Draft Electrical Safety Standards in the Private Rented Sector and Social Rented Sector (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2026
Draft Hazards in Social Housing (Prescribed Requirements) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 19 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Electrical Safety Standards in the Private Rented Sector and Social Rented Sector (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2026.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider the draft Hazards in Social Housing (Prescribed Requirements) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2026.
Matthew Pennycook
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Desmond. I will speak to both sets of regulations, and note that the draft hazards in social housing regulations are commonly referred to as phase 2 of Awaab’s law.
Alongside our commitment to delivering the biggest increase in social and affordable house building in a generation, the Government are driving a lasting change in the safety and quality of social housing. Both regulations are integral to that effort, and once brought into force they will play an important role in keeping social tenants safe by ensuring that social landlords are clear as to their responsibilities and respond to complaints in a timely manner. I will take each of the regulations in turn, starting with the second phase of Awaab’s law.
As hon. Members know, Awaab’s law is named in memory of Awaab Ishak. Awaab was just two years old when he died in December 2020 as a result of a severe respiratory condition caused by prolonged exposure to mould in the social home that his family rented from Rochdale Boroughwide Housing. His parents repeatedly expressed concerns about the conditions that the family were living in, but their landlord failed to act. Confronted with the grief of a loss so overwhelming, Awaab’s parents determined that they would secure justice for not only their son but all renters. We remain deeply grateful to them for the dignity and tenacity that they have shown in fighting for change and bringing us to this point.
Awaab’s law is vital legislation that empowers social tenants to hold their social landlords to account, using the full force of the law if landlords fail to investigate and fix hazards in tenants’ homes within set timeframes. When it comes to those hazards, I want to be clear that social landlords had legal obligations to keep homes fit for human habitation, free from HHSRS—housing health and safety rating system—category 1 hazards, and to remedy disrepair before the first phase of Awaab’s law commenced in October last year. Awaab’s law does not introduce new obligations in respect of new hazards; it is designed to compel and expedite the meeting of existing obligations by introducing clear time-bound requirements and a robust route to enforcement.
As I mentioned, phase 1 of Awaab’s law, covering significant damp, mould and emergency hazards, came into force in October last year, and it is helping to drive up standards in the social housing sector. The draft hazards in social housing regulations extend the requirements of Awaab’s law to the following significant hazards: excess cold and excess heat, falls, structural collapse and falling elements, fire and explosions, electrical safety and hygiene.
In addition to expanding the range of hazards that are within scope of Awaab’s law, we are drawing on feedback and lessons learned from the roll-out of phase 1 to make two groups of changes, with a view to ensuring that policy works as effectively as possible. First, we have clarified thresholds for the types of hazards covered by Awaab’s law and updated the definitions of “emergency” and “significant” in respect of the hazards that fall within the scope of it. That will help landlords to make more effective assessments, will provide tenants with greater clarity as to when landlords must act and will support a more consistent application of the requirements across the sector.
Secondly, we have made changes to avoid duplication with existing fire safety rules. Where fire risks relate to parts of buildings that are already covered by existing fire safety legislation, such as communal areas, we have clarified that those are to be managed under those rules, rather than also being subject to the requirements of Awaab’s law. The changes are reflected in updated guidance that we have published covering all phase 1 and 2 hazards, with a view to helping tenants and landlords determine precisely what is and is not within scope of the requirements.
Once the draft hazards regulations are in force, Awaab’s law will operate as follows: potential significant hazards must be investigated within 10 working days; following the conclusion of an investigation, landlords must send written summaries to tenants within three working days, and they must take action within five working days; and potential emergency hazards must be investigated and made safe within 24 hours. If the landlord cannot make the home in question safe within the relevant timescales, they are required to secure suitable alternative accommodation. Additional works to prevent the hazard from recurring must begin as quickly as possible, but no later than 12 weeks from the time of the investigation, and they must be completed within a reasonable time period.
Once the draft hazards regulations are in force, all social landlords will have to comply with the requirements of Awaab’s law in respect of the wider range of hazards covered. If they do not, tenants can take legal action through the courts for a breach of contract or seek redress through the Housing Ombudsman.
I should point out that Awaab’s law provides for a statutory defence in instances where a landlord can prove they have used all reasonable endeavours to comply with the requirements but have been unable to do so. In other words, if failure is due to circumstances completely beyond the control of the landlord, they will not be liable for a breach of the regulations.
