Chester Street Insurance Holdings Ltd
We now come to members' business, which is on motion S1M-1927, in the name of Des McNulty, on Chester Street Insurance Holdings Ltd.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Is it in order for a members' business motion to be contentious, controversial, argumentative and misleading? The motion in the name of Des McNulty, on Chester Street Insurance Holdings Ltd, gives the impression that the only people who are concerned with and who own the asbestos campaign are Gordon Brown, Helen Liddell and Tony Worthington.
The motion is obviously in order, as it has been selected by Sir David Steel and the full Parliamentary Bureau. You have had the chance to make your points and your views are noted.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. The motion refers to the "Clydebank MP". There is no such thing at the moment as a Clydebank MP. This is an election advert for the Labour party, not a members' business motion.
My understanding is that the motion was lodged before the general election was called and was in order at that point.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament welcomes the successful outcome of the campaign at Westminster led by Clydebank MP Tony Worthington on behalf of asbestos disease sufferers affected by the collapse of Chester Street Insurance Holdings Ltd; congratulates Chancellor Gordon Brown and Scottish Secretary Helen Liddell on their role in hammering out a deal between Her Majesty's Treasury and the insurance companies to ensure that compensation is paid; notes that asbestos-related disease has led to more than 1,800 deaths in Scotland since 1997, and believes that the Scottish Executive can assist in preventing further distress to sufferers and their families by doing everything within its power to ensure that legal actions relating to compensation claims are not subject to delays in the Scottish courts.
I notice that the two members who raised points of order are so concerned about the people affected by asbestos that they have not remained in the chamber, which is perhaps salient.
I do not want to make party political points; this is an issue of justice. A grave injustice was done to some of the most vulnerable people in our society—people suffering from the dreadful effects of asbestos. Those people, many of them from my constituency and from other constituencies in the west of Scotland, worked for many years where asbestos was present. Those people were wounded, deliberately perhaps, by employers who knew that asbestos was a dangerous substance and that the people working in shipyards and other areas where asbestos was present were likely to have their health impaired by their proximity to the substance.
The owners of the shipyards passed their responsibility to an insurance company called Iron Trades Holding Ltd. In the fullness of time, the responsibility passed to an organisation called Chester Street Insurance Holdings Ltd, which deliberately sought, in one of the most cynical manoeuvres imaginable, to parcel itself up in such a way that its liability for sufferers of asbestos-related disease was transferred out. The insurance companies could therefore make money in other areas and the amount of money available to compensate those suffering from asbestos-related disease was minimised. The effect was that only 5 per cent of compensation claims would have been met. That was a grave injustice, which has now, thankfully, been put right.
I do not make any apology for praising all the MPs at Westminster who were involved in the campaign for justice for sufferers of asbestos-related disease—I include Tony Worthington, Margaret Ewing and members from all parties. However, the people who were most involved in the campaign were the sufferers of asbestos-related disease. Those people represent an example of dignity under pressure and in the face of a grave injustice. They fought and argued their case and the injustice was overcome. We should be pleased about that. It is a positive step and should be recognised.
I did not lodge the motion simply to mark the fact that an injustice was sorted out. I also wanted to highlight the fact that there is more to do. This Parliament can do more. People who are diagnosed as suffering from asbestos-related disease, and their families, deserve all the support that we can provide. The disease is terrible. When one speaks to people who have it, or to members of their family, one discovers that it is a disgusting way to die. It is also, for those people who have a milder form of it, a disgusting way to live.
The people who have come to the Parliament today are a microcosm of the people in Scotland who have been affected by the disease. Their rights should be at the forefront of our minds. We should consider carefully the morality of the way in which they are treated.
I want Parliament to consider the health care services and counselling support that are available for people who suffer from asbestos-related disease. We should ask health boards and local authorities to do all that they can to ensure that people who are affected by the disease, and their families, are properly supported by specialists who have the necessary expertise and can give expert advice.
The greatest concern is that it takes so long for people to get compensation through the Scottish courts. In many debates in the chamber, I hear people talking about what a marvellous system of justice we have in Scotland. As far as sufferers of asbestos-related disease are concerned, Scottish justice is not delivering. There are delays of two or three years from the point at which people raise asbestos cases in courts to a decision being made. That is unacceptable. We must find ways of circumscribing that process so that people can get the compensation to which they are entitled.
