How on earth was that arrived at? Why was it not 2.25% or 2.26%, or 3%? To have that driving the outcome seems a little strange, but in any event it is unacceptable.
I am grateful for the fact that it looks as though we will get the tariff tables tomorrow. That is obviously a key part of this. The percentage is key, but it depends what it is a percentage of. We will have to see how that all works out and which of those averages have been taken in compiling that schedule.
7.45 pm
The Minister again made the point that it is not totally fair that people currently in the market may not have been in the market at the time. However, the corollary to that is that those who are currently in the market could well have been those who were in the market previously and are still benefiting from the fact that many cases are not covered by this payment scheme. Therefore, we need to see it from that point of view. However, it seems to me that, fundamentally, we need to see it from the point of view of the sufferers and consider that just because the paperwork cannot be found—in my noble friend’s terms—people will lose 30% of what their entitlement might otherwise have been.
I think that we are going to come on to some other debates about whether the nature of the scheme payment, in so far as it is different from compensation under various heads, means that there is a worse outcome on benefit recovery. That, too, needs to be factored into the bottom line that people will get. We continue to believe that 70% is inappropriate. It has to be increased and, if it is a question of driving up the levy rate, all that is needed is an increase from 2.24% to just over 3%. I am just trying to envisage the nature of the discussions and the things that would have been on the table when 2.24% was settled on after the initial smoothing.