Mesothelioma Lump Sum Payments (Conditions and Amounts) (Amendment) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Sherlock
That the Grand Committee do consider the Mesothelioma Lump Sum Payments (Conditions and Amounts) (Amendment) Regulations 2026.
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Sherlock) (Lab)
My Lords, I will also be asking the Grand Committee to consider the draft Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) (Payment of Claims) (Amendment) Regulations 2026.
The schemes we are debating provide vital support for sufferers of certain dust-related diseases, which are often caused by occupational exposure to asbestos and other harmful dusts. This includes diseases such as pneumoconiosis and mesothelioma. We all recognise the deep suffering that can be caused by diseases such as these. Having attended these debates in the past, I am always grateful for the opportunity to debate these schemes and discuss the wider support for people diagnosed with these terrible diseases.
I will begin by providing a brief overview of these two no-fault compensation schemes and what these regulations seek to amend. The Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) Act 1979—henceforth the 1979 Act scheme—provides a single lump-sum compensation payment to eligible individuals who suffer from one of the diseases covered by the scheme. They includes diffuse mesothelioma, pneumoconiosis and three other dust-related respiratory diseases. It was designed to compensate people who were unable to claim damages from former employers that had gone out of business and who had not brought any civil action against another party for damages. To be entitled to a lump-sum award, claimants must have an industrial injuries disablement benefit award for a disease covered by the 1979 Act scheme or would have an award but for their percentage disablement.
The mesothelioma lump-sum payments scheme—or the 2008 Act scheme—was introduced to provide compensation to people who contracted diffuse mesothelioma but were unable to claim compensation through the 1979 Act scheme because, for example, they were self-employed or their exposure to asbestos was not due to their work. The 2008 Act scheme provides support to people with diffuse mesothelioma quickly at their time of greatest need.
Although both schemes aim to provide compensation to sufferers within their lifetime, they also allow claims by dependants if the person suffering from the disease sadly dies before they are able to make a claim. This is in recognition of the suffering that these diseases can bring to whole families.
These regulations will increase the value of one-off lump-sum payments made under these schemes for those who first become entitled to a payment from 1 April 2026. While there is no statutory requirement to increase the rates of these payments in line with prices each year, we are maintaining the position taken by previous Governments and increasing the value of lump-sum awards by 3.8%, in line with the September 2025 consumer prices index. This also means that the increase will, once again, be in line with the proposed increases to industrial injuries disablement benefit as part of the main social security uprating provisions for 2026-27.
Lord Mann (Lab)
My Lords, I wish to make a couple of remarks in relation to these statutory instruments. It is a long time since the pneumoconiosis compensation schemes were brought in—so long that a photo that I was shown on Friday of a very youthful now Minister was remarkably recognisable, but not because of the length of time that has transpired. In my very first case as a Member of Parliament, at 10 in the evening on my very first day, I went to meet someone who was dying that night of mesothelioma. It was, I suppose, rewarding to be able to help push through the changes and improvements that were made a few years later.
I have two points to make. The first is that we call these social security payments, but they are social society—industrial disease—payments. Governments—and, therefore, this Government—are missing a trick. When we talk about the benefits bill, we should extract compensation for industrial disease as a separate element. That is not a benefit; it is something that pays people for the difficulties—with mesothelioma leading to death— caused by exposure that should never have happened. The fact is that there are still cases. Agriculture is a good example of where not all asbestos has been cleared out. Some industries were quicker and better organised than others. There are still schools with asbestos tucked away in all corners.
The people who were working in the collieries, shipbuilding, foundries, the baking industry and others were having to breathe in this stuff. There were sometimes asbestos gloves that they were using routinely as part of their work—then they struggled to breathe in later life. Compensation is not a benefit; it is a right. That should be extracted out and separately categorised in the statistics, so the taxpayer can see the cost of negligence by multiple employers, including—and often particularly—government over many decades.