As per the commitments we have made, next year we will expand the requirements of Awaab’s law to apply to the remaining hazards, as defined by the HHSRS, excluding overcrowding. In doing so, we will continue with the “test and learn” approach we took to phase 1, so that any beneficial lessons arising from the implementation of phase 2 can be addressed. To return to a point I made earlier, the phased approach we are taking does not mean that social landlords have leeway when it comes to meeting their existing duties to provide safe and decent homes for their tenants.
It is important that tenants are aware of the protections they are entitled to and that landlords are clear on their responsibilities. The Make Things Right social housing information campaign will launch in January to raise awareness of the new protections among social housing tenants and residents. Ahead of the regulations coming into force in November, I will write to all social landlords in England, setting out clearly what the regulations require and the standards landlords must meet.
I will now turn to the Electrical Safety Standards in the Private Rented Sector and Social Rented Sector (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2026. As hon. Members may recall, last year we brought social housing into scope of the electrical safety requirements that private landlords have had to meet since 2020. As a result, all landlords must now check the electrical installations in their properties at least every five years.
The regulations are required to ensure that those existing requirements align with the latest version of the relevant British standard, namely BS 7671. As a result of the changes required, the existing references to “further investigative work” are no longer relevant and have been removed. We are also clarifying that a pre-tenancy inspection and test is not required if the previous inspection and test took place within the last 5 years and the report is still current.
These changes will make sure there is clarity and consistency on the standards that are expected of landlords in both rented sectors. With that, I commend both sets of draft regulations to the Committee.
Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I welcome the opportunity to sit opposite the Minister again, and I appreciate his remarks. I also welcome the opportunity, on behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition, to address the regulations. I will make my remarks in reverse order to the Minister.
The concern in the first set of regulations, regarding electrical safety, is broadly technical, and they are uncontentious in terms of legislative change. It is vital that all homes meet the necessary electrical safety requirements that tenants, landlords, registered providers and others rightly expect. However, I do have some questions about the regulations.
As one of my noble Friends highlighted in the other place, the legislation requires that such standards be monitored by local authorities. Given all the uncertainty surrounding local government at the moment and the lack of action taken by the Government to allay such concerns, on whom will the monitoring responsibilities fall during the transitional periods? What impact will local government reorganisation have on this and on their innumerable small-scale but vital responsibilities.
Secondly, in the other place, the Opposition and the Liberal Democrats raised the important point that extra responsibilities for landlords do not always match up with the expected compliance of tenants. What plans does the Minister have to enforce responsibilities and compliance on not just the landlord’s side but the tenant’s side?
Turning to the other set of regulations, regarding hazards in social housing, I want to start by acknowledging the critical importance of ensuring that every tenant has a safe, hygienic and sturdy home in which to live. It was that very concern that led the previous Conservative Government to introduce the original Awaab’s law. As the Minister said, the sad and untimely death in 2020 of Awaab Ishak was a shock to all of us in this place and up and down the country. It showed that there clearly was and still is more to be done to ensure safety for all residents in social housing. These regulations go further than the original Awaab’s law, as the Minister said, by extending the same principles to cover other hazards, such as excessive heat or cold, hygiene hazards, structural hazards and more.
Those are real and pressing concerns for some tenants, but the regulations are not a perfect response to the issue in hand. It is important that the valid concerns of industry groups are also noted in this debate, because they highlight that, when considering any new regulatory requirements, we must remember the added financial cost and extra time that must accompany their enforcement.
For example, the National Housing Federation has raised concerns about the substantial additional cost to housing associations. We hear in our constituencies up and down the nation that many housing associations are stretched, with some already struggling to cover their costs. New requirements can take away money earmarked for other repairs and maintenance, forcing unwelcome choices on housing associations. Homeless Link has also warned that, at present, no Government funding exists to help providers that find themselves on the brink and operating on tight margins.
As the hazards for consideration expand in scope, so do the pressures on cost and time. The Government’s impact assessment shows that that is the case, with an estimated increase in costs of £213.6 million. Importantly, that covers only the administrative costs, so the true figure is likely to be considerably greater.
It is important that the Government engage closely and meaningfully with the sector as the regulations come into force. I call on the Minister to commit to that when he sums up, both to ease concerns and to help us understand the true nature of the costs not included in the impact assessment. I hope he will make that promise in this debate, and support tenants, landlords, housing associations and registered providers alike.
