Draft Mesothelioma Lump Sum Payments (Conditions and Amounts) (Amendment) Regulations 2025
Draft Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) (Payment of Claims) (Amendment) Regulations 2025
(1 week, 2 days ago)
General CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Social Security and Disability (Sir Stephen Timms)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Mesothelioma Lump Sum Payments (Conditions and Amounts) (Amendment) Regulations 2025.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider the draft Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) (Payment of Claims) (Amendment) Regulations 2025.
Sir Stephen Timms
I am delighted to be serving under your chairmanship for the first time this afternoon, Sir Jeremy. This debate, which happens every year, gives us a good opportunity to consider not only the uprating instruments, but the wider topic of dust-related diseases that are covered by these schemes, and to consider the impact that the diseases have on sufferers and their families.
The instruments increase the value of one-off lump sum payments made under two no-fault compensation schemes administered by the Department for Work and Pensions. The two schemes are the one under the Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) Act 1979, which I shall refer to as the 1979 Act scheme, and the 2008 diffuse mesothelioma scheme—under the Child Maintenance and Other Payments Act 2008—which I shall refer to as the 2008 Act scheme. There is no statutory requirement to increase these rates in line with prices each year. I am following the long-established approach of previous Governments; the instruments increase the value of the awards by 1.7%, in line with the consumer price index of last September. The new rates will apply to those who first become entitled to a payment from 1 April this year. The increase will, as previously, be in line with the proposed increases to industrial injuries disablement benefit, alongside uprating for all the main working-age benefits in the coming year.
Let me say a bit about the background to the two schemes. The 1979 Act scheme provides a single lump-sum compensation payment to eligible people with the diseases covered by the scheme, including pneumoconiosis, a disease associated particularly with coal mining, and diffuse mesothelioma, caused by exposure to asbestos fibres. The schemes cover people who are unable to claim damages from an employer—for example, because the employer has gone out of business—and who have not brought any action against another party for damages.
To be eligible for a lump-sum award, a claimant must be awarded industrial injuries disablement benefit for a disease covered by the 1979 Act scheme, or would be awarded IIDB but for their low percentage disablement. To have payment of IIDB, someone must have been assessed as having at least 14% disablement, but someone with less than that can still be eligible for one of these payments.
The 2008 Act scheme was introduced to provide compensation to people diagnosed with diffuse mesothelioma who are unable to claim compensation under the 1979 Act. That could be because they were self-employed at the time, or because their exposure to asbestos was not at work. The 2008 Act scheme therefore filled in a bit of a gap in the former provision. It provides no-fault support to sufferers of diffuse mesothelioma quickly, at a point when their need is typically quite pressing.
To recognise the terrible suffering that these diseases can bring to whole families, claims can be made to either scheme by a dependant, if the person with a disease dies before being able to make a claim. They are both very important schemes. Between April 2023 and March 2024—the latest financial year for which data is available—there were 1,620 awards under the 1979 Act scheme and 320 under the 2008 Act scheme, so there were nearly 2,000 between them both. Expenditure on lump sum awards under both schemes totalled £30 million in 2023-24.
Timely financial support through these schemes, following a diagnosis, is very important. We also need to ensure that fewer people succumb to these awful diseases in the future. The Health and Safety Executive, which reports to my Department, has a very important role in enabling employers to act to prevent and reduce the most common causes of work-related ill health. Exposure to asbestos remains the largest single cause of work-related deaths in the UK, in the order of about 5,000 a year. The Work and Pensions Committee published an important report on the Health and Safety Executive’s approach to asbestos management three years ago, and the Department is currently having another look at its recommendations.
Following the asbestos awareness campaigns of previous decades, HSE makes a wide range of information available on its website. In January last year, HSE launched a communications campaign on the duty to manage, which was called “Asbestos—Your Duty”, to raise awareness and understanding of the legal obligation to share information on asbestos in any workplace to those who might disturb it.
There is particular concern about the presence of asbestos in schools—there is a lot of asbestos in many schools across the country—and there has been a growing number of retired schoolteachers among those succumbing to mesothelioma, which is a serious concern. The Department for Education expects all local authorities, governing bodies and academy trusts to have robust plans in place to manage asbestos in school buildings effectively, in line with their legal duties, drawing on appropriate professional advice. The Department is also increasing investment in the next financial year to improve the condition of school buildings, lifting the total investment to £2.1 billion. That is on top of the continuing school rebuilding programme, which is replacing or refurbishing buildings in the poorest condition at over 500 schools.
I am confident that everyone will join me in recognising the continuing importance of the compensation offered by these two schemes. I am required to confirm, and gladly do so, that these provisions are compatible with the European convention on human rights. I commend the increases to the payment rates under these two schemes, and I ask the Committee’s approval to implement them.
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I thank the Minister for bringing forward the regulations. The Opposition welcome the annual uprating of the measures for both the mesothelioma lump sum payments and the Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) Act payments across England, Scotland and Wales, which is a position that Conservative Governments have taken on such measures. The regulations provide a 1.7% increase in compensation payments, in line with the September 2024 CPI inflation rate, and we are pleased to see the commitment to maintain their real- terms value.