Someone who is diagnosed with mesothelioma can be dead within a year or even months. People who are suffering from that disease should get their compensation quickly after diagnosis, so that they and their families get the best available comfort.
People with chronic asbestos-related disease also deserve compensation quickly. We cannot continue with the current situation, in which 500 cases are going through the judicial process. Each case is subject to blanket denials by the companies that are defending the cases. Those companies deny that there was a John Brown's shipyard and then they deny that the person worked for it. They deny that asbestos was used and deny that the people involved were exposed to asbestos. Those denials are a strategic device to slow down the process of dealing with the cases.
That is unacceptable; it is a blot on the landscape of Scottish justice. There must be fast-track justice. We are not asking insurance companies to pay up when they are not supposed to, but they should not use procedures and mechanisms to impose unreasonable delays, especially when the people who bear the brunt of the delay are some of the most vulnerable in our society. It is the Parliament's responsibility to tackle the issue to ensure that people get justice and that our system of justice is not a barrier to people getting what they deserve.
There is a lot of support in Parliament for finding a way forward on the issue, for tackling it and for matching—perhaps even going beyond—what Westminster did in relation to Chester Street Insurance Holdings Ltd, so that our Scottish victims of asbestos get the justice that they deserve.
I congratulate Des McNulty on securing this debate. As he knows, the issue is not new to me; it was drawn to my attention when I was the member of Parliament for the old East Dunbartonshire seat. I remember asking questions and speaking in debates in the House of Commons on the matter. I constantly received invitations from the asbestos producers to visit their plants so that they could reassure me that there was no problem. I am glad to say that they never convinced me.
I was delighted to be in the House of Commons on 6 March when Tony Worthington spoke effectively in a debate on this subject. As we know from subsequent reports, there has been progress since that debate. The Treasury's announcement on 10 May is welcome, as it ensures that the victims who were affected before 1972 will be paid 90 per cent of the awards that would have been made had compensation been settled before Chester Street Insurance Holdings Ltd became insolvent in January. Although that is welcome news, the remaining 10 per cent of the compensation is not yet forthcoming, which is an injustice to the victims and their families.
I am sure that the minister is aware that the relevant pension regulations, national insurance issues, the Insurance Companies Act 1982 and the Policy Holders Protection Act 1975 are complex, reserved matters, but this Parliament can raise its voice in Scotland to ensure that the people are listening and that our views are relayed to the appropriate authorities. However, the Parliament can do more than just raise its voice; it can do a great deal to help asbestosis sufferers and their families.
Those of us who had the opportunity—and the privilege—to meet the Clydebank asbestos action group heard many tales of the need to alter the Scottish legal system, for which this Parliament is responsible. We want to deal efficiently and effectively with the cases that are brought before our courts. Suggested proposals will speed up the process of dealing with compensation, which is needed early to assure the victim's quality of life and to make him or her secure in the knowledge that their families will receive money after they have gone.
I understand that the Justice 2 Committee has considered a carefully worded petition that was referred to it and that it has asked for comments from the Lord President of the Court of Session and the Scottish Law Commission. I hope that the responses to the committee will be sent speedily and show a positive attitude. At the moment, widows can wait for up to four years for compensation. The written system, the stated cases, the denials and the other processes are expensive not only for the victims and their families, but for the Scottish court system. Altering the system in a way that gives people justice could also result in some savings.
One of the widows at today's meeting raised my next point, which concerns the way in which victims' medical reports are used. We recognise that such records must be released to the defence agents, but that involves costs. The widow said that she had spent approximately £700 on the medical reports alone. Such a ludicrous system could surely be simplified.
We must consider this issue in the context of health. We could do much to improve the facilities for counselling families and to enhance the provision of doctors and nurses who are qualified to deal with these cases.
Mr Des McNulty's motion is timely and welcome. Some years ago, I supported Brian Wilson's bill in the House of Commons on a comparable subject. At the time, I announced a past interest as an underwriter at Lloyd's of London, because the company had been involved in claims concerning asbestos-contaminated sites in America. I should repeat that that interest is in the far and distant past.
Mr McNulty has raised an important issue of principle. When victims of asbestosis face considerable uncertainty after an insurance company goes into provisional liquidation and cannot meet their compensation claims, it is right that the Government should become involved. Mr McNulty is absolutely right to highlight that. It is extremely important that these matters should be settled expeditiously. Many victims fear that lengthy delays in their cases will deny them justice. As Mr McNulty indicated, claimants in Scotland have died before mesothelioma cases have been brought to settlement. That is grossly unjust. Urgent action must be a top priority.
