Mesothelioma (Insurance Premiums)

Debate between Tracey Crouch and Lord Dodds of Duncairn

Wednesday 29th January 2014 Westminster Hall

[Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)]

You have made me feel so special, Mr Hollobone. I am delighted to be serving under your chairmanship.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) on initiating the debate. Like him, I shall begin by paying tribute to the work of the late Paul Goggins, who was a fantastic campaigner on mesothelioma. I, too, went to his funeral at Salford cathedral a couple of weeks ago. It was an incredibly emotional yet wonderful occasion, on which people paid tribute to his life. Many things touched me throughout the service, but one thing that happened really made me realise the man he was. Tony Whitston, a long-time campaigner for asbestos victims, came up to me afterwards, and speaking to him made me realise that Paul Goggins had reached out beyond Parliament and beyond his own community to a much wider community. He was very well known for fighting many causes, but this is one for which he and I shared a great passion. It still feels bizarre that we are having a debate in the House on mesothelioma and he is not here. I still keep looking out for him in Portcullis House, as I am sure many colleagues do, wondering what he is going to say and what he is going to contribute on issues such as this.

I am sure that if Paul Goggins were here, he would share my disappointment that we are even having to have this debate today. It should not be needed. It is taking place only because of what I think is a bad decision by the Ministry of Justice, whisked out in the middle of December, on its review. We should pay tribute to the Government, because they are doing some good things on mesothelioma, but to campaigners for justice for victims of this dreadful disease, it often feels as though it is two steps forward and one step back. The Mesothelioma Bill is a really good example of that. It was a good Bill, but not a great Bill. The LASPO exemption under section 48 was a really good compromise that hon. Members on both sides of the House supported, but now we are back having to debate whether sections 44 and 46 of LASPO should be applicable to people with mesothelioma. I think that we should pause for a second and consider why mesothelioma is such an important issue.

Mesothelioma is an absolutely dreadful disease. It is nasty. People die from it very quickly and they contract it through no fault of their own. People can get mesothelioma only through exposure to asbestos—there are no other causes—and they are most likely to have been exposed in their workplace. Let us be clear: this is not just about the industrial classes. This is not just about the ship laggers who were perhaps operating in Chatham dockyard, in my constituency, in the 1960s and ’70s. It is also about professionals, such as teachers. It is about people who worked in a wider environment. I am aware of an admiral who passed away because he worked in a wider dockyard environment. He was not personally working with a hammer and nails; he was not exposed extensively to asbestos, yet he died of mesothelioma. He is one of nearly 3,000 people who die every year from this disease.

Many people seek compensation through the civil claims process, but not everyone does, because the system is so complex. One in seven people who contract mesothelioma do not bother going through the civil claims process, because it is too difficult. I think we should remind ourselves of that complexity. Whether a victim is a lagger or a teacher, they are likely to have had more than one employer, which is why case law such as Fairchild and Barker exists. The previous Government passed the Compensation Act 2006, which reversed Barker, and now we have LASPO. In addition, recent rulings from the Supreme Court make deciding whether the Fairchild rule applies even more complex. An individual who contracted mesothelioma because they worked in industry, worked in a dockyard or lagged a ship has to navigate through a minefield of complex case law, and they need specialist legal help. It is not fair that they should be punished by sections 44 and 46 of LASPO when they receive such help.

[Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)]

I join the hon. Lady in her tribute to Paul Goggins, who was a tremendous parliamentarian and human being, and I agree entirely with what she has said. In my constituency and across Belfast, which has a tradition of heavy engineering in the shipyards, we have many tragic cases. More than anything, relatives and family members want an easier, clearer and speedier process, and they get terribly frustrated by the lack of clarity. I endorse entirely what she has said. The Government need to look at that, and the special exemptions must be maintained.

[Tracey Crouch]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. As a strong campaigner for justice for victims, I found myself in a bizarre situation last year, in that I felt sympathetic towards the pre-action protocols originally proposed in the Government review, because I felt that they might speed up access to justice and make the process simpler for victims. As it happens, the Government ditched the pre-action protocols and will introduce measures that may take away 25% of a victim’s damages to fund the conditional fee arrangements and after-the-event insurance. I want to get as much money as possible to the victim as quickly as possible. As the hon. Member for Middlesbrough has said, once people find out that they have mesothelioma, they have little time left in their lives to plan for the financial security of their dependants because, very sadly, they often die quickly and nastily within six to nine months of contracting the illness. They will not be thinking about shopping around for after-the-event insurance or the best-priced legal fees when they are trying to deal with their horrible disease.

There is a slight irony in the fact that I am speaking about mesothelioma from notes written on cards sent to me—and, I assume, all parliamentarians—by Macmillan. This debate gives me a good opportunity to thank those who support victims of mesothelioma, such as Macmillan nurses. They deal with lung cancers all the time, but mesothelioma is quite possibly the worst that they have to deal with. It is an opportune moment to congratulate those who help sufferers of mesothelioma.

I return to LASPO. When the Bill went through Parliament, section 48 granted a welcome exemption from sections 44 and 46. Parliament had its say, and the House of Lords defeated the Government on the issue. Paul Goggins, who worked closely with the then Minister on the matter, and I welcomed the measure, and we sought assurances that if there were to be any change, Parliament would be given a say on it. Lord McNally, the then Minister of Justice in the House of Lords, made it clear that although commencement orders would be introduced by statutory instrument in the usual way and did not require the approval of both Houses,

“The amendment means that the commencement cannot begin on mesothelioma claims until a review has been carried out and a report published on the likely effect of the provisions on mesothelioma claims.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 25 April 2012; Vol. 736, c. 1824.]

I argue that a proper review has not been conducted, and a report has definitely not been published. It is disrespectful to Parliament that a decision was made in a written statement that sections 44 and 46 would be applied in this way. If that assurance was not enough, I received a letter from my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly), the Minister’s predecessor, which stated that the Lord Chancellor would review

“the likely impact of the reforms on mesothelioma cases and publish a report.”

We did our very best to secure the exemption for victims of mesothelioma during the passage of LASPO. We did so in good faith, believing that a proper review would take place and that we in Parliament—and those, including the victims, who have real concerns—would see the outcome of that review in a report. We have not yet seen such a report. That is unfair on parliamentarians and, more importantly, victims.