Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

Lord Thomas of Gresford Excerpts

Monday 30th January 2012 Lords Chamber

I am proud of the fact that a company in my constituency went from asbestos board to non-asbestos board. It did a lot of research because it knew the dangers. The boards were used for fire prevention in buildings. It decided to get the non-asbestos board which would not be harmful to workers, but at the time that it was producing that board, in Poland, the shipyards in Gdansk were receiving orders from that company and from other parts of the United Kingdom where asbestos board was going from here to Poland. The Polish workers—that was before Lech Walesa became the president—were having to work with asbestos boards in those shipyards. The reason I mention that point is that it might be the case that some of those old ships would come into repair yards in the United Kingdom, and it is not until they start to do repairs that the workers discover that they are being exposed to asbestos. In fact, even in this building, where the heating system is very old—in fact, I would say this evening that it is non-existent—if any repair has to be done in the basements, it would probably be the case that they would come across asbestos substances. The point I am trying to make is that some people know that they are going to work with asbestos. Other people, when they go out to a day’s work, do not know that they are going to work with asbestos, but before the day is out, that is what is going to happen.

[Lord Thomas of Gresford]

My Lords, I am glad to follow the noble Lord, Lord Martin, in what he has just said because I am concerned about the relatives of the victims of this terrible disease. We were addressed here in one of the committee rooms in the House by the Greater Manchester Asbestos Victims Support Group. One of the people who came with that group was Mrs Marie Hughes, who comes from my home town of Wrexham in north Wales. Her husband had worked as a youth in the Brymbo steel works, which is close to the town, but had gone into teaching and died of this disease at the age of 57 when he was head teacher. It had afflicted him a great deal later. I am very familiar with the Brymbo steel works, as was, because I worked there briefly during vacations as a young man.

What she told us about the effect of the disease upon her husband was that while attempting to come to terms with his diagnosis and his bleak prognosis he underwent gruelling, unrelenting and debilitating courses of chemotherapy, intensive radiotherapy and invasive surgery in the form of an extrapleural pneumonectomy, which involved the removal of a complete lung, half the pericardium and half the diaphragm in a desperate effort to delay the cancer’s ultimate grasp. He lived in constant pain and it was a vain attempt to improve the quality and extend his life. By the final three months, tumours had also developed on his spine, resulting in paralysis from the chest down, and all this while fighting to breathe. That is the effect of this disease on an individual who suffers it, years after he had been exposed to asbestos. Of course, from diagnosis to death is quite a limited period with mesothelioma: it is only about nine months, leaving behind a widow and a family who have to live with what has happened to their loved one.

I am very much in support of the amendment that the noble Lord, Lord Alton, has moved with such great force, and the supporting speeches, because I have seen the effect on a widow of this terrible disease.

[Lord Bach]

My Lords, I am proud to have been allowed to put my name, as an opposition Front-Bencher, on this amendment, which has been moved so well by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and spoken to so well by all the other noble Lords.

Industrial disease and exposure to toxic substances; employers acting negligently, in breach of their duty to employees, and often causing them great harm; and then outlawing and ensuring redress for these violations speak to what I consider the historic mission of the party I belong to and of the trade union movement. I know they are subjects that are of huge interest and concern to many people beyond that.

Health and safety in the workplace is something that we in these Houses of Parliament should be as proud of as we were of banning slavery. Instead, this year the Prime Minister chose for his first speech a comment that hoped that this was the year that killed off the health and safety culture forever. He cited a case where a teacher made children wear safety glasses to play conkers—a myth that the Health and Safety Executive cites as a prime example of the kind of mischief played by some to denigrate health and safety.

Health and safety in the workplace has nothing to do with conkers. Lack of health and safety has led to tens of thousands of avoidable deaths in the workplace. These amendments would ensure that in these cases—they have been described in detail and I am not going to go into that detail—employers pay their full redress and employees who have been harmed get their full restitution.

These are serious cases. There is no compensation culture here. Whereas motor claims increased by 43 per cent between 2007 and 2011 to nearly 800,000—which is why we on this side back my right honourable friend Jack Straw’s campaign—employer liability claims were down by 6.6 per cent to one-tenth of that. No one is faking mesothelioma, or coal lung. This is as far from the problems of undiagnosable whiplash as we can possibly get.

