Justice for asbestos victims?
20.02.09 - Jamie Hanley
On 17th October 2007 the House of Lords dealt a terrible blow for the ordinary men and women who, having been negligently exposed to asbestos, went on to develop pleural plaques. And in doing so, it gave a £1.4 billion windfall for the Insurance Companies.
As an elected member of Labour's National Policy Forum, trade union lawyer, and passionate defender of the rights of working people, it was my privilege to be able to propose a policy amendment calling for the Government to overturn the House of Lord's decision at last year's Warwick meeting.
After challenging but constructive meetings with Ministers, and with considerable support from colleagues in various trade unions (not least UCATT, Unite and the GMB) and who have consistently campaigned on this issue) we reached an agreement with the Government which confirmed that pleural plaques victims would receive compensation provided there was a positive outcome to the then ongoing Ministry of Justice consultation process.
That Consultation has now closed and Gordon Brown recently confirmed that an announcement would be made very soon.
The powerful Insurance lobby have attempted to confuse the debate - arguing that any reversal of the Lord's ruling would open the floodgates to thousands of claims and undermine the very laws of negligence. This is plain nonsense. For over twenty years, victims had been compensated and their employment histories (and crucially, details of their employer's insurers) had been logged - this has never resulted in an unmanageable flood of claims, nor has it brought into question the most basic principles of negligence.
Insurers knew full well of the dangers of asbestos, set their premiums accordingly and had it well within their powers and expertise to advise employers on the correct precautions to be taken.
Pleural plaques are the most common pathological effect of asbestos inhalation. The pleura is the slippery membrane which covers the lungs and aids respiration. The plaques are fibrous tissue / scars. These scars are irreversible and their presence is absolute evidence of exposure to asbestos at a sufficient level to cause other types of asbestos-induced disease, eg mesothelioma, a cancer which is always fatal.
Some medical evidence has suggested that the level of exposure required to cause pleural plaques places the victim at a one thousand times greater risk of developing mesothelioma, which is now the third fastest growing cancer in the UK. It kills more people a year than road traffic collisions kill those travelling in motor vehicles.
My clients have often referred to feeling like they have a ‘ticking time bomb' inside of them. Dr Rudd (regarded as one of the leading experts on asbestos, he is a Consultant at St Barts and head of their Mesothelioma Research Centre) said: "...for many the anxiety is ever present. Every ache or pain or feeling of shortness of breath renews the fear that this may be the onset of mesothelioma. The anxiety is real for all and for some has a serious adverse effect on quality of life."
The three Lord Justices in the Court of Appeal and the five Law Lords in the House of Lords all accepted that each of the claimants had been negligently exposed to asbestos by their employer. How can it be right that an employer negligently exposes an employee to asbestos, who as a consequence suffers an irreversible change to their body, and who as a consequence of that exposure to asbestos is placed at a significantly increased risk of developing a fatal cancer with all of the anxiety that must come with that, and yet escapes without legal liability? What effect will this have in encouraging employers to ensure safe use of chemicals and substances in the future?
When law and politics collide, it must be remembered that it is for the Courts to say what the law is, but it is for Parliament to say what the law should be, and make it so.
blog comments powered by Disqus
