This Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) consultation exercise sought views from all interested parties on the future reform of the
industrial injuries disablement benefit (IIDB) scheme. Information about the consultation
process was contained within the paper "Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit scheme: A consultation paper".
As part of the exercise the DWP listed a number of questions:
What is the case for a ‘no-fault’ occupational injuries and diseases scheme?
What should the purpose of such a scheme be?
Should it be a compensation scheme, a benefit scheme, or both?
What support should a scheme offer and how should any support be provided?
How should a new scheme be integrated with measures for the prevention of work-related accidents and illness, rehabilitation, retention, retraining and return to work?
How can we ensure that the principles of equity, transparency and simplicity are met?
How should inclusion of injuries and diseases in the scheme be decided?
How should the decision on entitlement be decided?
How could the scheme best meet the needs of individuals affected by injury or disease caused through work?
Who should be covered by a new scheme?
How should any new scheme be funded?
Who would administer a new scheme?
How can any new scheme be made simpler, and more cost effective, to administer?
How should any future scheme relate to other forms of compensation or benefit and ensure that any benefits in the scheme do not conflict with existing benefits?
A DWP consultation report was published in June 2007. The summary of the
responses was as follows
The majority of respondents were in
favour of a no fault compensation scheme.
All felt that the scheme should
provide financial assistance.
There were no suggestions that the
scheme should be abolished.
Most respondents were of the
opinion that it is a compensation scheme and should remain one.
The scheme should be extended to
include support for rehabilitation and injury prevention.
Most welcomed the principle behind
the reform of IIDB to support and encourage claimants to move into
employment, where they are able to do so.
The rules of access to the scheme
should be standardised and payments should be standardised, subjected to peer review, with appeal procedures in place, and
written decisions made available on contested cases.
The respondents were of the opinion
that the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council (IIAC) has shown itself to be
an extremely capable body. However, concern was expressed that IIAC's
standards of proof relied on scientific data being available, and that the
effectiveness of the scheme was impeded by lack of available research and
research funding.
Suggestions for help with rehabilitation included the
introduction of an informed network of agencies and specialist services
enabling a person to access the services at any one point with case managers
to oversee the appropriate service delivery.
The new scheme should be administered by the DWP.
Some suggested that decisions should
continue to be made by Decision Makers in Jobcentre Plus. Many suggested
that criteria should be clearly drawn up and advertised and not obscured by
complex regulations.
There was support for including self employed workers in the scheme
Individuals injured through environmental exposure due to contact with an employee or contamination from a workplace should be included.
Modern work related illnesses such as musculoskeletal diseases or stress-related conditions should be covered under the scheme.
It was difficult to learn from comparisons with other countries because what worked well in one country may not work so well here.
Note: for pdf files you will need to download
adobe acrobat reader. To convert the pdf to alternative formats or for more information on accessibility go to access adobe.
advisers 