Industrial disease provides the most emotive and powerful examples of how health and safety is something we have had—and still have—to fight for. Despite the fact that we know so much about the clinical aspects and the impact on individuals, communities, and families, asbestosis is still being fought over in the courts. Insurers, sometimes not to their credit, are still fighting liabilities. Why is there this difference between these highly contested, difficult-to-prove cases that we have been debating tonight, for which people have been fighting year after year and, on the other side, clinical negligence? Why is there no sympathy from the Government for what are pretty analogous cases?

Do they not deserve a deeper consideration of the economics of bringing these cases? If the argument is proportionality, of course there are problems with proportionality when you are fighting some of the entrenched vested interests, such as the insurance lobby, and companies for which it is difficult to prove ownership and liability years after the event. We are at risk of abandoning these cases and these victims, not because they cannot bring the cases any more, but because they will not find lawyers to bring them. These are families and widows of workers who were exposed through no fault of their own.

I have in front of me the comments of a lady, Mrs King, whose husband died of mesothelioma. She says, “My husband died of mesothelioma as a consequence of asbestos exposure during the course of his employment. David and I received considerable assistance from the Derbyshire asbestos support group”. She arranged to see her constituency Member of Parliament. She received letters from her Member of Parliament, and wrote to him as well. I have to say that that Member of Parliament showed real concern in those letters about the tragedy that she had undergone. I pay tribute to him for the sympathy which he genuinely showed.

However, the exchange of correspondence, in Mrs King’s view, raised a number of points. The first was that the Member of Parliament seemed to accept that, in certain aspects, we are going to an American-style system. Mrs King’s view is that is not a good thing. That relates to a successful claimant having to pay some of their damages in costs. Secondly, the Member of Parliament, according to Mrs King, said that if a claimant loses the claim he will pay no legal costs at all. She points out that that is wrong: the losing claimant would pay disbursements. Thirdly, the Member of Parliament says it is not about whether claims will be brought, but about what lawyers get paid, and who pays those costs. Mrs King’s comment is that there must surely be genuine borderline cases today that will not be brought tomorrow because lawyers will not take the risk of not being paid.

Fourthly, Mrs King comments that the Member of Parliament says that defendants with a very strong defence pay out because of the costs they may incur if they lose. Mrs King does not understand that. She asks why they would settle in a case where they have a strong defence: if they have a strong defence, they will not lose. Lastly, the MP says that he may be cynical, but lawyers will not bring cases because they will not be paid as much as they are now. Mrs King thinks that that misses the point, the point being that lawyers will not bring cases at all if they run the risk in difficult, but genuine, cases that, if they lose, they will not get paid at all.

The Member of Parliament is in fact the right honourable gentleman the Lord Chancellor. As I say, he showed great sympathy for Mrs King and her predicament, but those were his responses and I suggest, respectfully, to him and to the Minister, that they are out of touch and do not meet the seriousness of the situation that has been described in Committee tonight.

Mrs King finishes by saying, “The chances of people like me or my husband being able to get justice would all change under the Government’s proposals. Even if my case has reasonable chances of success, I will struggle to find a lawyer to take it on unless it is virtually certain to succeed. The lawyers think the risk of losing is too great for the amount they will get paid for taking that risk. They simply will not take the case on”. That is the nub of this particular argument: people who have suffered a great deal will find that they will not be able to have their cases argued because of changes that are made. What I think that everyone who has spoken in this debate so far wants to see from the Government is a bit of flexibility, because these cases really stand out on their own.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord McNally]

This is not only about public funds, but it is about how you create—to use this term again—an architecture for this type of litigation that squeezes out from the system the inflation that went to the lawyers. That was identified by the Master of the Rolls, by the Lord Chief Justice and by Lord Justice Jackson. In trying to respond to that problem, I am fully aware of the hard cases, and I have spent most of the afternoon dealing with them. Of course hard cases are difficult to argue, but that is the central issue that we are trying to address. To succeed, we will have to stand firm against some of these hard cases, I am afraid.

[Lord Thomas of Gresford]

The issue really is this: should all cases be treated alike? Well, Lord Justice Jackson did not treat all types of litigation alike. For example, he specifically recommended that clinical negligence should stay within legal aid, for various reasons that we have gone through that I do not need to repeat. Nor did he suggest that all his proposals should be limited to personal injury cases; he thought that they should be broader but they could vary, depending on the particular circumstances.

