Rights of Relatives to Damages (Mesothelioma) (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2
Good morning. I welcome everyone to the 11th meeting in 2007 of the Justice 1 Committee. I ask members to do the usual by switching off all things that buzz, such as mobile phones.
Agenda item 1 is stage 2 consideration of the Rights of Relatives to Damages (Mesothelioma) (Scotland) Bill. I welcome the Deputy Minister for Justice, Johann Lamont, and her team: Lorna Brownlee, Michael Anderson and Alison Fraser.
Section 1—Mesothelioma: rights of relatives of a deceased person to damages
Amendment 1, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 2 to 4.
Good morning. All four amendments to the bill relate to my announcement on 13 December 2006 that the provisions of the bill will apply to cases that were settled on or after 20 December 2006.
As we are all aware, the purpose of the bill is to remove a dreadful dilemma that arises for mesothelioma sufferers when they consider making a claim for damages. The bill will remove that dilemma by disapplying section 1(2) of the Damages (Scotland) Act 1976 so that the immediate family of a mesothelioma sufferer may claim damages for non-patrimonial loss under section 1(4) of that act after the sufferer dies, irrespective of whether the deceased has already recovered damages or obtained a settlement. In the bill as introduced, the provisions relating to sufferers who have recovered damages or obtained a full settlement would have applied on or after the date on which the bill came into force, which was specified as seven days after royal assent.
During the stage 1 oral evidence sessions, the committee explored the issue of retrospection with witnesses. The consensus that emerged was that limited retrospection to a date announced by Scottish ministers would be helpful to mesothelioma sufferers. When I gave evidence on 13 December, I was pleased to be able to announce that we had decided that the bill's provisions would apply to any case in which the sufferer has recovered damages or obtained a full settlement on or after 20 December 2006. Amendments 1 to 4 fulfil the undertaking that I gave to the committee that the bill would be amended as necessary at stage 2.
The main retrospective provision is contained in amendment 2, which provides that the relatives of a mesothelioma sufferer who settles his or her claim on or after 20 December 2006—as opposed to after the provisions in the bill come into force—will have a right to damages on his or her death. From 20 December, sufferers have been able to hold someone to account before they die without worrying about disadvantaging their family. As they can now settle their claims or seek accelerated proof dates, some sufferers will be able to benefit from a full damages award before they die. My announcement has also enabled proceedings to be initiated on behalf of sufferers who had put off starting proceedings so as not to disadvantage their families. Indeed, we are already seeing an increase in the number of claims that are made by mesothelioma victims.
Amendment 4 will provide that the bill will come into force on the day after royal assent is granted. There is no longer any purpose in providing for a period of seven days after royal assent before commencement, given that the bill's provisions will be effective from 20 December 2006.
Amendment 3 will insert into the bill a new transitional provision that is consequential on the decision to apply the bill's provisions from 20 December 2006. The amendment covers the possibility that a mesothelioma sufferer's relative might die after the death of the sufferer but before commencement of the bill. The amendment provides that the rights of any such relative will transfer to the executor.
Amendment 1 is consequential on amendment 3. Amendment 1 will avoid the need to repeat the full title of the Damages (Scotland) Act 1976 in amendment 3 and it sets out which subsections of section 1 amend the 1976 act.
Once again, I express my gratitude to the committee for raising the issue and paving the way for the amendments, which mean that we have already removed a dilemma for sufferers of this terrible disease.
I move amendment 1.
I very much welcome the amendments and will support them.
With the raising of the issue more publicly, two new categories of potential sufferers were drawn to my attention only yesterday. First, laundry workers were apparently exposed to risk because the industrial pressing machines that were used in laundries contained a flat bed of asbestos. I have been told of some cases of mesothelioma among people who formerly worked in that industry. Secondly, I met a widower whose wife had picked up asbestos from him and had then suffered from mesothelioma. He survived, but she did not. In tackling this historic wrong, therefore, we have probably not yet fully explored all the people who will benefit from the measures in the bill.
I welcome the progress that has been made.
I fully support the way in which the Executive has listened to the lines of questioning that the committee pursued on retrospection. I welcome the fact that the Executive did not take much persuasion on the matter.
Since the minister's announcement that an element of retrospection would apply, has she received any comment from any of the interested parties?
The committee's response and the stage 1 debate probably reflected what members picked up in their local communities, in their constituency cases and in the commentary in the press. We have not received any comments directly but, for my part, I can say that it has been a privilege to play a small role in righting what Stewart Stevenson described as a great wrong. That wrong was individually experienced by many different families.
The bill's passage through Parliament has done two things. First, it has shown that it is possible for this legislature to respond when issues, however small, are raised and that the state can respond to and work with communities, individuals and their elected representatives to sort things out. Secondly, the bill has perhaps flagged up to people that, if they have been affected by the issue, they will be able to seek the recompense to which they are entitled.
I thank the minister for those comments. Will amendment 3 address the situation that Frank Maguire described, so that if a mesothelioma sufferer died, one case rather than two cases would be brought? Has that been considered? Will amendment 3 allow one case to progress?
Amendment 3 deals just with transition and will ensure that nobody is left out. It concerns the situation that arises when the mesothelioma sufferer dies and their relative dies before commencement, when entitlement will pass to the executor.
The amendments do not deal with the single action issue. We are aware of that and we will continue to explore whether anything further needs to be done on it.
That is welcome.
Amendment 1 agreed to.
Amendments 2 and 3 moved—[Johann Lamont]—and agreed to.
Section 1, as amended, agreed to.
Section 2—Short title and commencement
Amendment 4 moved—[Johann Lamont]—and agreed to.
Section 2, as amended, agreed to.
Long title agreed to.
That ends stage 2 consideration of the bill. Sometimes when we have had the longest inquiry, we have the shortest stage 2—you never can tell. I thank the minister and her officials for attending. We look forward to stage 3 in the Parliament.
The Deputy Minister for Education and Young People is on his way, so I will not suspend the meeting. He is probably shocked that we dealt with item 1 so quickly.