The second point is more practical. I have been in Parliament since 2001, in one House or other, and we have had Government after Government all repeatedly talking about saving red tape and bureaucracy. I have a proposal on red tape on bureaucracy. Why are we wasting taxpayers’ money every year—on the time, involvement and work—to update something that could be updated by a little change to legislation automatically? There is no controversy in the idea that there is more accountability for diseases that are now recognised across the House as a problem, a danger and a legacy that needs to be addressed. Why are we wasting any money and time, rather than having an automatic annual increase? I put to the Minister that this would be a small but appropriate removal of red tape and bureaucracy. While it is a minor saving to the taxpayer, the principle of it seems nevertheless to be an appropriate one. I see no sufferer from these scourges objecting to an automatic increase every year.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Mann, for that personal information. I obviously agree with these statutory instruments; it would be strange if we did not—but it is industrial compensation rather than a benefit, and it ought to be recognised as such. Could the Minister quantify the 3.8%? I am not very happy with us just being quoted figures in terms of percentages. What is the general amount being paid, and how much does 3.8% thereof amount to? Percentages mean 3.8% of zero is zero, to take it to the very level.
Could the Minister also talk about the current occupations that give rise to these two dreadful—let us call them—diseases? They are dust related. Many industries have in many ways stopped the dust coming from their products. To deal with the point rightly raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mann, in terms of it being annual rather than just having a continuation, I speak against that, because I would rather that we increased the amount each year or considered and put forward an increase, rather than just have an automatic, modest increase, which might take no account of real values.
I agree with the 3.8%, but ask what it means in practice and whether the Minister could tell us what industries and occupations are giving rise to these dreadful diseases.
Lord Jones (Lab)
I thank the Minister for her masterly summation of these most welcome regulations, yet again—some of us here are the usual suspects in debate—for having some little insight as to what they mean for our communities and from whence they came as legislative devices.
In a long Westminster stay in both Houses, I have not encountered such mastery, sincerity, persuasiveness and enthusiasm from a ministerial, oppositional or advisory role in any of many committees on which I have served greater than that of the Minister. It has always been expert, committed and long-standing, from a parliamentary servant who has been at the elbow of a Prime Minister and a Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is a wonderful record of duty and expertise. The standing of this Mother of Parliaments has fallen low, but my noble friend Lady Sherlock still reaches the heights.
Primarily, these regulations centre on two great industries—and there are others. I have in mind slate and coal, quarrying and mining, both of which are in steep decline with minimal activity nowadays, but they are important to many individuals and for families. They represent great humanity, suffering and anxiety about what we know of as the dust. We debate it here, of necessity, each year in Grand Committee. Could we not just once debate on the Floor of your Lordships’ House? That would indicate an understanding of the impact of these diseases on our major communities and far-flung settlements. I recollect watching an aged former Prime Minister, Harold Macmillan, the Earl of Stockton, in your Lordships’ House making a spirited and critical speech to his own Government’s Benches. He paid moving tribute to the miners and steelmen who he said had made the difference in two World Wars, defeating first the Kaiser and secondly Adolf Hitler.
All industries come with health challenges. In these regulations, the department gives much detail, which is always welcome. Do we know how many individuals are receiving payments for both mesothelioma and pneumoconiosis? I think for certain that the increases in all payments will be welcomed when the cost of living is increasingly an issue.
Finally, I observed in the other place the distant origin of these health and safety matters. There were two great Acts in Prime Minister Harold Wilson’s third Administration. It was in 1975, I think. One was employment law, and the other was health and safety. The Secretary of State for Employment was one Michael Foot, then Member for Ebbw Vale. These legislative activities were all-night sittings, time and again. As he piloted his measures through, I recollect sitting alongside him alone at 3 am on the Front Bench in a near-empty Chamber. It was hard going. He prevailed, and the measures are social history, historic in themselves. Later, in Mr Callaghan’s Administration, the Government were without a majority and with their life ebbing away amid a winter of discontent, but plans were made to cover these terrible diseases of industrial life. I recollect the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, and the late Lord Ells-Thomas being very active on the subject of quarrying in their homeland as Members of Parliament, along with Cledwyn Hughes, then the Parliamentary Labour Party chair and later Lord Cledwyn of Penhros and Leader of the House of Lords. Another MP, a Minister like me, was Harold Walker, who was soon to be Lord Walker of Doncaster.
My own role included visiting two key players for the quarrymen and their needs. One was Mr Tom Jones, an officer of the Transport and General Workers’ Union, and the other a retired solicitor and former Member of Parliament, whose name was Jones, too. These two were detail men, and they formed the details that led to the legislation that has led to regulations such as these. I recommended solicitor Jones to Lord Cledwyn for an honour, and it happened—a knighthood, indeed.