Sam Carling (North West Cambridgeshire) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to have you in the Chair, Sir Desmond, for the second of my meetings today.
I put on record my strong support for what the Government are doing to expand Awaab’s law, both in the social sector and the private sector. As an example of its importance, a mother in my constituency recently got in touch as she is worried about her son, who is asthmatic. In their property, which is managed by a social housing association, significant damp and black mould on the windows and walls were aggravating his condition. Awaab’s law, which places a legal duty on social landlords to address damp and mould hazards that present a significant risk of harm within fixed timeframes, was a useful foundation for me to stand on when contacting the council on her behalf.
Extending those principles to the private sector will do so much for another of my constituents, who recently had his bed condemned by his letting agency for being infested with black mould. Again, the root cause was the state of the housing, which resulted in a chest infection and a hospital visit. He has had to pay for a new bed himself, which was a significant expense caused by a problem with his private rented house. I am confident that the changes the Government are making will give private tenants far more strength and backing to assert that mouldy conditions—a clear emergency health hazard—are rectified within a strict timeframe.
I want to touch on a briefing that came from Shelter earlier today. I appreciate that the Minister may not have a response to it right now as it has come through only today, but I wonder whether he would commit to writing to Shelter in response to its concerns. In short, Shelter is arguing that the amended regulations state that a
“‘significant risk of harm’ means a risk of harm to the occupier’s health or safety that a reasonable lessor with the relevant knowledge would make safe within 15 working days (but not within 24 hours).”
Shelter is
“concerned that the ‘15 day’ definition could put tenants at risk in cases where there are no quick fixes to make a home safe from a hazard ahead of further works—meaning it could fall outside the regulations”.
It gives the example that
“a reasonable landlord might not be able to make safe a significant structural collapse hazard within 15 working days...if no temporary fixes were available.”
It argues that the amended definition could potentially—I am sure in an unintended way—undermine Awaab’s law
“because, if the landlord were to argue the hazard was out of scope, tenants would lose their right to be offered suitable alternative accommodation until the hazard could be made safe.”
Shelter closes by saying:
“If Awaab’s family had been offered suitable alternative accommodation while the damp and mould was made safe, he may still be alive today.”
I wanted to bring that briefing to the Minister’s attention so that he can respond when possible.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve on the Committee with you in the Chair, Sir Desmond. I draw the Committee’s attention to my entry in the Register of Member’s Financial Interests—I am a social landlord.
The Liberal Democrats support and recognise the work that has been done on Awaab’s law and its passing in the Renters’ Rights Act 2025, which we supported as a major step forward. We therefore welcome the draft regulations to extend the hazards in the definition. I agree entirely with the hon. Member for North West Cambridgeshire, who made a good speech on the efficacy of Awaab’s law. My constituents have also found it useful in securing action on matters such as damp and mould and so forth.
The electrical regulations appear to be a tidying-up exercise. I do not have any further comments, and we are happy to support them. In regard to the social housing regulations, has consideration been given to extending the hazards to encompass overcrowding? I was pleased to campaign over a number of years in different roles to restore minimum space standards in housing; when I trained as an architect many decades ago, those were a requirement, until the Thatcher Government swept them away and we ended up with the second smallest homes in Europe. I was delighted that we campaigned for that cross party and that Liberal Democrat Minister Don Foster brought in nationally prescribed space standards. However, there is not much point in having space standards if the homes themselves are completely overcrowded. We are therefore interested to hear from the Minister whether consideration has been given to including overcrowding in the hazards in these or future regulations. Other than that, we stand in support of the regulations.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank hon. Members for those contributions. I am pleased that there is general support for both sets of draft regulations and their intentions in respect of improving the safety and quality of social housing. A series of questions have been put to me, and I will endeavour to respond to each in turn.
The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Orpington, put to me two questions on who enforces the electrical safety requirements and what the implications are of that enforcement duty in respect of local government reorganisation. Local councils enforce the regulations, as the shadow Minister made clear. If a local council has reasonable grounds to believe that a landlord is in breach of one or more of the duties in the regulations, they must serve a remedial notice on the landlord requiring remedial action. Should a landlord not comply with the notice or should urgent remedial action be required, the local council may arrange itself for remedial action to be taken.
