Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) (Payment of Claims) (Amendment) Regulations 2006

One of the last Acts passed by the then Labour government was the Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) Act 1979. I am glad that the Minister explained its provisions and the provisions of the regulations so clearly, even if his pronunciation on occasions was somewhat better than mine. As the noble Lord said, its purpose was and is to provide lump-sum compensation for sufferers or their dependants of certain dust-related diseases who are unable to claim damages from their employer due to the latter having gone out of business. Clearly, if the firm still exists, it is the firm’s responsibility to do that. We can all empathise with those who suffer from these diseases, which rapidly lead to shortness of breath and, in some cases, ultimately cancer and death. It is right that we should do all we can to alleviate this suffering. The regulations are about financial help. However, my phrase ““all we can”” includes other forms of help, so it is right to ask what medical improvements have been made to the treatment of these diseases since 1979. As the noble Lord pointed out, the Act is about 25 years old and up to March 2003, there had been, in total, 11,786 successful claimants. I believe that I heard the Minister say that there had been 1,078 new claimants in the past year, 89 per cent of which were successful. But it would be useful to know the total figures for March 2005. I would also like to know whether the claims are diminishing and how many successful claims for compensation were from sufferers and how many from dependants, both in total and since March 2003. It also occurs to me to wonder whether, if a compensation payment is made to a sufferer, dependants will also be able to claim successfully. I do not know whether the intention was to uprate the compensation amount from time to time. However, the fact is, and the Government should get credit for it, that in recent years—the last time being in 2004—it has been so uprated, which must be right due to the linked social security benefits which are themselves uprated. I was particularly interested in the Minister’s reference to a review of all industrial related benefits. We look forward to hearing reports of those, including the possibility of disregards, in due course.