I thank the noble Lord for the amendments. The intention of Amendment 13 is to ensure that a person who receives a state lump sum payment under the Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) Act 1979 or the Section 47 of the Child Maintenance and Other Payments Act 2008 would not be excluded from receiving a scheme payment.
One of the conditions for entitlement for a payment under the scheme was that a person has not received damages or a specified payment in respect of diffuse mesothelioma and is not eligible to receive a specified payment. The meaning of “a specified payment” will be given by regulation. Broadly speaking, specified payments are those which are not compensation but are paid in respect of the person’s mesothelioma. That does not include government lump-sum payments. Therefore, the amendment has no effect on our intentions.
The amendment does not cover the equivalent Northern Ireland legislation, so it creates an imbalance between how applications in Northern Ireland will be dealt with compared to applications made elsewhere in the United Kingdom. To go through which payments will be specified, as the noble Lord requested—it may be easier for me to supply a letter—they are the naval, military and air forces, the Armed Forces and Reserve Forces, the UK Asbestos Trust and the EL Scheme Trust established in 2006. I will write to him to get that on the record.
7.15 pm
Amendment 41 is consequent upon benefits and state lump sum payments not being recovered from scheme payments. The Bill allows for the Secretary of State to make regulations under which insurers have to pay a levy with a view to meeting the costs of the scheme. In deciding the total amount of levy, the Secretary of State may deduct the sums recovered, or expected to be recovered, under the recovery of benefits legislation during the period in respect of scheme payments made during the period or before it. On the basis that social security benefits and government lump sums are recoverable from scheme payments, the effect of this amendment would be to prevent the recycling of money generated through recovery of benefits and state lump sum payments in order to reduce the amount of the levy in period one. To be clear, we only intend to recycle this money in year one of the scheme’s operation in order reduce the risk that the costs associated with a higher levy are passed on to British industry.