Compensation Bill
The next item of business is a debate on motion S2M-4634, in the name of Cathy Jamieson, on the Compensation Bill, which is United Kingdom legislation.
I hope that this debate will show the Parliament's commitment to taking swift and decisive action to secure changes in the law when confronted with a pressing human need. In this case, the subject matter could not be more serious.
Mesothelioma is a terrible disease. A rare form of cancer that attacks the inner lining of internal organs, it is almost always caused by exposure to asbestos. It takes an average 20 years to develop and, once it has developed, it kills fast. Victims rarely live longer than 18 months after diagnosis and often die within just a few months. There is no known cure for the disease and victims spend their final months in considerable pain and suffering. Many of those victims develop mesothelioma after being exposed to asbestos at work; indeed, the highest incidence of it is in the construction and shipbuilding industries.
A particular problem for mesothelioma sufferers and their families is that, at the moment, the law prevents relatives from making a claim for compensation for their own grief and suffering if the sufferer has settled his or her own claim before death. As payments can be higher if the executor and relatives claim after the sufferer's death, most sufferers do not claim compensation to ensure that they do not disadvantage their families.
That is completely unacceptable. It means additional worry for families at an exceptionally difficult and distressing time and we intend to take action to address that problem in a bill that will be introduced in the coming year. At this point, I wish to record my appreciation of the actions of a number of MSPs, in particular Des McNulty, who have raised this issue and have given a voice and hope to those affected. I also pay tribute to the support groups and their advisers for their tireless work in bringing the matter to public and political attention. We have listened to their voices, and we will act.
While considering the problem, we were faced with another serious issue when the House of Lords ruled in the case of Barker v Corus. Victims must be able to claim compensation from employers who, in the past, wrongfully exposed them to asbestos. However, because of the limits of science, in many cases it is impossible to establish precisely which employer's wrongful exposure led the victim to develop the disease. Sometimes employers or their insurers have become insolvent or are simply untraceable. However, victims should not have to be concerned about that. Justice demands that they receive full compensation, no matter where they contracted the disease through wrongful exposure.
Unsurprisingly, victims and their families were left extremely concerned about the House of Lords decision in early May in the case of Barker v Corus. The Law Lords were called on to decide several cases in which workers had more than one employer, each of which had wrongfully exposed the worker to asbestos. In none of the cases could the scientific evidence prove which exposure had caused the onset of mesothelioma. The Law Lords decided that an employer's liability to pay compensation should be assessed in proportion to the period of time that the employer exposed the victim to the risk of contracting the disease.
The decision dealt with issues that were left unresolved in the Fairchild case in 2002, in which the House of Lords decided that a worker who contracted mesothelioma after wrongful exposure to asbestos at different times by more than one employer could sue any of them, even if the worker could not prove which employer had caused the disease. However, the case did not resolve the precise nature of the employers' liability and whether they should be held jointly and severally liable or whether liability should be apportioned among them.
The decision in the Barker case, which came down in favour of apportioning liability, can be expected to have two main effects. First, because the process of bringing an action will in many cases be significantly delayed by the need to trace all liable parties, or will lead to multiple claims, legal costs are expected to increase significantly.
Secondly, victims will get less compensation if some of the liable parties are insolvent or untraceable. Victims would therefore, effectively, be expected to bear the risk of employers or their insurers going out of business. That is an unacceptable situation in an area where the primary concern of the law ought to be to provide full compensation to victims who are wrongfully exposed to deadly asbestos.
Although the Barker case was English, it has repercussions for Scotland. It is highly likely that the Scottish courts would be persuaded by it in cases brought here, particularly as it is a House of Lords decision and as the development of Scots and English law in this area has been identical to date. On 20 June, the United Kingdom Government announced its intention to legislate to reverse the effect of the Barker judgment for England and Wales. The Government has said that it intends to do that as quickly as possible, by introducing an amendment to the Compensation Bill, which was introduced to the House of Lords, on 2 November 2005 and has just completed its committee stage in the Commons.
I thank our colleagues in the UK Government, who have pulled out all the stops to ensure that we can debate the motion with a draft of the proposed amendment to the Compensation Bill before us. I make it clear to members that the amendment before them is a draft and that, although the UK Government has announced its intention to legislate in that way, there is a possibility that the drafting may change before it is tabled in the House of Commons.
