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.