The reason for that is that risk varies. For road traffic accidents, nine out of 10 cases will be won because it is fairly easy to determine in a road traffic accident who is at fault, to what degree and so on, and the quantum follows thereafter. In clinical negligence cases, three out of four cases will be lost, so the risk is very different. That is why Lord Justice Jackson decided that clinical negligence should remain within the scope of legal aid. We are not involving government money or public money here; what we are trying to discuss is what constitutes a fair balance in a particular category of case, which can vary from case to case. I do not think that we should approach this on the basis that there is an architecture that should apply to every particular type of claim that is ever brought.

In mesothelioma cases, for example, we are not so much concerned with the fact that the person has the disease; what we are concerned with, as the noble Lord will appreciate from the very moving story that he told about his own family, is causation. That is the issue in this type of case. You can easily show that someone has died as a result of this disease, but what caused it, when, how and whether the case has been brought within a reasonable period of time are at issue. Very often, that requires not the sort of expenditure on medical reports that you get in clinical negligence cases; it often depends on expert reports on where the asbestos was, how it was dealt with and whether there was a likelihood, which passes the threshold of more likely than not, that that particular presence of asbestos in the workplace at a particular time caused the disease from which, as in the case that I cited, many years later the particular individual dies. We can therefore see that in some cases it is a medical issue, while in some cases it is causation, but they differ—and it is quite legitimate for the Committee to consider the different type of case, as we have in our discussion of judicial review, for example. In our debate on the next set of amendments, I shall come on to the question of environmental law, where very different issues arise compared with other types of litigation. We are not looking for an architecture to involve everything; we are looking for what is right in a particular category of cases. I propose in a moment, when this amendment will I hope be withdrawn, to enlighten your Lordships a little about environmental law.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool]

My Lords, in his peroration the Minister relied on the phrase “squeezing inflationary costs out of the system”—a point to which the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, referred. The only people who will be squeezed as a result of this are those who suffered previously and who have fatal diseases. I cannot see the argument that the Minister put before the Committee this evening in the terms in which he has expressed it. As he implied at the end of his remarks, this is not about legal aid or public money; on the point about causation that the noble Lord referred to a moment ago, this is about people’s right to have access to the justice system, and not then to have to hand over any damages that they win. This is about people who have demonstrated successfully in the courts that they have become victims and who then have to hand over a quarter of the damages that they receive to pay for the action that they have been able to bring successfully.

The Minister showed enormous sensitivity to this issue as he described his own family circumstances to the Committee. When he reads the debate further overnight, he may want to reflect on some of the points that have been made. He was accused earlier of not showing flexibility. I understand the pressures placed on any Minister having to oversee a Bill of this kind, but we are only in Committee. I hope that he will share with his right honourable friend the Lord Chancellor the debate tonight and will look particularly at the questions raised earlier on by me and others about the costs involved to the public purse in not accepting these amendments. The reverse arithmetic and accounting to that which he has advanced at the Dispatch Box this evening would seem to apply, and in his refutation of the argument he did not deal with that point.

The Minister also implied that all lawyers would somehow be winners—that they would be the ones putting the inflationary pressures into the system. I remind him of the case that I cited today and at Second Reading of Norman Jones, the president of the Liverpool Law Society. This is a lawyer who is not part of a huge legal practice; he made it clear that under this dispensation it would be impossible for him to have fought the case that he successfully brought with CFAs through all the courts, right up to the Supreme Court. He would not have been able to bring that case. It is because of cases of that kind and the adverse effects on the victims as well that the Minister should reflect on this matter before Report.

During the debate, we have heard invoked the names of victims. Mrs King was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Bach, Marie Hughes by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, and the Minister mentioned Betty, a member of his family. We have heard also of good lawyers; the noble Lord, Lord Martin, mentioned Frank McGuire, and vividly described his own experiences on the factory floor. We have heard about campaigners. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, who has battled on this subject since the 1970s, and the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, both referred to Nancy Tait.

The noble Lord, Lord Bach, said to us that employers should have to make full redress and employees full restitution. He said that no one is faking mesothelioma. He also reminded us of the canards of the so-called health and safety culture, and of the compensation culture. The noble Lord, Lord Wigley, said that access to justice should not be the preserve of a few.

It is worth remembering that the mesothelioma death rate in this country is the highest in the world. That is why I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, was overstating the case when he said that what we are doing is intolerable. He said that it is unconscionable, mean-spirited, callous and immoral. Although it is my intention now to withdraw this amendment, I give notice that it is also my intention to return with these amendments on Report if we are unable to make progress on this issue. With the leave of the Committee, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.