Robert Brown MSP

Member of the Scottish Parliament for Glasgow Region

Robert Brown MSP

Pleural Plaques (House of Lords Ruling)

Speech delivered on Wed 7th Nov 2007

I congratulate Stuart McMillan on securing this members' debate on the pleural plaques case. It is timely and appropriate.

Earlier today, following our involvement in the press conference that was organised by Clydeside Action on Asbestos on 17 October, I sponsored, along with Bill Butler and Bill Kidd, a well-attended briefing for MSPs and researchers at which were representatives of Clydeside Action on Asbestos, the other action groups in Clydebank and Tayside, and the trade unions, as well as others with an interest in the issue. We had the benefit of an extremely lucid explanation of the background by the solicitor advocate Frank Maguire, who acts for hundreds of pleural plaques claimants and many people who are afflicted with mesothelioma.

More particularly, we had the benefit of hearing the experiences of two people who suffer from pleural plaques, who described in matter-of-fact terms the effects on them and their families. As John Stewart from Dunfermline told us, he has seen three generations of the same family wiped out by asbestos-related ailments-asbestos-related diseases are like that. As Stuart McMillan mentioned, they often affect close-knit communities where people work in shipyards or families where mothers have been exposed to asbestos fibres through washing overalls for their husbands or sons.

Bill Aitken rightly touched on the fact that there is a genuine legal debate to be had about where the right to damages ends and what its limits are. I recall from my professional career the complexities of those arguments. However, the law should ultimately dispense justice, which is what lies behind tonight's debate.

In pleural plaques cases, there is often no doubt about the responsibility and negligence of the employer-employers have known about the dangers of asbestos for many years. Claims arise because claimants-frequently workers in the shipbuilding or construction industries-were negligently exposed to asbestos fibres. One of the family representatives today told us that he used to strip asbestos off machinery and then blow the remaining dust and fibres away with a blower so that the engines were clean. We could barely imagine anything worse. It is hardly surprising that so many people have ended up with an asbestos-related disease. The toll is horrendous.

There is no doubt either about mesothelioma, which is one of the nastiest industrial diseases ever spawned and is known by families and communities alike to be both terminal and extremely unpleasant. Not surprisingly, people are anxious if they think that they are halfway down the line to getting that horrendous condition-anybody would be anxious. The argument about whether there is a causal link between pleural plaques and other asbestos-related diseases seems a trifle academic. What is certain is that the train of causation goes right back to the negligent exposure to asbestos many years before. Whether it leads to pleural plaques or mesothelioma is a subsidiary argument to the main liability chain of causation.

The House of Lords judgment means that pleural plaques claimants lose two things: first, the interim damages that have been paid in practice for more than twenty years; and secondly, and even more important, the right to sort out liability issues at the start, when they are fit to do so, rather than when a more serious illness strikes.

I hope that the minister will feel able to put on the parliamentary record tonight his acknowledgement of the cross-party-I think all-party-nature of the call for legislation to reverse the judgment. I hope also that he will put on record his sympathy with the cause of those who have been diagnosed with pleural plaques. Finally, I hope that he will be able to say tonight, or in the near future if necessary, that he is prepared, in principle, to change the law to restore the position as it has been understood for more than 20 years. I recognise that he must have advice from his officials on unintended wider consequences and on getting legislation right, but we want to hear that he will act on what is widely perceived to be an injustice and do what the Scottish Parliament was set up to do-pass good and just laws that right injustices in Scotland.

I renew the request to the cabinet secretary, through the minister, to meet me and other interested MSPs, as Alex Salmond promised at First Minister's question time. I impress on the minister the need for an immediate or early announcement that will guide claimants, employers and the relevant insurance companies on their approach to this difficult matter.

To read the debate in full please click on the link below.

Related Link:

Bookmark this story at: del.icio.usdel.icio.us DiggDigg FacebookFacebook LibDigLibDig redditreddit StumbleUponStumbleUpon
Print this speech.
Previous speech: Early Years and Early Intervention (Wed 31st Oct 2007).
Next speech: Holding the SNP Government to account (Thu 8th Nov 2007).

Printed and hosted by Prater Raines Ltd, 98 Sandgate High Street, Folkestone CT20 3BY.
Published and Promoted by Mairi Rough on behalf of Robert Brown MSP, all at Olympic House,142 Queen Street, Glasgow G1 3BU
The views expressed are those of the member, not of the service provider.