I note the point the shadow Minister made about the burden that that places on local councils. I do not immediately make the link between local government reorganisation generally and that point. He is more than welcome to write to me with further details, or if he has evidence of particular local authorities that think they will have problems enforcing these quite simple and straightforward regulations, because I would be interested to know about that.
The shadow Minster then asked what if the hazards in question are caused by the tenant—they are the tenant’s fault? First, it is important to say that the Government are completely clear that it is unacceptable for social landlords to assume that a hazard such as damp, mould or pests are based on a tenant’s lifestyle. In fact, Awaab’s family had that allegation put to them. The Housing Ombudsman has been incredibly clear on that point. It is rightly the responsibility of landlords to identify and address underlying causes, where they exist, such as structural issues, repairs or inadequate ventilation. The same goes for other hazards such as pests. However, landlords should, of course, continue working with tenants to make small, reasonable adjustments to their behaviour if that is required and appropriate to reduce those risks.
The shadow Minister then put to me a series of points about the cost to the sector. We have taken a approach to regulation generally that ensures that it is proportionate and that timescales, in particular, are sufficient for social landlords to enact those regulations in a proportionate way. We have done that with minimum energy efficiency standards and the modernised decent homes standard, and we are doing it with Awaab’s law by rolling out the requirements in phases to give landlords time to adjust and to embed the necessary processes and so that, through that approach, as I referenced in my opening remarks, we can test and learn what works and what needs clarifying.
In terms of the cost, we have published a final stage impact assessment for phase 1 of Awaab’s law. Having updated the policy in the light of consultation feedback from both the sector and tenants, we have assessed that costs have been kept to a reasonable level while delivering the necessary impact for tenants. Social landlords that will incur the greatest costs are those not currently meeting their obligations regarding hazards and decency. I come back to the point I made in my opening remarks: these are existing obligations that we are trying to ensure are better enforced.
Alongside laying phase 2 regulations, we are publishing an impact assessment. Our estimate is that the total cost to the sector of the proposals will be £146.3 million over the 10-year appraisal period for phase 1 and £190.2 million over a 10-year appraisal period for phase 2. However, as I said, the duty to make repairs is not a new burden on landlords, and the costs associated with the investigation and repair timescales are likely to be the result of additional staffing, familiarisation costs and the preparation and postage of written summaries.
To the point from my hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire, I have Shelter’s letter here. I was not going to detain the Committee by responding to the two main points that it has made, but he has challenged me to do so, so I think it is important to just put them on the record.
In respect of the definition of “significant hazard”, we heard very clearly from tenants and landlords in our phase 1 “test and learn” that it was difficult to distinguish between an emergency hazard and a significant hazard. We have therefore changed the definitions of both emergency and significant hazards to remove the ambiguity around the previous language, which asked landlords to assess whether they would “take steps to” address the hazard and
“as a matter of urgency”.
We have instead made it clear that landlords must make an assessment of whether a reasonable landlord would make the hazard safe within 24 hours for an emergency hazard, or within 15 working days for a significant hazard, to determine whether the hazard falls within the scope of Awaab’s law. For a significant hazard, the 15 working day period has been used to align with the existing timescale of 10 working days to investigate and then five working days to make safe upon the conclusion of the investigation.
There is an objective test of what a notional reasonable landlord would do, and landlords should not factor in their own considerations, such as budget or staff availability. To determine what a reasonable landlord would do, we would expect landlords to take into account the risk to the tenant, information about their health circumstances and how feasibly the hazard can be made safe within three weeks. Landlords should also consider whether a reasonable landlord would use temporary measures to make hazards safe, where that is a necessary as a first step.
Shelter also raised concerns about fire hazards in communal areas not being covered. I can see the Committee urging me to bring my remarks to a conclusion, but my hon. Friend can be assured that we will respond to Shelter in full on both points. I am more than happy to share that response with colleagues if they are interested.
Lastly, on the point from the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington, about why we have excluded overcrowding, Awaab’s law is intended to address hazards that result from defects, disrepair or a lack of maintenance for which landlords are responsible. We came to the conclusion that overcrowding is a complex issue that is not usually the result of disrepair or something that can be fixed via repairs or maintenance. We therefore took the decision to remove overcrowding from the scope of Awaab’s law, to ensure that these regulations are focused on repairs issues.
