I thank the noble Lord and the noble Baroness for these amendments, which I understand are probing amendments. I am hopeful that I can give complete satisfaction on the matter. The intention of these amendments is to enable a person to apply for a payment under the Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) Act 1979, or under the corresponding legislation in Northern Ireland, after they have made an application for a scheme payment but before a scheme payment is made or where the application is unsuccessful.
One of the conditions of entitlement under the 1979 legislation is that a person has not brought any action or compromised any claim for damages in respect of a disablement, for example by issuing proceedings against a negligent employer or insurer, or by settling a potential claim out of court. The provisions of Schedule 2, which these proposals would amend, ensure that people who apply to the scheme and those who bring an action or claim for damages are treated equally under the 1979 Act. If a person is prevented from claiming under the 1979 legislation because they have made an application to the diffuse mesothelioma payments scheme, instead they may still be able to claim under the 2008 diffuse mesothelioma schemes established under Part 4 of the Child Maintenance and Other Payments Act 2008 and the corresponding Northern Ireland legislation.
6 pm
I remind noble Lords that the payments rates under the 1979 Act and the 2008 schemes are equal, so while a person could not use the 1979 Act, they could use the 2008 Act which would provide them with exactly the same financial outcome. They would not be prevented by the 1979 Act from using the 2008 Act because it is set up slightly differently. That may be a reflection of some of the ugliness of our legal system but, in this case, it does not disadvantage claimants in the way the noble Lord is concerned about. I would ask him to withdraw the amendment.