Asbestosis

Mr Neeson:

I beg to move

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak to this important motion. The motion was tabled because Assembly Members Mr John Kelly, Mr Mick Murphy and I met a group of people who are suffering from asbestosis. The group is known as Justice for Asbestos Victims and was formed by Mr Robbie Brown. I am delighted that Mr Brown and other members of the group are in the Gallery for this important debate.

Mr Brown had to wait 13 years before he was compensated for the disease. His experience reflects the experiences of many people in Northern Ireland in many ways. They suffer a long wait and uncertainty, and compensation often arrives too late because the individual has passed away.

On 5 March 2002, the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, Sir Reg Empey, stated in the House that the Department and the Government would accept liability for those who contracted asbestos-related diseases before Harland & Wolff was privatised in 1989.

Does the Member agree that it is rather disappointing that, given the issue's seriousness, no Minister is in the Chamber to respond? Indeed, several Ministers could have responded, and it would have been useful if the Executive, knowing that the motion was on today's Order Paper, had agreed at their most recent meeting which Minister had chief responsibility for responding in the debate.

I thank Ms McWilliams for her intervention. I regret not only the absence of a Minister, but I am not too impressed by the number of Members present in the Chamber. The issue is important, and it is one that myself and others are determined to carry through.

Last week, the House of Lords made a landmark decision; the Fairchild judgement. The judgement was made because of the uncertainty surrounding where people were employed when they contracted asbestos-related diseases.

I welcome the Minister for Employment and Learning into the Chamber, and I assure her that she has not missed too much.

The uncertainty that was created is important. The interesting fact about the judgement was that it took the Law Lords barely a week to reach their decision. One of the reasons for that was that the case involved three people. Mr Edwin Matthews was too weak to travel to the hearing, and Mrs Judith Fairchild and Mrs Doreen Fox attended for their husbands, Arthur and Thomas, who had already died. That shows that the problem has been around for some time, and that many people died before the decision was taken.

One of the main issues that the Assembly must take on board is that the cancerous disease mesothelioma can be caused by a single asbestos fibre. That demonstrates how severe the disease can be - it is a fatal disease. It can remain dormant in people's bodies for many years, and that has led to many injustices that people in the UK have suffered.

Mrs Judith Fairchild was awarded compensation in the region of £191,000 in last week's judgement. However, many people in Northern Ireland who have been awarded compensation have not received anything like that amount. I hope that today's debate will result in a review of those cases. People who have suffered must receive sufficient compensation.

I am pleased that the Scottish Parliament has begun to address the issue in a major way. At a meeting of the Public Petitions Committee on 27 February 2001, Mr Frank Maguire, a solicitor for many sufferers in the Clydeside area, said:

That shows the enormity of the problem and the suffering. It is not only the individual who suffers, but the whole family.

The problem has regional implications. Last year, in Great Britain alone, 5,000 people died from asbestos-related diseases. That figure is predicted to double over the next decade. Northern Ireland has a high number of cases of asbestos-related diseases. It is estimated that at least 90 people die each year from those diseases in Northern Ireland. The total is probably much higher than that. If the figure in Great Britain is going to double, there will undoubtedly be a similar trend in Northern Ireland.

Asbestosis does not affect only those who worked in the shipyard. Because of its fire-resistant qualities, it was used in the building industry in pipes, guttering, lagging, tiles and cement. It was also used in car brake linings.

Of particular significance to Northern Ireland is that many members of the emergency and security services, when they attended bomb scenes, had to enter old buildings that contained large amounts of asbestos without protection. Approximately two years ago I met a group of representatives of the Fire Service, the Ambulance Service and the police who were worried that they had come into contact with asbestos when attending bombed buildings, but that that was not recognised by their employers. A special case must be made on that basis.

We need to address the problem of asbestos fibres being brought home on the clothes of people who have had contact with the substance. Those cases are similar to the contracting of cancer because of passive smoking. I want to highlight two cases. First, the headline of an article in 'The Belfast Telegraph' on 20 October 1999 read "Death under the stairs". The article stated:

But for Margery Conway, playing under the stairs as a child in her family home in north Belfast was to end many years later in tragedy. Her innocent game led her to developing a rare form of cancer which, after a brave battle, took her life in January 1997, five weeks short of her 50th birthday.

Her father James McAleer, who had used asbestos while working for Turner and Newells at Harland and Wolff shipyard during the 1940s and 1950s, used to hang his work clothes - covered in asbestos dust - under the stairs when he came home at night.

And doctors believe it was this contact with her father's work clothes that led her to developing the terminal disease, which did not surface until April 1995.

It is the nature of the disease to remain dormant for up to 50 years."

As I tried to explain earlier, the symptoms of asbestosis can remain dormant for a long time.