Social landlords will obviously still be expected to take overcrowding issues seriously, and the sector must continue to address those through transfer and allocation policies. Tenants concerned about overcrowding will be able to seek redress through the Housing Ombudsman Service, and tenants in housing association properties can obviously report overcrowding issues to their local councils. Beyond that, as the hon. Member knows—I know he shares my ambition in this area—we need to boost the supply of new social and affordable homes to ensure that more families who are overcrowded or severely overcrowded can be moved into appropriate accommodation.
To conclude, it is imperative that we continue to work to improve the safety and quality of social housing. These regulations will enable us to do so. They will play a vital role in ensuring that social landlords are clear as to their responsibilities and respond to complaints in a timely manner. I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Hazards in Social Housing (Prescribed Requirements) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2026
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Hazards in Social Housing (Prescribed Requirements) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2026.
Travellers' Allowances (Amendment) Order 2026
(1 day, 19 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury and Paymaster General (James Murray)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the Travellers’ Allowances (Amendment) Order 2026 (SI, 2026, No. 981).
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. The purpose of the order is straightforward: it updates the way alcoholic products are grouped within the duty-free allowances available to travellers entering the UK from the rest of the world. The changes make the system simpler, clearer and more consistent with the alcohol duty reforms introduced in 2023.
The order makes four principal changes. First, cider moves into the same allowance category as beer. That means that cider now forms part of the 42-litre beer allowance instead of the separate nine-litre allowance for drinks of up to 22% alcohol by volume. Secondly, the existing still wine category is replaced by a single wine category covering both still and sparkling wine. Sparkling wine now forms part of the 18-litre wine allowance rather than the separate nine-litre category for drinks of up 22% alcohol by volume. Thirdly, the order updates the terminology used in the 1994 order by replacing references to “alcoholic beverages” with “alcoholic products”, in line with the Finance (No.2) Act 2023. Finally, where travellers exceed their duty-free allowance, simplified rates of duty may apply up to specified thresholds before standard rates of duty apply. The order raises the simplified rate threshold for still and sparkling cider from 20 litres to 110 litres, bringing it in line with beer. The thresholds for other alcohol products are unchanged.
Travellers will not need to do anything differently when using the allowances, but the revised categories change the combinations of products that can be brought into the UK duty-free. The changes were announced at the 2025 Budget and follow a review of travellers’ allowances after our exit from the European Union. That review identified areas where the structure could be simplified and similar alcoholic products could be treated more consistently. Individuals travelling to Northern Ireland from the EU continue to operate under separate arrangements that were retained following the exit from the EU.
The measure is not expected to have any significant macroeconomic impact. Its administrative impact on businesses is expected to be negligible, although some businesses may update guidance or customer-facing material. His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs systems and guidance have been updated to reflect the new categories and thresholds. The order took effect from 1 October 2026. I commend it to the Committee.
Gareth Davies (Grantham and Bourne) (Con)
It is a pleasure to see you in the chair, Mr Stringer, and to serve on this Committee. I thank Minister for his explanation of the Government’s intentions in relation to the order.
As the Minister outlined, the order builds on the changes made by the previous Government in the Finance (No.2) Act 2023. Incidentally, they were brought in by a particularly impressive Treasury Minister—I cannot remember his name—while the official Opposition spokesman at the time left a lot to be desired, I have to say. I am pleased to see amendments that aim to simplify the system. As the Minister said, for those who are travelling to Great Britain and for the businesses that sell to them, the order makes a frankly welcome change to some of the regulations I have been responding to since 2024, which have a very different impact on British consumers and businesses. The Opposition will not oppose the measures today, but I have a few questions for the Minister.
First, how many people will be impacted by the measure? Secondly, which ports in particular are likely to be affected? Thirdly, the measure is pegged to cost around £500,000, but no explanation has been provided on where that money will be spent, so where will it be spent?
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
As a west country MP, I am absolutely delighted to see that cider is given as adequate a billing as beer under these proposals. As colleagues have said, the proposals are a simplification and will make things easier for consumers to understand. The Liberal Democrats welcome them.
James Murray
I thank hon. Members for their contributions. I welcome the support of the official Opposition for this measure, and acknowledge the long-standing conversations that the hon. Member for Grantham and Bourne and I have had on different sides of the aisle along Committee corridor. The order delivers a targeted simplification of the travellers’ allowances rules. It aligns the treatment of cider with beer, brings still and sparkling wine into a single wine category, updates the statutory terminology and aligns the simplified rate threshold for cider with that of beer.