The effect of subsections (1) and (2) of the clause that the draft amendment will insert in the bill is to provide, in mesothelioma cases, that negligent persons are held jointly and severally liable for the damage caused by the disease. That means that the position will be as it was before the Barker ruling, and that claimants can claim for all damages from one liable party. Subsection (3) affirms the current position relating to contributions from other liable parties and to contributory negligence. The defender against whom damages are awarded can claim contributions from other liable parties as determined by the court. In considering the award of damages, the court may take any contributory negligence by the claimant into account. As I said, that provision is a reflection of the current position and does not change the law in those areas.
The extent to which those provisions should have retrospective effect is still under discussion in light of European convention on human rights considerations. If the amendment that is tabled to the Compensation Bill goes further in its purpose or effect than the draft that is before us this morning, the consent that I hope this Parliament will grant will fall. We would then have to address the problem through our own damages bill.
I am sure that members will agree that it is vital to ensure that victims in Scotland are left no worse off than their counterparts in England and Wales when it comes to compensation for mesothelioma. Bearing in mind the speed with which mesothelioma can kill and the urgency of ensuring that sufferers gain full compensation, we need to seek the quickest way of reversing the effect of the Barker judgment. Had it been the case that the damages bill that we propose would have offered a speedier solution and would not have left a gap between sufferers in Scotland and those in the rest of the United Kingdom, we would have used our own legislation. However, introducing a bill to the Scottish Parliament and its receiving royal assent would mean a delay, and we believe that it is appropriate to use the speediest possible solution to resolve a tragic set of circumstances. I believe that what we are proposing today can achieve that.
Today's motion gives us the chance to legislate without delay, and in agreeing to the motion Parliament will ensure that action is taken on the Barker judgment quickly and compassionately. It is the right thing to do, and we owe it to the victims of mesothelioma to use the procedures available to us to best effect. I was encouraged by the support of members on all sides for the Minister for Parliamentary Business's statement on 22 June, when she announced that we would introduce legislation to reverse the effect of the Barker decision in Scotland.
As I said, we plan to go further than that to support the victims of mesothelioma. Today's debate is only the first step in that direction, but it is a vital one. I hope that members will consider today's motion in the same supportive spirit as was articulated last week.
I move,
That the Parliament agrees that the UK Parliament should consider those provisions of the Compensation Bill, introduced in the House of Lords on 2 November 2005, which will legislate in the devolved area of damages law in respect of joint and several liability, as laid out in LCM(S2) 8.1.
I am grateful to the minister for outlining matters fully. He can rest assured that the Scottish National Party will give him full support in seeking to address the manifest injustice that has arisen. We are grateful for the Executive's prompt and speedy actions.
It sometimes baffles members of the public that law is not necessarily justice. In the main, we hope that our law serves justice but, unfortunately, there are instances when the law is simply the interpretation of rules and the implementation of decisions and manifest injustices arise. In those instances, it is necessary for the legislator to change the law to ensure that justice is served. I believe that the decision in Barker v Corus was a wrong judgment. The argument over a supreme court is a matter for another day, but I note that the Scottish law lord took a distinctive view. However, the Barker decision was wrong and that has to be addressed by legislating. In these circumstances, we will fully support the Executive in whatever action is easiest, whether it is through Westminster or through a special damages bill. What matters is that we remedy the wrong.
The number of people affected is not substantial, which is something to be thankful for. However, what they are afflicted with is, as the minister said, a dreadful, life-taking disease. Those who suffer from the disease face an invidious choice. Should they seek to obtain some quick recompense so that they can enjoy the last part of their shortened lives, or should they await death restricted in their ability to work and to earn income, so that their families can obtain greater benefit when they have passed? That is an invidious and dreadful choice and we must ensure that that situation is addressed.
The minister also mentioned the difficulties of pursuing compensation. Although many of the situations that caused the disease arose through ignorance rather than any wilful act on the part of an employer, it is quite clear that some companies were, frankly, at it. Anybody who has been involved in compensation claims, as I was when I practised many years ago, will know how difficult it is to pursue companies for compensation. A company called Cape Contracts, for example, used various nomenclatures, such as Cape Contracts Ltd and Cape Contracts (UK) Ltd. Those companies knew what they were doing. They were deliberately trying to avoid the liabilities that they knew were being garnered. It may be that the instances of asbestosis that arose were not deliberately created, but the companies knew later that liability was going to befall them and, whether on the advice of their lawyers, their accountants or their company secretaries, they took steps to try to ensure that they would not have to meet their lawful obligations.