Mesothelioma, in particular, is a cruel and indiscriminate disease, with symptoms that can take decades to appear and with known links to asbestos exposure. By the time that many individuals receive a diagnosis, the condition has already advanced, leaving them and their families with little time to prepare. More than 2,700 people are diagnosed with mesothelioma each year in the UK, with most cases diagnosed in people aged 75 and over, and with men affected more commonly than women.
Pneumoconiosis, too, remains a serious occupational disease, often affecting those in heavy industry, including coal mining, quarries and foundries. Given the long latency periods of the conditions, many sufferers find themselves unable to pursue civil claims against former employers, making Government schemes a crucial safety net.
The compensation framework must remain fair, efficient and responsive to inflationary pressures. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm the following, either now or in writing. First, how many individuals are expected to receive the payments in the next one, five and 10 years? I note the 1,940 figure for 2023-24 that was outlined. Secondly, what is the expected average payment amount that will be received?
Thirdly, given the number of cases linked to historical workplace conditions, it would be helpful to understand the Government’s latest estimate for the long-term cost of the schemes to the public purse. Finally—I appreciate that the Minister touched on this, but I would be grateful for further explanation—although financial compensation is important, prevention remains paramount. Besides the work of the Department for Education and the DWP, alongside HSE, it would be helpful to have any further lines on how future cases could be prevented or revealed earlier, so that we can have foresight.
While there is no statutory requirement to uprate the payments, we welcome that the Government have chosen to do so, as we did. The Opposition support the technical aspects and the policy intention of the regulations and welcome their implementation.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I concur with what the hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan, my colleague to my right—in more ways than one—shared just now.
Sir Stephen Timms
I am grateful for the support across the Committee for the regulations. Let me have a go at answering the questions that the shadow Minister raised. I do not think we have a better estimate for the numbers in the coming year than the ones I gave for the previous year.
It is likely that the numbers over time will decrease. It is 26 years since the use of asbestos in new buildings was banned in the UK. It was quite a tough fight to deliver that in 1999. The Canadian Government strongly resisted because Canada was largely where the asbestos was coming from. It is interesting that we banned it in the UK, and then it was banned right across the west very quickly after that. So there is perhaps a downward trend, but it is not entirely clear. The figure I cited of 5,000 fatalities a year from asbestos-related diseases has been at that level for quite a long time, but the expectation is that it will fall. The pneumoconiosis figures are probably flatter. It may be that we have fuller information on that, and if we have, I would be pleased to drop the shadow Minister a line and copy that to the other Committee members.
I have done a quick calculation, and I think the average payment amount comes to £15,000—as there are roughly 2,000 people and £30 million in total. I would expect that kind of figure to be maintained. As for the long-term cost of the scheme, in line with what I was saying, I expect that it will generally decline. If we look at the numbers each year, they have tended to drift downwards, and the expectation is that that will continue.
The shadow Minister asked what we are doing about prevention. I am very concerned about this issue, and asbestos, in particular, is something that we need to take seriously. There is a lot of asbestos still in schools and hospitals, so it is not only retired teachers that we are seeing in the fatality statistics nowadays, but retired medics and nurses. The Work and Pensions Committee, in its report three years ago, recommended that a deadline should be set for the Government to ensure the removal of all asbestos from UK workplaces, and suggested a target of 40 years to do that. We have an enormous amount of asbestos in the UK; I think we have more per head than any other country. That recommendation has not been adopted, but as I mentioned in my opening remarks, I am talking to the Health and Safety Executive at the moment about what more might be done in this area. I hope we will be able to say something about that very soon.
I welcome the support for and interest across the House in these schemes. They are very important, and as the shadow Minister pointed out, the regulations will ensure that the payments maintain their value. Of course, other help is available to people with these diseases, such as the industrial injuries disablement benefit, which I mentioned, universal credit and the new-style employment and support allowance.
The Department for Health and Social Care is taking these matters very seriously. NHS England has 13 respiratory clinical networks across the country, and the NHS will invest in more and better rehabilitation services for patients with respiratory diseases in its long-term plan. Research is very important; the National Institute for Health and Care Research, through the Leicester Biomedical Research Centre, has a long-standing programme of research to develop treatments for mesothelioma. That includes looking at personalised treatment pathways to identify which patients are likely to get the greatest benefit from differing types of drug therapies.
I will drop the shadow Minister and members of the Committee a line with the additional data that she asked for. I commend the amendments to the schemes to the Committee, and hope that it will approve of their implementation.
Question put and agreed to.
DRAFT PNEUMOCONIOSIS ETC. (WORKERS’ COMPENSATION) (PAYMENT OF CLAIMS) (AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS 2025
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) (Payment Of Claims) (Amendment) Regulations 2025.—(Sir Stephen Timms.)