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
Debate between Stephen Timms and Rachel Hopkins(1 day, 17 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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.