It is important that we, as the legislature in Scotland, ensure not only that sufferers do not face the invidious choice whether to claim compensation to benefit them in their last days or to wait so that their families will get a greater benefit when they have passed on, but address the issue of companies that are liable and of insurers that were happy to take the premiums when they were being paid but thereafter sought to avoid the consequent liabilities.
SNP members are grateful to the minister and to the UK Government; we recognise its actions and we do not care who sorts it out as long as it is sorted. We are also grateful to those who have pursued the matter with tenacity: Clydeside Action on Asbestos; Frank Maguire and all at Thompsons Solicitors; Des McNulty, who picked up the matter when the difficulty arose; and the minister and his colleagues, who have acted speedily and effectively.
I know that other members who have been involved with the issue will want to speak about local matters, so I will not say anything further, other than that we are grateful that the Executive has dealt with the matter with due alacrity and that the minister can rest assured that he has our full support.
I declare a financial interest in respect of my former occupation in the insurance industry. I am a potential beneficiary of the AGF Insurance pension fund.
If the motion is not passed today, it would be a manifest injustice. We cannot possibly have a situation whereby those suffering from mesothelioma in Scotland are disadvantaged as compared with those down south. It is clearly the unanimous wish of the Parliament that the matter be dealt with as fairly and as equitably as possible.
The Barker v Corus judgment, although passed in the rarefied atmosphere of the House of Lords, was not perhaps wrong in itself, because the commonsense view is that those who have contributed towards a liability should be held responsible for it. However, that does not help the mesothelioma sufferers. The gazetteer of insurance companies now bears little or no resemblance to what existed 20 years ago, as some companies have gone bust and others have merged. It is sometimes impossible to find the insurer that held a particular employer's liability policy during the period in the 1970s or even earlier, when the victim contracted mesothelioma.
Hugh Henry was right to point out the position that exists in many of these tragic cases. Mesothelioma sufferers should not have to jump through hoops to try to establish who the insurers were at the relevant time. In the insurance industry, there is a well-known system of contribution in respect of property damage claims: insurers would contribute to the loss in proportion to their own liability. Barker v Corus suggests that that is the case and there is nothing wrong with that. However, where the judgment goes terribly wrong is in the onus that it places on the pursuer in the case to carry out the investigation. That is clearly not acceptable.
Personal injury claims are a difficult issue, but the usual problems that arise do not occur in this instance. We know that asbestos causes asbestosis and, in extreme cases, mesothelioma. The liability is absolute and someone should pay. When the person's life expectancy is so terribly limited, he is not particularly concerned about who pays but he is entitled to receive adequate compensation in respect of his greatly shortened expectation of life. We would be failing in our duty were we not to pass the motion on the legislation today.
I look forward to debating other issues with regard to personal injury claims once the damages bill is introduced. There may not be the same degree of consensus on some of those matters, but today we have an opportunity to put right a wrong. I do not think that members of the Parliament will fail to recognise what their duty is.
I was going to start by saying that it is a little regrettable that we are not debating the issue fully and widely in the Parliament today, but the minister made very welcome comments about the fact that this is the start of a process. His sincerity and that of colleagues in the Parliament about wanting to take the debate forward should be welcomed.
I also support the member who had secured time for a members' business debate on the subject. That would have been a fascinating legal and public policy debate, but it is one that the Parliament will still have, after the recess. It is a matter that is owed careful consideration.
Expediency for the people who are adversely affected requires us to support the fastest legislative route to change the law to allow the people who deserve compensation to receive it; in many cases, those people are the widows of the workers involved. That is why the Liberal Democrats support the legislative consent motion this morning.
The debate has two main aspects. One is how we seek fairly to address the situation of workers who, through no fault of their own, have contracted malignant mesothelioma, primarily because of exposure to asbestos dust. Companies, mainly but not exclusively in the private sector, have breached their duty to protect their workers.
The issue is not an historical one. Last week I was in correspondence with Scottish Borders Council about asbestos in public buildings, especially primary schools, in my constituency. Asbestos exists today in those buildings. I was encouraged by the thorough reply concerning the procedures that are in place if the asbestos becomes exposed. The discussion about reforming the law to allow for compensation is salutary and reminds us that this is not just an historical concern.
The Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd case in 2002 established what the minister referred to as the Fairchild exception. Its purpose is
"to provide a cause of action against a defendant who has materially increased the risk that the claimant will suffer damage and may have caused that damage, but cannot be proved to have done so because it is impossible to show, on a balance of probability, that some other exposure to the same risk may not have caused it instead. For this purpose, it should be irrelevant whether the other exposure was tortious or non-tortious, by natural causes or human agency or by the claimant himself. These distinctions may be relevant to whether and to whom responsibility can also be attributed, but from the point of view of satisfying the requirement of a sufficient causal link between the defendant's conduct and the claimant's injury, they should not matter."
In the appeal against the compensation awards to widows, insurers sought to limit an employer's liability to pay damages in cases where a worker may have been employed by several firms, none of which can specifically be blamed for the onset of fatal illness. They argued that an employer's liability should be a proportion of the total compensation that reflects the extent to which it contributed to an employee's exposure to asbestos.
That appeal was upheld by the law lords by four to one. As Kenny MacAskill said, it is interesting to note that the Scottish law lord, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, disagreed with the majority of their lordships and would have dismissed the appeal on the question of apportionment. He would have held the employers liable on the basis of the Fairchild exception. I hope that if we give further consideration to the matter in Scots law, we will consider closely whether the Parliament intends to uphold the Fairchild exception in our law.
I welcome the fact that the United Kingdom Government signalled its intention to legislate in effect to overturn the Lords' ruling. We have the draft amendment before us, but I seek clarification from the Deputy Minister for Justice on a matter that is not addressed in the amendment but may well be included in other amendments that the UK Government will bring forward. It relates to an application clause. I am concerned that, as the bill stands, this would apply only to English cases concerning Scottish companies and we may have a difficulty without an application clause that states that the clauses apply to devolved law in Scotland.
I welcome the fact that, as the minister said, this is the start of a valid debate that the Parliament will have. I have a constituent who worked in a tyre factory in Ireland who desperately deserves compensation. I am concerned that we do not limit this only to asbestos but look in the round at compensation in Scotland for people who have been failed by their employers and have found it nigh on impossible to seek redress.
I thank the 54 signatories to my members' business motion on the House of Lords judgment. The motion was due to be debated this evening but I very much welcome the fact that we are having this debate now, because it will produce a practical effect in changing the law. The 54 members are a majority of those who are eligible to sign members' motions. It was a clear demonstration of the Parliament's intention that the House of Lords judgment should be reversed.
I thank the portfolio ministers, Cathy Jamieson and Hugh Henry. Hugh Henry's speech was excellent in that it highlighted the facts and indicated the Executive's commitment and his personal commitment to deal with the issue. His responsiveness, both on this issue and on the damages issue, has been outstanding. I also thank Margaret Curran, the Minister for Parliamentary Business, who has been instrumental in getting us to this stage in the face of tight deadlines. It is highly commendable that she has ensured that we can take the matter forward before the recess.
The people whom I would like to thank most are the asbestos campaigners: the people from Clydebank who are in the public gallery; Clydeside Action on Asbestos; the trade unions and, in particular, the Scottish Trades Union Congress; West Dunbartonshire Council, which has done an outstanding job in taking forward the asbestos cases; and all the other organisations throughout Scotland that have identified the injustice and demanded that something be done to overturn it.
The reputation of the Parliament depends on whether we do the right thing. To take the side of the victims of asbestos-related disease and, in particular, of those suffering from mesothelioma is overwhelmingly the right thing to do. Over the years, those people have experienced the insurance companies and those who have liabilities trying every legal trick in the book to dodge their responsibilities and dodge making payments. Those companies have made it difficult and have used every contrivance of legality to avoid making payments and owning up to their responsibilities. That has often been to the severe detriment of the victims and their families.
It is our duty in the legislature to ensure justice for the victims of asbestos, particularly those who are on the verge of death from the terrible terminal disease of mesothelioma. Anyone who has seen somebody who has mesothelioma will know that it is a horrific disease. It is our duty to ensure that those people are given the justice and compensation to which they are entitled and that the insurance companies do not retain the justice and compensation for their own purposes and for those of their shareholders or anybody else.
What is most striking is not so much the victims but their families—people such as Joan Baird and Margaret Lilley, whose husbands died of this dreadful disease. Such people are filled with a burning sense of injustice. It is not a demand for money; it is a sense that they have been deeply wronged by people who knew what they were doing. The employers knew what was going to happen to those women's husbands and loved ones. The families feel that that wrong deserves to be righted.