One of the problems with this subject is that thousands of people may be affected but may not have launched civil actions because they do not realise that they have an asbestos-related disease. That is because the symptoms can take a long time to manifest themselves.
I hope that this afternoon the minister will repeat the reassurance that compensation will be paid within a reasonable time scale, given the suffering sustained by victims of asbestos-related diseases, and that every effort will be made to assist the constituents concerned. We greatly look forward to the minister's reply.
I thank my colleague and friend Des McNulty for giving us the opportunity to have this debate.
When we recently debated compensation for mesothelioma victims, we could not have expected that the situation would get worse. However, in life when one door closes, another one slams in your face. The provisional liquidation of Chester Street Insurance Holdings was a door slamming in the face of asbestos victims.
As usual, asbestos campaigners rose to the challenge. MPs and MSPs were contacted, the Daily Record got behind the campaign and we had a successful rally in Clydebank. The fact that the campaign has resulted in this evening's debate gives us some satisfaction.
However, in a sense we have come full circle. We are back where we were when we debated the issue previously. Victims must still prove their cases, with all the difficulties that that involves. We have heard some of those difficulties described today. The Parliament and the Executive have the job of influencing the justice system. We must work to remove the obstacles that cause delays, and we must make it easier for cases to be heard by juries, rather than by judges. The justice system needs to give consideration to terminally ill victims and it could, if it wished, review the powers of the courts to allow interim payments pending final resolution of cases.
The debate also gives us an opportunity to pay tribute to the men and women who have campaigned on the issue in the past and to those who continue to do so. This is not the first debate on asbestos-related illnesses to take place in the Parliament. The campaign for a worldwide ban on asbestos products, justice for the victims, and medical research and specialist care for victims and their families will ensure that it is not the last. We wish the campaign well.
I welcome the fact that the debate is taking place today and I congratulate Des McNulty on raising the issue, in which he has a strong constituency interest. I also congratulate the campaign that is led by Clydeside Action on Asbestos on achieving an outcome for asbestos disease sufferers following the collapse of Chester Street Insurance Holdings. I welcome the UK Government's prompt response to what happened. The campaigners to whom we spoke today acknowledged and welcomed that.
Both the Scottish Trades Union Congress and the Scottish trades councils have made asbestos-related diseases one of the key campaigning issues that are associated with the international workers memorial events that were held this year. Many of the other issues that have been raised by members form part of their broader campaign.
Many of the issues that we are debating are reserved to Westminster, so I would like to concentrate on the problems that we have the power to address. I hope that the minister will respond to the points that I make.
Members have talked about the delays in the justice system, and many sufferers of asbestos-related diseases die before they receive any form of compensation. That is an issue that we must resolve, so that the sufferers of those fatal diseases are able to achieve a better quality of life and to know that their families will be financially secure when they die.
I urge the minister to give the commitment that there will be a fundamental review of the way in which asbestos-related diseases—indeed, all industrial diseases—are dealt with by the judicial system. When that system results in the delays that we have heard about, that is a denial of justice. The Parliament has it in its power to resolve that, and I hope that we can start to make progress on that today.
I am pleased to be able to speak in the debate. I am sorry that I could not be here in November when Duncan McNeil's motion on compensation for asbestos disease sufferers was debated.
I have constituents who are suffering from asbestos-related diseases, and my sympathy goes out to all those who suffer and to their families, as well as to those who have lost people close to them through asbestos-related diseases. It is impossible to know what to say to people who are in such a position; one can only give as much help and support as possible to the campaign that they are running.
I am happy to agree with Des McNulty, that all those who were involved in securing the arrangement that is now in place—following the insolvency of Chester Street Insurance Holdings—are to be congratulated on their work. However, as Duncan McNeil said, that returns us to the latter part of the motion, which concerns the assistance that the Executive can give to prevent legal actions from being subject to delays in the courts. We must approach that issue in a way that does not interfere with the management of court business. We must leave to the courts the responsibility for deciding on the order of business and the application of procedure. Nonetheless, when we can take action we will do so. It cannot be denied that there is scope for such cases reaching conclusions more quickly, which would be commensurate with the interests of justice.