The second quote is from a debate in the Scottish Parliament on 16 November 2000, when Mr Duncan McNeil stated:

The two cases underline how the disease can be contracted. By pure coincidence, last night when I phoned a constituent about a different matter, I learned that her husband had suffered from asbestosis since his early 30s. Compensation is not the only issue. Prof McWilliams was correct to say that the matter is of cross-departmental importance.

One of the big problems that my constituent faced was that her husband was in receipt of incapacity benefit, but it was suddenly disallowed. That was even though it was recognised that he suffered from asbestosis and was practically crippled. The Department must, therefore, ensure that all sufferers receive the right benefits. I recognise that the Health and Safety Executive for Northern Ireland is carrying out a consultation process. However, the purpose of the motion is to demand - and I mean "demand" - the right for civil justice for all sufferers of asbestos-related diseases.

I thank the Assembly's research and library service for its help and the information sent to me. I also thank my researcher.

I ask Members to try to limit their speeches to about eight minutes.

I support the motion, and I thank Mr Neeson, Mr J Kelly and Mr M Murphy for giving us the opportunity to consider this important subject.

I want to make several remarks from the perspective of the Department for Employment and Learning and, in particular, from the Committee that I chair. I want to make about half a dozen points. First, I want to speak about the seriousness of this disease, which was well described by Mr Neeson. Secondly, I will refer to the Harland & Wolff employment liability issue, which was debated in the House about two months ago. Thirdly, I want to speak about the pneumoconiosis Statutory Rule. Fourthly, I will mention the position relating to the wider application of that Statutory Rule to asbestos-related diseases, which was covered in an answer by the Minister for Employment and Learning in April this year. Fifthly, I will speak about the House of Lord's ruling of last week, and, finally, I will address the impact on the Department for Employment and Learning and the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment.

There can be little doubt about the seriousness of the disease. Last year, around 5,000 people died from asbestos-related diseases across the UK. That figure is expected to rise to approximately 10,000 by the end of this decade. As we all probably know, the victims are mainly people from the building industries or shipyard workers. However, teachers, children and nurses have also been affected, partly because of the previous use of asbestos in the construction of, for example, schools and hospitals. As Mr Neeson has rightly pointed out, families can be affected by secondary exposure, ingesting substances from the fibres carried in on workers' clothes as they return home. There is about one death every four days in Northern Ireland from these related diseases.

My second point relates to the shipyard. It is thought that up to 3,000 workers employed by Harland & Wolff prior to its privatisation in 1989 were infected as a result of coming into contact with asbestos. The Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, Sir Reg Empey, made that point on 5 March this year. Up to £190 million of public money could be paid out over the next 50 years to employees seeking compensation - so it is a long-term commitment and liability. The Department's liability in this case arises because of the declared insolvency of Harland & Wolff's insurance company in January 2002.

In April 2002, the House affirmed Statutory Rule 133/2002, relating not to asbestosis but to a related lung disease, pneumoconiosis. For this disease public liability on the part of the Department for Employment and Learning has been accepted in cases where individuals are unable to take court action to recover damages from employers - usually where businesses have ceased to trade. In a press release on 22 April 2002, the Minister for Employment and Learning said:

That relates to the House of Lords ruling on 16 May 2002 that overturned a previous Court of Appeal judgement - the so-called "Fairchild judgement". In the Fairchild judgement, the Court of Appeal decided on 11 December 2001 that where a worker had been exposed to asbestos dust during his or her employment with more than one company, he or she could not succeed in claiming for damages unless it was shown which company or employer was primarily responsible.

By overturning that judgement, the House of Lords has, appropriately, opened up a wider possibility for individuals to claim against companies. It is reckoned that insurance companies could face bills of up to £6 billion or £8 billion across the UK.

That has implications for the Departments here. The implied liability on the part of the Department for Employment and Learning, and perhaps the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, will be less because it is now possible for individuals to claim against companies.

The Department for Employment and Learning must do all in its power to ensure that people are compensated quickly for this terrible disease. I urge the Minister for Employment and Learning and the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment to do all that they can to ensure that compensation claims are settled speedily and so avoid prolonged additional suffering. I am confident that that will be their intention.

As Chairman of the Committee for Employment and Learning, I support the motion.

I welcome the motion, and I will address it from two perspectives. The second perspective will be the enduring legacy of the use of asbestos. However, I also want to look at the potential threat from asbestos that is present in properties in this city and elsewhere.

Last weekend, the Housing Executive issued letters to a large number of people in west Belfast about the discovery of what it referred to as "low-grade white asbestos" in the roof spaces of various properties in Bingnian Drive and Bearnagh Drive. The Housing Executive has taken steps to assure people there that the risk is low and that it will be cleared up.