I welcome the fact that the Scottish Parliament is acting today to right that wrong. It would have given me great pleasure to introduce a member's bill on damages—I suppose that it is one of the peaks of a parliamentary career to introduce a bill—but it is even better that the Executive has taken a damages bill on board, because that will eliminate any uncertainty and ensure that the bill goes through speedily. The people who count in all this are the victims and their families. The Parliament is to be commended for what has been done today and for what will be done before next May.
This debate is about justice. We should pay tribute to the Clydeside workers and their campaign groups and to all workers who have campaigned on the issue. Justice must be fair, timely and swift, and the law should serve justice, so I thank the Executive for lodging the motion. We agree with the vehicle by which we are taking the issue forward.
I want to touch on why the issue is important. There is a cairn in Bathgate that is dedicated to those who lost their lives when working. On the cairn are the words:
"We fight for the living and we mourn the dead."
Today, what we are doing is fighting for the living. We can do it by legislative process and compensation, but the fight on asbestos is not just a past fight; it is a current fight. Those of us from West Lothian are conscious of the work of workers from Golden Wonder's former factory in Broxburn, and of the work of Alex Horne and others in that regard. The fight on asbestos continues and I would like to draw the minister's attention to a particular issue to do with asbestos.
We have planning laws for new build, but we have very weak planning laws for demolition. One of the issues that I am dealing with concerns the Motherwell Bridge Ltd site in Uphall. The situation is that the Health and Safety Executive is responsible for the health and safety of workers during a demolition; the Scottish Environment Protection Agency is responsible after demolition when asbestos-polluted materials are on the ground; there are general competencies for councils; and demolition contractors are responsible for the method statement of how demolition happens. However, the new build on brownfield sites, particularly across the Lothians, raises a real issue with public health because there is currently no law in this country to protect the public from demolitions that involve asbestos pollutants. I hope that the Planning etc (Scotland) Bill, to which I plan to lodge an amendment, will address that issue.
On the campaign for compensation in relation to asbestos, I say that just because asbestos is out of sight, that does not mean that it is out of mind, and just because the cause of harm was yesterday, that does not mean that we forget it today. Our message to asbestos sufferers is that the Scottish Parliament and all its political parties will stand by them and their families today, because we mourn the dead and fight for the living.
Here we go again—we have had a speech from Des McNulty and there are campaigners in the gallery. I think that the Scottish Parliament has a good record of recognising the plight of asbestos workers and their campaign for justice, which has been ably supported by many members in the chamber, but particularly by my colleague Des McNulty.
In November 2000, we had a members' business debate in my name that focused on the actions of the insurance companies on the asbestos issue. There was a long struggle in days gone by during which they made no apology. They delayed and delayed until a person died, in order to avoid paying compensation. Of course, we changed that situation, but the insurance companies then changed their tactics to one of blanket denial—justice delayed became justice denied. They drew out procedures for months and years to deny the paying of compensation. Victims were denied their very existence. For example, they were asked to prove that they had served their time and worked in a shipyard. They were also asked to prove, for example, that the Queen Elizabeth II was built in John Brown's shipyard. That was all done to deny the victims the justice that they deserved. What an insult and what an injury, on top of having a terminal disease and facing death, to be questioned about their very existence.
We have had other crises along the way. We had the collapse of Chester Street Insurance Holdings Ltd, which bankrupted itself to avoid paying compensation, while paying its top bosses million-pound bonuses. Thankfully, some possible consequences of that situation for victims were avoided. Again, however, victims facing death were worried about whether they would receive a penny in compensation. We have also had other recent setbacks, including the most recent legal decision, which brings us here today, by which 90 per cent of the compensation that victims deserve was put under threat.
The insurance companies' tactics have been ruthless and consistent. They have used all methods possible to frustrate and deny justice for the victims. We should remind ourselves of what we are talking about, as others have said during the debate. We are talking about people who are cancer victims. It is a very aggressive cancer that takes their lives away in very difficult circumstances in around 18 months or two years. Given such circumstances, we as a Parliament, both politicians and law officers, have faced up to the situation and focused on the needs of the victims rather than on the will of the insurance companies.