The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Grantham and Bourne, asked how many people would be affected and which ports would be impacted. This is a change to the overall way in which the duty system works. Although individual travellers will not need to do anything differently when using the allowance, the revised categories will have changed the combinations that can be brought into the UK duty-free. The existing 42-litre beer allowance remains unchanged, but cider is now included in that allowance. Likewise, still and sparkling wine now share a single 18-litre wine allowance. The purpose of the changes was not to alter the way that individual travellers interact with HMRC, but to provide clearer and more consistent frameworks for the combinations of alcohol products that people may bring into the UK.
The Government recognise that the changes have affected travellers differently. Some travellers are now able to bring back more of certain products duty-free, while those who previously maximised allowances across separate categories may be able to bring back less of those products in total. However, the overall duty-free allowance remains the same. The revised approach therefore offers greater consistency between similar products, and better reflects the reformed alcohol duty system.
Gareth Davies
I apologise, but I am specifically interested in those who already maximise their allowance. What is the Government’s assessment of the impact on those individuals, to whom this measure will be detrimental?
James Murray
The overall volume of alcohol that individual travellers are allowed to bring back remains the same; it is the categories that different alcohol products fall into that is changing. Where people have previously maximised allowances across separate categories, they may be able to bring back less of those products in total. Overall, individual travellers still have access to the same total volume of products, but spread across different categories that are grouped in slightly different ways. As I said, it offers greater consistency between similar products. I mentioned that beer and cider and still and sparkling wine are grouped together in specific categories of the allowance, which better reflects the reformed alcohol duty system.
The shadow Minister asked about the impact on different ports and businesses. I can reassure him that the measure is expected to have no significant macroeconomic impact and only a negligible administrative impact on businesses, but HMRC will, of course, monitor the change through routine data collection and engagement with stakeholders. I commend the order to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Mesothelioma Lump Sum Payments (Conditions and Amounts) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2026
Draft Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers' Compensation) (Payment of Claims) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 19 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read 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) (No. 2) Regulations 2026.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider the draft Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) (Payment of Claims) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2026.
Sir Stephen Timms
Dr Huq, I am delighted to be serving under your chairmanship—I think for the first time in all these years. Let me welcome all Members to the Committee and congratulate the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East on taking up his new role. I welcome him to the Committee.
Both sets of regulations were laid before the House on 1 September. The schemes to which they relate provide very important support to people who have developed certain dust-related diseases, often caused by occupational exposure to asbestos and other harmful dusts. That includes diseases such as the two named in the statutory instruments: pneumoconiosis and mesothelioma. They have a devastating effect on individuals and their families. I really welcome the opportunity to debate these schemes and the changes that we are making to ensure that they continue to provide effective support.
Let me begin with an overview of the two no-fault compensation schemes and what these regulations seek to change. The scheme for pneumoconiosis, which I shall refer to as “the 1979 Act scheme”—for the Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) Act 1979—provides a single lump sum compensation payment to eligible people who suffer from one of the diseases covered by the scheme. That includes, as well as pneumoconiosis, diffuse mesothelioma and three other dust-related respiratory diseases. The scheme was designed to compensate people who were unable to claim damages from former employers because they 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, which I shall refer to as “the 2008 Act scheme”—for the Child Maintenance and Other Payments Act 2008—was introduced to provide compensation to people who contracted diffuse mesothelioma but were unable to claim compensation through the 1979 Act scheme, for example because 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 the time when they most need help.
Both schemes aim to provide compensation to sufferers within their lifetime, but each scheme also allows for claims by dependants if the person suffering from the disease sadly dies before they are able to make a claim, which is not an unusual state of affairs, in recognition of the suffering that these diseases can impose on whole families. The regulations before the Committee make very important changes to both schemes. The most important relate to awards for dependants and the treatment of claims where a claimant dies before payment can be made. The changes deliver what I hope the Committee will agree is a fairer approach to compensation and provide better support to bereaved families.
Under the current arrangements, awards payable to dependants are generally lower than those payable to sufferers. The regulations will align the rates payable to dependants with those payable to sufferers under both schemes. That means dependants will receive compensation calculated using the same rates as eligible sufferers, providing a single payment structure under each of the schemes. For families already coping with the loss of a loved one, these changes will provide greater financial support at an obviously difficult time.
