Debate contribution: Mesothelioma Lump Sum Payments (Conditions and Amounts) (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2024

Debate contribution by Mr Gordon Lyons on .

MLA
Mr Gordon Lyons
Party at the time
Democratic Unionist Party
Date
25 June 2024
Type
Debate contribution (made as a minister)
Business
Executive Committee Business
Heading
Mesothelioma Lump Sum Payments (Conditions and Amounts) (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2024
Assembly identifier
Official Report component 4498429

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I beg to move

The regulations are part of the annual uprating package and increase the lump sum compensation payable by the scheme under the Mesothelioma, etc., Act (Northern Ireland) 2008. There is no explicit requirement to review the level of payments under the scheme each year, unlike with the main benefit uprating order. The regulations increase, however, the amounts payable by the scheme in line with the rate of inflation. The amounts payable under the scheme have been increased for 2024-25 by 6·7%, which mirrors the percentage increase of industrial injuries benefits in the main uprating order. Under the scheme, those who have been exposed to asbestos can claim a lump sum payment if they are not entitled to payment under the Pneumoconiosis, etc., (Workers' Compensation) (Northern Ireland) Order 1979, which is known as the 1979 scheme, and do not otherwise have a civil claim. The scheme provides financial help to persons diagnosed with that horrible disease or, if the person has died, to their dependants within a matter of weeks of diagnosis and without the need to establish an occupational link or any causative link. Provided that they have not already received a compensation payment from another source, people who suffer from that awful disease are therefore eligible for a payment regardless of whether they were employees, were self-employed or, indeed, have never worked, as may be the case for family members who contracted the disease through secondary exposure, such as from cleaning asbestos-covered clothes. For 2024-25, by way of an example, the amount payable to a person aged 37 or under at diagnosis has increased from £107,038 to £114,210, which is the same maximum that can be paid out under the 1979 scheme. The regulations ensure that the compensation provided under the scheme maintains its value relative to inflation. I hope that I will have the support of the House in welcoming the provisions.

I am grateful to the Chairman of the Committee for his contribution and, once again, for the consensus that we have experienced around the House today, not just on this but on other motions. I trust that all the proposals and legislation that I bring to the House in the future will have similar levels of support.

We will see, but it is very positive that we all agree. I commend the motion to the House.

393 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not flagged”.

  • Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.01 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
  • None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
  • No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
  • Subject area: Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits.
  • The overall probability was at or below the not-flagging threshold.

This is an AI-generated assessment of the text, made against published criteria. It is not a finding of fact about the MLA or their intentions. The Assembly record itself is the fact.

Jev’s structured answers

Probability that each statement is true of this text (0 = no, 1 = yes). A criterion counts as met at 0.60 or above.
QuestionProbabilityMet?
Identity framing0.02No
Sectarian or communal antagonism0.01No
Cultural grievance politics0.01No
Dog-whistle messaging0.01No
Controversy escalation0.02No
Legitimate policy scrutiny0.55No
Overall judgement0.01At or below not-flagging threshold
Context and attribution (stance)
OptionProbability
No identity-based framing (chosen)1.00
Reports or questions it0.00
Criticises or condemns it0.00
Adopts it0.00
Subject area (top five)
SubjectProbability
Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits0.82
No identity-related subject0.18
Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials0.00
Parades, bonfires and commemorations0.00
Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy0.00

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 10:49 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.

Disagree with this assessment?

Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.

Challenge this classification