Consultation on next steps on delivery of Employment Injury Assistance

Action on Asbestos (AOA) has extensive knowledge and experience of the current scheme and it's practical operations. Of those currently in receipt of IIDB only a small percentage receive this benefit for prescribed conditions other than those attributed to asbestos exposure. The current scheme is therefore clearly not fit for purpose given the low uptake of this benefit, and given that the current scheme reflects illnesses and injury arising out of traditional, male dominated, heavy industry.
However any reform of the current scheme must retain the existing entitlement for those with a prescribed asbestos related condition, or as a minimum, provide transitional protection to those currently receiving IIDB.
Regardless of the type of reform that is enacted the provisions under the pneumoconiosis etc, (workers compensation) Act 1979 would need to be amended to include receipt of Employment Injury Assistance (EIA) as one of the conditions of entitlement under this Act; currently a person in receipt of IIDB for pneumoconiosis (PDD1), diffuse pleural thickening (PDD9), mesothelioma (PDD3), Lung cancer (PDD8A) and Lung cancer with asbestosis (PDD8) can be entitled to a payment under the Act, however this lump sum payment scheme is reserved to the UK and if the link is broken between IIDB and a payment under the Act, a person would become disentitled. The awards under this scheme can be substantial and for some this payment could represent their only access to compensation; if a relevant employer cannot be identified, the 79 Act would be a persons only form of compensation. Under the 79 Act a 61 year old would be entitled to £47,902.

We cannot and must not underestimate the financial worth of IIDB and the 79 Act for the individual receiving this. Our overriding concern is that those currently in receipt of IIDB retain their current entitlement. We are also concerned about the numbers of future claimants, who would potentially lose the only route to compensation should the link between IIDB and the 79 Act be broken. Should a new scheme be adopted we would advocate for transitional protection for existing claimants. To protect those who will develop an asbestos condition in the future, we strongly advocate for the current asbestos related conditions and employment prescription to be encompassed into any new scheme, with regulations providing for any changes made by IIAC.
On the information available a like for like scheme, with reform in the future, is the only way to protect those with an asbestos condition. We are unable to support a new scheme where there is no information available about how the scheme will be administered. The current agreement with the UK Government ends in March 2026, therefore it would be unrealistic to expect a new scheme to be operational by this date.
As it is vital that a new model is taken to reflect the modern working environment and be inclusive of gender and ethnicity we believe that this type of reform could be achieved by adopting a like for like scheme with regulations providing for a more robust reform.
The consultation paper raises the difficulties they foresee in moving and storing the IIDB paper files from the DWP to Social security Scotland, however it should be noted that the administration of IIDB was previously administered by regional offices throughout the UK, including Clydebank and Ayr. These were subsequently centralised at the Barrow in Furness DWP and have recently been relocated to Barnsley and Bradford. The 79 Act was also previously administered by the Dept. of Environment, then The Dept. of Trade and Industry and is now administered by the DWP at Barnsley and Bradford. During these relocations there was no interruption to claimants benefits. There is clearly a significant amount of data held on DWP IT systems to allow this to happen. In the case of the transfer of Pip to ADP Social security Scotland developed a digital system which allowed for a smooth transfer and the administration of ADP. As the administration of IIDB is not entirely paper based and to a large extent is digitised, the administration of EIA, in Scotland, should replicate this.

The timeline for option 2 is not complete, as it stops with options for a new scheme only being identified after 12 months. We therefore have no indication as to when a new scheme would be launched. Bearing in mind the Scottish Governments agreement with the DWP ends in March 2026. Will the Scottish Government negotiate a new contract with the DWP to ensure continuity of payments to claimants?
With regards to option 1 there is a timeline that a like for like scheme could be launched at the conclusion of the agreement between the DWP and Social security Scotland.