Baroness Donaghy (Lab)
My Lords, I will be brief. This is somewhat of an anniversary for the noble Lord, Lord Jones, and me, albeit a very sad one. I think the noble Baronesses, Lady Sherlock and Lady Stedman-Scott, would be quite surprised if we did not turn up for it. I speak as a chair, for many years, of the mesothelioma oversight committee. I could recite the industries affected, but I will leave that to the Minister.
The only thing I want to add to what the noble Lord, Lord Jones, said, is to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, as well as the Minister. I remind the Committee that the noble Lord, Lord Freud, introduced the legislation, for which thanks are due. It is important to remember these things.
The average age of those diagnosed is 75 and over, for whom the payment sums, which look very healthy at the start of the table, are less than £20,000. If there is any reason for keeping these figures under review, rather than being automatic, it is the fact that they do not look very good any more. It would be much appreciated if something could be done about that.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
My Lords, I think this is about the fifth anniversary of me taking part in these uprating instruments. This year, for me, they are completely different.
When I started my charity, Tomorrow’s People, more than 35 years ago, the first lady I employed was absolutely outstanding. Last year, I received a letter from a lawyer, saying that somebody who had been employed by my charity had contracted mesothelioma and they wanted to talk to me about the buildings that we occupied. I got in touch with them immediately and said, “Yes, of course I will help. Could you tell me who it is?” They went back to the person and then came back to me to say that it was this lady, the very first one I had ever employed, who had got mesothelioma. It suddenly hit home that this was a disease that affected somebody whom I rated highly and had great respect for. She came here to see me for lunch and told me her story, and I have kept in touch with her. I expect—and hope—that she is watching what we are doing today. I want to say that it made the whole thing pretty personal.
I am pleased to say that we on these Benches support these two sets of draft regulations, which provide for a 3.8% uprating of the lump sum payments available under the mesothelioma and pneumoconiosis compensation schemes from April this year. These schemes remain a vital, no-fault safety net for those suffering from some of the most devastating industrial diseases. Mesothelioma and pneumoconiosis are cruel conditions, often emerging decades after exposure and, in many cases, at a point when it is no longer possible to pursue former employers through the courts. The provision allowing dependants to claim when a sufferer dies before making an application reflects the harsh reality and rapid progression of these illnesses.
Maintaining an inflation link is essential if these payments are to retain their real-terms value, particularly given the debilitating nature of these diseases and the financial strain that they place on families. The long latency period associated with asbestos-related illnesses makes statutory compensation schemes not merely desirable but necessary. Although there is no statutory duty to uprate these payments each year, successive Governments have taken the view that that is the proper course. I agree. Uprating in line with inflation is the least that justice requires, ensuring that compensation continues to provide meaningful recognition and practical support.
These instruments may be technical in form, but they are significant in human terms. For those confronting terminal illness as a consequence of historic workplace exposure, this support represents fairness, dignity and the acknowledgement of a debt long owed. We on these Benches therefore fully support the regulations before the Committee.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords for their helpful contributions to this debate. I confess that I would miss it if we did not gather once a year to talk about the impact of this, but I will come on to that in a moment. It is always a moment, and I appreciate that, from around the House, we have all come here to demonstrate the strength of cross-party support for these two lump sum schemes.
It was good of my noble friend Lady Donaghy to acknowledge the work of the noble Lord, Lord Freud, and others, as well as that of my late and much-lamented noble friend Lord McKenzie, who did so much work in this space for many years. My noble friend Lord Jones showed very well that, when it comes to anything in this space, we are standing on the shoulders of giants. He talked about the history of all the great Labour figures who knew that they came to Parliament to speak up for those who did not have a voice and those who had suffered at the hands of people who, in many cases, should have known better but, in some cases, did not know better. We learn as time goes on.
I remember my noble friend Lord Mann from a very long time ago as well. It is incredibly moving to think that his very first piece of casework was somebody who went on to die that day from one of these terrible diseases. As noble Lords will know, I am a priest in the Church of England, so I know what it is to be with people when they are close to death. It is a privilege as well as a challenge. To be able to take that experience and use it to advocate for others is what so many people go into politics for, so I commend my noble friend for being here to tell that story and to speak up for those who are not here and are unable to do the same.