Many of the cases that we are discussing are not easy to resolve when they reach court. We must accept—as Des McNulty does—that employers have a right to defend against claims for compensation. The medical issues can also be complicated, and there is often more than one employer involved. Moreover, some claims relate to employment of 50 or more years ago and it is difficult to establish who was doing what for which employer at that time. Both sides must cope with those complexities, but it cannot be denied that the time that is taken to deal with such matters adds to the distress of sufferers.
Nonetheless, the interests of sufferers and of employers alike require all reasonable steps to be taken to make the facts as clear as possible for the court. That should not, however, be taken as an excuse for prevarication; nor should it be used as an attempt to cause deliberate delay, such as would cause sufferers to give up on their claims. It would be even worse if the delay were to extend beyond the tragic death of some of the sufferers.
The use of blanket denials by employers has been criticised as a cause of delay. It was criticised most recently in a petition from Frank Maguire, who is a solicitor advocate, and Harry McCluskey, of Clydeside Action on Asbestos, which was submitted to the Public Petitions Committee. That petition is—as Mrs Ewing said—being considered by the Justice 2 Committee. Lord Coulsfield's proposals for the reform of procedure in reparation actions, which I shall mention again in a moment, would result in less reliance on the written case and would put more emphasis on the disclosure of material issues such as medical reports and the value of the claim. In either event, in the case of a blanket denial, employers would leave themselves open to an application for a summary decree on the ground that a defence to the action has not been disclosed. I encourage pursuers to make best use of that remedy.
I would also like appropriate use to be made by pursuers of interim and provisional awards of damages so that, at the very least, suitable arrangements for the care of sufferers can be made pending the determination of cases by the courts.
Although the management of claims by courts is, as I said, a matter for the courts, there is no reason why those cases cannot be dealt with reasonably expeditiously. Indeed, the issue of how to process reparation cases has already been the subject of thorough consideration under the direction of Lord Coulsfield. Lord Coulsfield's proposals, which are at present under consideration by the Court of Session's rules council, involve the courts taking a more active part in ensuring that time limits for case preparation are adhered to. The proposals also include a proposal to set dates for hearing cases much earlier in the proceedings than is done at the moment. The proposals also call for fuller disclosure of the position of defenders or employers, particularly with regard to the value that they would place on a claim, assuming that liability to pay compensation was not an issue. The point of that is to encourage parties to settle earlier, because over 90 per cent of cases ultimately settle without evidence being heard. The Executive has previously stated its support for the comprehensive package of procedural reform that is proposed by Lord Coulsfield and I do so again today.
One of Lord Coulsfield's other recommendations is that pursuers' offers should be reintroduced. A pursuer's offer is an offer to settle a case for a specified sum which, if it is not accepted by the defender, could have significant consequences for the amount of legal expenses that are awarded against the defender if the court subsequently awards the pursuer the sum that was offered, or a higher sum. Those offers provide an important inducement to employers to settle claims and that recommendation also has our support. However, primary legislation is required to extend the rule-making powers of the Court of Session to enable the necessary procedure rules to be put in place. We will consider how that might best be achieved.
The rules and administrative practices of the Court of Session, where most of the cases are heard, allow 13 weeks for the parties to state their case in written pleadings, and then 19 weeks to prepare for a proof or jury trial. As members will know, that 19-week period is a target that is agreed between the Lord President and ministers. Accordingly, the court should be ready to hear those cases after about 32 weeks, which I consider to be sufficient time for even the most complex issues to be properly addressed.
That said, I am aware that most cases take longer than 32 weeks—often considerably longer—to reach a conclusion. That is usually because the court has been persuaded on the application of one of the parties that it is in the interests of justice to allow more time for case preparation. The reasons for that can be many, but the court must be alive to the need to weed out applications that are simply delaying tactics.
In response to earlier representations that were made in previous debates—which have been referred to this evening—I say that the Executive is exploring with the Lord President what further action might be taken to expedite the cases, consistent with the recommendations of Lord Coulsfield's report. That is further demonstration of our determination to act where we can.
I ask Parliament to note the support that the Executive is already providing to improve arrangements for the management of claims by the court, while respecting the independence of our judiciary and the reliance that we place on it to uphold the interests of justice. We will continue in those efforts because there is no doubt that asbestos disease sufferers deserve justice.
Meeting closed at 17:04.