Several observations must be made about the Housing Executive's response to that concern and the potential threat. The first is that the Housing Executive has decided that it will only inspect, clean and reinstate the roof spaces of the houses that it owns. That is unsatisfactory. Many people in those areas bought their properties from the Housing Executive. At the time of purchase, no reasonable inspection by them or by a surveyor would have revealed the presence of asbestos in the roof space.

Given that no reasonable inspection would have led to that discovery, it is incumbent upon the Housing Executive to rectify the defect and clear out the roof spaces of all properties potentially affected by what it refers to as "low-grade white asbestos".

Secondly, the Housing Executive discovered the problem on the basis of an inspection of only 25 houses, in which it determined that there were only small traces of asbestos. I put it to the House that an inspection of 25 houses can be considered to be only preliminary in nature. To make a judgement about the real extent of the problem, the Housing Executive should inspect without delay the roof spaces of all the houses potentially affected in and around that area.

Thirdly, the houses in Bingnian Drive and Bearnagh Drive are terraced. There is a danger that even if the Housing Executive cleared out the roof spaces of its own properties, there would be cross-contamination with neighbouring properties in private hands that have not been cleared out and cleaned. To reassure people that there will be no contamination in the future, the Housing Executive should, as a matter of urgency, clear out those roof spaces in both public and private hands.

With regard to what is a potential and real threat, the Housing Executive claims that it has independent specialist opinion that the particular type of asbestos found on the properties presents, in its words, "a very low risk". The Housing Executive should make public the basis on which it makes that assertion. If that evidence is not current or well founded, or is not based on up-to-date empirical analysis or ongoing research, it may not reassure people living in those properties that, as the Housing Executive says, there is a very low risk. It should publish the empirical basis on which it has come to that conclusion.

If it is proven that that evidence is not current or well grounded, the Housing Executive should conduct further independent research to determine whether the asbestos that still lingers in roof spaces in and around Bingnian Drive and Bearnagh Drive is or is not low risk. In all those circumstances, it should be able to indicate to concerned people in that area what the connection is between so-called low-grade white asbestos and ill health. What is the timescale between exposure and possible identification of ill health? What is the potential of death arising from exposure, at whatever level, to low-grade white asbestos?

If we are to learn from the difficulties over many decades arising from exposure to asbestos in Harland & Wolff and elsewhere, it should be that it is the duty of public bodies, including the Housing Executive, to take all possible remedial steps quickly, to apply them equally and to give every reassurance based on medical and other evidence of the level of risk. In all those regards, the Housing Executive should be seen to act promptly.

I shall conclude by moving to the wider issue. Other Members will no doubt detail the history of asbestos use, risk and threat in workplaces in Northern Ireland. However, there are several particulars that should now be considered in order to bring quick closure to those who continue to suffer the effects of exposure to asbestos and to those who are still seeking compensation as a result of injury due to exposure to or on behalf of people who have died.

Those initiatives should include various features. First, given that the Assembly is now paying the compensation, the Assembly, through the Executive, should lay down time limits and time frames within which every claim must be concluded. Otherwise, there will be further delay and doubt, and that will be no reassurance to the victims' families or the survivors. It is public money, so we have an obligation to lay down parameters within which to conclude those cases.

Secondly, given the recent House of Lords decision, an approach should be made to those organisations that still have insurance responsibilities for people in the North to ensure that they offer no further impediments to the settlement of cases. The House of Lords decision graphically reveals that insurance companies have habitually delayed cases in order to anticipate death and avoid responsibility. That should no longer be tolerated.

Thirdly - and I will conclude very quickly, Mr Deputy Speaker - there should be a special budget to ensure that people are not denied legal aid to pursue legal remedies. It should be possible to ensure that cases are brought to court and resolved quickly.

It has been drawn to my attention that I gave Mr Attwood approximately 10 seconds extra. I did my long division sum on the basis that there would be more Members interested in speaking in the debate. As those Members are not present, it may be possible to allocate more time to other Members.

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. He was actually given 20 seconds extra, but I do not think that anyone will get into a twist over it.

I start by referring to the Health and Safety Executive's press release of 5 February 2002. It said:

That takes me back to Mr Attwood's point. The problem of asbestos occurs in many places - it attacks in industry, schools and hospitals, and it is also evident in homes. Having taken on board the quote from the Health and Safety Executive, I am concerned that the Housing Executive has said that traces of white asbestos constitute a low risk. The same press release also said that:

However, the Housing Executive has the cheek to tell its tenants that the asbestos is low risk.