Let me pick up on my noble friend’s point about process. This is a debate that we have regularly. Most years, somebody will suggest that we should put this into the annual uprating and then somebody else will say that we should not and give reasons why. On the reasons given today, the thoughts on the opportunity to debate these regulations and the point made by my noble friend Lady Donaghy about wanting to keep the amounts under review are interesting.
One thing I should say to my noble friend Lord Mann is that, if these payments were uprated automatically in the way that, for example, social security benefits are—these are almost always affirmative—they would still require affirmative regulations that have to be debated in Parliament. They could theoretically be rolled into a general social security operating order, but that would do the exact opposite of what my noble friend wants by putting them in with benefits rather than separating them out from benefits. Today is an opportunity for us to be here and to discuss this; either way, it would not make a difference to the claimants.
My noble friend made a wider point about understanding that these are not benefits. Of course, these schemes are quite different. Technically, they come out of what is known as departmental expenditure, rather than, like most benefits, annual expenditure. They are not benefits; they are compensation for something that people suffered but should not have done. My department offers a range of other financial support to people, including the main industrial injuries disablement benefit. Many people who get these diseases may have other costs as a result of their disability and may get things such as personal independence payments, the attendance allowance or other state benefits to cover their income replacement needs. The department wants to provide all the appropriate support for people who really cannot work as a result of injuries, while wanting to make sure that those who are economically inactive or unemployed are supported to get back to work, where they should be. We can help them to do that, and we should be expecting them to do that.
The noble Lord, Lord Palmer, asked about the amount. One of the reasons it is labelled as a percentage is that the amount any individual gets depends on the scheme and the age of sufferer at the point of death, so the amounts that people are paid are different. I can tell him the average amounts: under the 1979 Act scheme, the average award to sufferers was £14,700 and to dependants it was £11,500. Under the 2008 scheme, the average award to sufferers was £26,600 and £8,500 to dependants. That would have included a range of figures for individuals.
My noble friend Lord Jones asked me for the number of awards. For the record, under the 1979 scheme, there were 2,540, and under the 2008 scheme, there were 610. Those statistics are from the latest financial year for which figures are available.
On the point made by my noble friend Lady Donaghy, I recognise that there are many who want those amounts to be larger. All I can say is that the Government keep this under review and will continue to do so.
In terms of the comment from the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, there is nothing that brings this home like knowing somebody affected by this, and being asked about the building in which, presumably, she also worked as well as the person she hired.
My noble friend Lord Mann talked about asbestos gloves. Some noble Lords will remember, and I remember, some of the horrific stories that have been told. I remember one of my noble friends talking about what happened onboard ships, where ratings were basically playing with balls of asbestos. There were stories of people trundling trollies down corridors of hospitals, porters and all kinds of things. There were stories about schools and all kinds of public buildings. There are people who are suffering simply for doing their jobs. Most of these jobs were in public service, serving the community and caring. The very least we can do is to make sure that they get appropriate levels of support.
I think that I have addressed most of the specific questions I was asked. I just want to finish on a positive note. I mentioned the work of the HSE in relation to awareness of exposure, but I would like to put some of the work that has been done elsewhere in government on the record. Quite often we discuss research, and we know how important research is in supporting individuals with these diseases. It is still the case that the life expectancy is incredibly low, especially by the time that people are diagnosed with diffuse mesothelioma. DHSC invests over £1.6 billion each year on research through the National Institute for Health and Care Research, and cancer is a major area of NIHR spending at £141.6 million in 2024-25.
Respiratory disease is a clinical priority within the NHS long-term plan. The aim is to improve outcomes for people who have these respiratory diseases through early diagnosis and increased access to treatment. NHS England has established 13 respiratory clinical networks across the country. These have been vital in providing clinical leadership for respiratory services and supporting services in primary care. Indeed, that continued investment in cancer research and support for people with respiratory diseases is key to reducing the numbers of families affected in the future and providing better support following a diagnosis.
I think that I have addressed all the questions that were asked. Once again, it is always a privilege to participate in this debate. I acknowledge the position of those who suffer from these terrible diseases and their families. The least we can do is carry on providing support. In light of that, I beg to move.