Campaigners have long called for this change. Let me pay tribute in particular to Joanne Gordon and John Flanagan, who I was with earlier this afternoon, of the Asbestos Victims Support Group Forum UK, and the remarkable work of Liz Darlison and her team at Mesothelioma UK, who have repeatedly raised this concern with me. I also pay tribute to Hugh Robertson of the TUC and to Thompsons Solicitors, who have campaigned for this change. Among the parliamentarians who have done so, let me single out the late Bill McKenzie, Lord McKenzie of Luton, who I think was my hon. Friend the Member for Luton South and South Bedfordshire’s local council leader for some time.
Sir Stephen Timms
As the Minister in 2010, he said that equalisation was the aim, when “resources allow”. He then campaigned for equalisation as the Opposition spokesperson in subsequent years.
The regulations also make provision for circumstances where an individual dies after making a valid claim, but before payment is made. In those cases, payment may be made to the claimant’s personal representatives. That will help ensure that compensation can still be paid where somebody has done everything required of them to make a claim but sadly dies before their award can be issued. The regulations for the 1979 Act scheme also make a number of consequential changes to support the reforms. Those include introducing a clear statutory basis for determining the date used to calculate awards and removing payment provisions that are no longer needed following the alignment of award rates.
Together, these changes will ensure that the schemes will provide better support to those who succumb to these devastating diseases and to their families. The Committee will join me in recognising the continued importance of the compensation offered by both the 1979 Act scheme and the 2008 Act scheme. I am required to confirm that these provisions are compatible with the European convention on human rights, and I am very happy to do so. I commend these regulations, which will align compensation rates for dependants with those for sufferers and improve the operation of both schemes, to the Committee and ask it to approve them in order that they can be implemented.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq.
The Opposition support both sets of regulations. These schemes provide financial support to people facing serious illness and to families who have lost someone. Many of those affected worked in some of the toughest industries. Others were exposed to asbestos through a family member’s work or in the environment around them. The central change is welcome. Both sets of regulations bring the rates paid to dependants into line with those paid to those suffering themselves. Putting them on the same footing is an obvious and fair change. A family’s need for support does not disappear because their loved one died before being able to make a claim. These changes recognise that, and we support them.
I will turn first to the regulations on the Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) Act 1979—or, using the Minister’s helpful language, the 1979 Act scheme. I welcome the practical changes. References to medical boards that no longer exist are being replaced by a reference to an appointed medical practitioner. The regulations also clarify which date is used to determine a person’s age and the payment rate that applies. That should make the rules clearer for claimants and their families.
The second set of regulations, on the 2008 Act scheme, concern mesothelioma, a devastating cancer that is linked to asbestos exposure. For those affected and the people caring for them, financial support needs to be accessible and timely. Bringing payments for bereaved dependants into line with those for people living with the disease is an important improvement.
Both instruments also clarify what happens when someone makes a claim but dies before payment is made. They provide for payment to the person’s personal representatives—the people responsible for dealing with their estate—once the required legal evidence has been supplied. That clarity is welcome. However, it needs to work in practice for people who are already dealing with bereavement.
There are four matters on which I would be grateful for the Minister’s reassurance. First, the explanatory memorandum says that dependants will benefit from the higher basic awards when the existing top-ups are removed. However, the workers’ compensation regulations also remove a tuberculosis-related top-up paid to sufferers themselves. Can the Minister confirm whether anyone in that group could receive less under the new arrangements—and, if so, what protection has been considered?
Secondly, what steps will the Department take to avoid delays where payment must be made through someone’s estate? The regulations will require evidence of probate, or the equivalent legal authority. What practical support will be available, and how quickly will payments be processed once that evidence is received? Bereaved families should have clear information about what they need to provide and what happens next.
Thirdly, how will these changes be communicated? The explanatory memorandum for the workers’ compensation regulations says that
“no bespoke guidance is being produced”,
although internal instructions for staff will be updated. Will the Department work with specialist nurses, clinicians and support organisations so that eligible people understand what they can claim and how to apply? The organisations closest to patients and their families are often best placed to help them access support.