It is great news today for people whom I know in my constituency that we are making these decisions. We have had the intervention in the Chester Street crisis and, thankfully, we have had justice fast tracked for victims in Scotland. Pauline McNeill, who sends apologies for not being present, did a lot of work to make that happen. Of course, we are also having today the reversal of the law lords ruling that would have denied the victims justice, and we can expect a forthcoming bill that will address the issue of the victims' families.
It is sweet justice indeed when a situation has been created whereby the insurance companies and the employers will have to sue one another rather than the victims of asbestos—hear, hear, and well done! [Applause.] If the Scottish Parliament means anything, it is about addressing wrongs in our society quickly, as Des McNulty said. We are doing that speedily for the benefit of the asbestos victims and their families. We are showing that the Scottish Parliament can work for the benefit of people in Scotland—this debate is a classic example of that.
The legal ramifications of the Compensation Bill are reasonably obvious. The biggest and most expensive unelected quango in the UK, known as the House of Lords, has pontificated on the asbestos problem that causes mesothelioma. In reaching its conclusions, it has brought increasing misery to those poor souls who are terminally ill due to asbestos, to say nothing of the added distress that that abstract, distant and ill-considered decision has caused the relatives of the sufferers.
Although the bill will rectify the negligent blunder by the House of Lords, it will not redress the sad fact that all too many good people who suffer from asbestosis will have died before their rightful claim for compensation has been met. We should insist that an interim payment is made to all mesothelioma sufferers as soon as possible, with the balance of their compensation being paid out after the legal people have duly milked the legal process.
In 2006, the word "asbestos" strikes panic among the general public, but for an indentured apprentice 60 years ago that was not the case—I should explain to members that after slavery was done away with in the mid-19th century indentured apprenticeship took its place. I handled asbestos with supreme indifference, because at that time no one knew that mesothelioma had an incubation period of up to 50 years and more. Youthful asbestos laggers who insulated ship engine rooms and refrigerated areas regularly had snowball fights with monkey dung—as they called the raw asbestos—not knowing that many unfortunates might just as well have been throwing hand grenades that had a delayed time action. At the end of the shift, we all carried a liberal dusting of asbestos. Wives and mothers washed overalls and often contracted asbestosis as a result.
The Compensation Bill is great. We should end procrastination and compensate sufferers now. The abolition of the House of Lords can be left for another day.
I am grateful for the cross-party support for action. Des McNulty, who has worked tirelessly to promote the issue, as have a number of members, says that taking action on the matter is about doing the right thing. Today, parliamentarians are doing the right thing and in doing so we are reflecting the efforts of the campaign groups that have been mentioned. We should remember that the members of those groups are not just people who believe passionately in justice on the issue—
Minister, please raise your microphone. It seems to have disappeared.
Sorry.
Campaigners are suffering from the effects of asbestos. They have a terrible disease and they are determined to do the right thing, not just for themselves but for other people and for future sufferers, given the time lag in the onset of the disease, which John Swinburne mentioned. It is therefore a privilege for the Parliament to be able to do the right thing.
The trade unions gave phenomenal support to the campaign by providing advice and resources. The campaign's advisers worked diligently to help to progress Des McNulty's proposal for a bill on improved compensation for asbestos victims and to provide off-line briefings, which added clarity and were appreciated.
Jeremy Purvis asked whether the Compensation Bill should contain an application clause. I assure him and other members that we will provide any clarification that is needed to ensure that the provisions apply to the law of damages in Scotland, so that there will be no disadvantage to litigants in Scotland.
Duncan McNeil made a passionate speech, in which he reminded us of the history of the issue and the tragedies that have happened. He talked about the prevarication and delays caused by people who considered profit margins rather than human suffering. It is right that members of the Scottish Parliament and colleagues at Westminster have been able to make a small contribution.
Duncan McNeil also mentioned the action that had to be taken in relation to Chester Street Insurance Holdings and rightly reminded us of the Coulsfield procedure for fast tracking claims, which was introduced in Scotland. We will reverse the House of Lords decision and introduce a bill on damages, so our action today represents only a small contribution to a much bigger issue.
Kenny MacAskill was right to point out that although a relatively small number of people have been affected by asbestos, the issue has had profound implications for them and for their families. It is moving to meet people who have suffered from the effects of asbestos and who are determined to secure justice. I cannot begin to understand the efforts and the suffering of those people and their families. As I said, it is a privilege for me and for the Parliament to be able to do the right thing.