Debate contribution: The Pneumoconiosis, etc., (Workers’ Compensation) (Payment of Claims) (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2025
Debate contribution by Mr Gordon Lyons on .
- MLA
- Mr Gordon Lyons
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 18 March 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Executive Committee Business
- Heading
- The Pneumoconiosis, etc., (Workers’ Compensation) (Payment of Claims) (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2025
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4860358
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I beg to move
Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. The statutory rule (SR) makes amendments in relation to the lump sum payments under the Pneumoconiosis, etc., (Workers' Compensation) (Northern Ireland) Order 1979. It is also known as "the 1979 scheme", which is much easier, I think. The regulations will increase the lump sum payments made via the 1979 scheme. There is no statutory requirement to increase the amounts paid through the scheme. However, as has been the case in previous years, the amounts are being increased from 1 April in line with inflation. The lump sum payments will increase by 1·7%. The inflation rate is measured by September 2024's CPI. That is also in line with the increase to industrial injuries disablement benefit, to which the scheme is linked. The regulations will ensure that lump sum payments here are paid at the same increased amounts as those payable through the corresponding scheme in Great Britain. The aim of the 1979 scheme is to pay compensation to people who suffer from certain dust-related diseases or to their dependants. The five respiratory diseases that it covers mainly relate directly to asbestos exposure. They are mesothelioma; unilateral or bilateral diffused pleural thickening; asbestos-related carcinoma of the lung; byssinosis; and pneumoconiosis, which includes asbestosis. The 1979 scheme is intended to compensate people who have been exposed to asbestos during their employment and have contracted a specified disease through that employment but have not been able to get compensation from the employer. The length of time between being exposed to asbestos and being diagnosed with one of those diseases is often long. Usually, it is many years before symptoms are displayed. In some cases, an employer may no longer be in business. To be eligible for a payment via the scheme, there has to be no current or previous claim for damages in respect of the disease for which the person is claiming. There must be no relevant employer who could be pursued through the courts, and the person must have been awarded industrial injuries disablement benefit. The lump sum payment via the scheme is paid in addition to the weekly industrial injuries disablement benefit that relates to the same disease. Dependants can make a claim if the person who had the disease unfortunately passed away before making a claim. Payments of the lump sum are based on the age of the person with the disease and the level of disablement at the time of diagnosis. People whose condition is diagnosed at an earlier stage and who have high levels of disability will be entitled to a higher lump sum payment. Lower amounts are payable to dependants who make a claim after the sufferer has died. The maximum amount that can be paid through the scheme is being increased this year to £116,152 for a person aged 37 or under at diagnosis. That increase will help to ensure that payments provided by the scheme maintain their value. While Members will, no doubt, agree that no amount of money could ever compensate a person affected by any of those terrible diseases, I am sure that they will want anyone who is diagnosed and makes a claim after 1 April 2025 to receive the higher amounts. Therefore, I ask the House to support the regulations.
550 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
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).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.66).
- 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
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.02 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.01 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.01 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.66 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.01 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 1.00 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.98 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.02 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 12:08 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.