Fourthly, I would like to ask about the transition. Under the workers’ compensation regulations, the changes apply where the person first meets the conditions of entitlement on or after 31 October 2026; under the regulations on the 2008 Act scheme, the increased dependant rates apply where the person suffering dies on or after that date. What consideration has been given to people who fall just before those cut-offs, but whose claims are still outstanding? They may remain entitled under the existing rules but will miss out on the improvements. Can the Minister explain the approach taken and whether any transitional protection was considered?
As I said, we support these changes. We want to see them delivered clearly and promptly so that people facing serious illness and families dealing with loss receive the support they are entitled to.
Sir Stephen Timms
I thank the shadow Minister for his support for these measures. The debate has been informed and supported, as it is every year, by the very wide recognition of the scale of the impact on those who are affected by the terrible diseases that are covered by the schemes. As usual in such debates, I welcome the cross-party support.
The Government share the commitment that Members of the House have to making sure that people affected by these devastating diseases and their families receive the support that they should expect. The reforms are intended to strengthen and, as the shadow Minister pointed out, simplify these long-standing compensation schemes while making sure that support is delivered in a way that is fair, clear and consistent between different claimants.
The reforms will align compensation payable to dependants with that payable to sufferers under both the schemes, and will introduce provision for payment to personal representatives, as the shadow Minister touched on, where a claimant dies after making a valid claim but before payment can be made.
For the 1979 Act scheme, the regulations also introduce a clear statutory basis for determining the relevant date that is used to calculate the awards and to remove supplementary payment provisions that are no longer required following the alignment of dependant and sufferer awards.
Of course, people who have additional costs as a result of their disability may also be entitled to benefits such as personal independence payment or attendance allowance, and other benefits are also available to cover income-replacement needs. We are committed to providing appropriate financial support for families who are affected.
Let me pick up on the very good point the shadow Minister made about communications. That is very important and we have already started working on it. I mentioned the victim support group that John Flanagan is a member of—I was in a meeting with him earlier this afternoon—and Mesothelioma UK, who are very keen to promote awareness of these changes. I agree with the shadow Minister that that kind of route is often the most effective way of getting the information to those who need to know about it. We are also promoting information today, on the back of this debate. It is very important that people know that this significant change has been made.
On the TB-related top-up, what I can say to the shadow Minister is that it has very rarely actually been claimed. I am advised that we do not think anyone would be worse off, because anyone who might be worse off will be equalised by the changes that we are making, so I do not think there is a problem. If he has in mind a particular set of circumstances where there could be a problem, perhaps he could drop me a line and I will be happy to discuss what the position is.
On the question of avoiding delays, I agree with the shadow Minister that we need to make sure that these things move as quickly as they can, and the payments will be made as soon as possible. He talked about the possibility of delays around probate, which of course is true. Obviously, that is outside our immediate control—we do have to follow the legal procedures in all of this—but I very much hope that delays can be minimised.
On the question of transition, I am afraid that I will have to come back to the shadow Minister on the particular point that he raised, unless inspiration suddenly—[Interruption.] Ah, it could be that some inspiration has arrived. The changes will apply only to claims determined on or after 31 October—the end of this month. Existing awards and entitlement decisions will continue to be determined under the current legislative framework. Applying the changes from a single implementation date provides clarity and ensures that the schemes operate consistently and fairly for everybody. I can understand that some people might feel a little bit hard done by as a result of that, and he expressed concern to that effect, but there is the benefit of providing clarity for everybody, which I think outweighs the possible disbenefit for a small number of claimants.
The schemes continue to provide very important support to people affected by some of the most serious occupational diseases and, where appropriate, to their dependants. The reforms that the Committee is considering were prompted by an independent legal review of the schemes and they give us an opportunity to address a number of long-standing issues about the operation of the schemes, as well as to equalise compensation in the way that I have described. Taken together, the changes will align awards for dependants and sufferers, provide greater clarity in the calculation and payment of awards, and simplify the operation of the 1979 Act scheme. They will help to make sure that the schemes provide the support that is needed to those who succumb to these awful diseases and to their families, who bear the impact alongside them. I am grateful for the support from across the House and I hope that the Committee will agree to both measures.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Pneumoconiosis Etc. (Workers’ Compensation) (Payment of Claims) (Amendment No. 2) Regulations 2026
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Pneumoconiosis Etc. (Workers’ Compensation) (Payment of Claims) (Amendment No. 2) Regulations 2026.—(Sir Stephen Timms.)