I want to concentrate briefly on Housing Executive properties in the constituency of West Belfast. Over 13 years ago, the Housing Executive was concerned about asbestos in homes there, and it was advised to remove it. The Safety Advice Centre certified it, and the Housing Executive passed the work. Last year, concerns were raised that not all the asbestos had been removed. The Housing Executive carried out surveys and found samples of the very asbestos that should have been removed 13 years ago.

My concern is that out of 480 houses, 330 are now privately owned. People are being informed that there was asbestos in their homes 13 years ago when they were Housing Executive tenants and had been informed by the Housing Executive that the Safety Advice Centre had carried out the work. Now those 330 homeowners are being told that there is still evidence of asbestos in their homes. However, they will not come under the removal scheme. Those former tenants have been advised that it is low risk, but all asbestos can cause cancer. That has been proven.

The Health and Safety Executive has confirmed that building maintenance workers might be exposed to an estimated average of 0.1 fibres of white asbestos in every millilitre of air over a working life, creating a risk equivalent to one death in 5,000 workers. This raises such important questions that it is proper that we call for civil justice for asbestos sufferers.

I am concerned that asbestos is still causing problems today. As Monica McWilliams noted earlier, this problem does not belong to one Department alone. It affects the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety when people are diagnosed with the disease; it falls under the remit of the Department for Social Development in terms of social housing; and it also concerns the Department for Employment and Learning. For that reason the Executive must address the problem, be it in industry, at home, in the shipyard, or in the Health Service, whose legacy of underfunding in turn affects asbestosis sufferers and their families.

The number 13 seems an appropriate number for today. The Housing Executive knew of problems in Andersonstown 13 years ago; 13 years later we are still waiting; and it has been highlighted that some people have been waiting for compensation for 13 years. That is a disgrace, and we must tackle the matter. Not only are those sufferers being ignored, but it is possible that people are still being exposed to asbestos, a known killer. We must ensure that the Housing Executive discharges its responsibilities to its tenants by proving that asbestos is not present in their homes.

Sinn Féin has sought copies of the Housing Executive's recent survey on the Andersonstown area, but was told that the survey cannot be released for legal reasons. I am concerned that that is being said today, only for us to find out next week that history is repeating itself.

I welcome the fact that Sean Neeson, Mick Murphy and John Kelly have brought this motion forward, and I support it. I also welcome the presence of some campaigners in the Gallery; of the Minister of Health, whose Department plays such a crucial role; and of Carmel Hanna, the Minister for Employment and Learning. Go raibh maith agat.

It is sad that despite the knowledge that Greeks and Romans used asbestos and saw their slaves die of lung disease since before the first century, we were still learning about asbestos in the twentieth century.

Because this is a cross-departmental matter, I want to move directly to recommendations. Sean Neeson mentioned the horrific impact of asbestos on the shipyard workers who came to see us. In March, the Minister, Sir Reg Empey, announced that the Executive would pay out the huge sum of between £40 million and £50 million over the next four years and up to a total of £190 million by 2050. We are paying in the long term for what should have been paid more attention to by employers in the short term.

Achieving civil justice is extremely complicated. Anyone who has gone through the civil courts, whether for personal or business injury claims, will know that. I was shocked to learn that commercial and business compensation cases receive priority. Does every Member know that the courts take commercial and business cases first because they always have a backlog? It can take up to three or four years for asbestosis sufferers to get civil justice, not only because of the complications, but because other cases receive priority. The Department of Finance and Personnel and its Minister, Dr Farren, are responsible for civil justice. We must address that urgently, as was done in Scotland.

One of Scotland's Justice Committees, of which we do not have an equivalent, recommended that a judge be appointed to take responsibility for the litigation of those cases. Perhaps we should recommend that we examine the issue of civil justice, which is a devolved matter, given the urgency of the situation. However, we should ask the Minister of Finance and Personnel also to appoint a judge. Then we could begin to process cases. Mr Attwood pointed out that we should look at timing because people are dying.

I took a relative through the court process of pursuing a personal injury claim, and it was extremely traumatic. Victims should not be victimised again by the system that they have turned to for help. They are already victims of a terrible illness, and there is a spectrum of illnesses beyond that. I asked a consultant at Belfast City Hospital to explain the range of illnesses that people suffer from when they have been in contact with asbestos. Some illnesses do not manifest themselves for a long time, and some people suffer a horrific type of respiratory illness. It is a terrible way to die, and sufferers' families have to watch them do so.

They are entitled to justice, because they have contracted the illness as a result of their occupation. In many cases, wives have it as a result of washing clothes that have come into contact with asbestos particles. Some victims' children have contracted the illness as a consequence of hugging their fathers after work, which every child loves to do. Now we hear that on top of the trauma and heartbreak, sufferers must wade for years through a complicated mess of litigation. A judge should be appointed for the litigation of those cases, which run into thousands. The judge to whom we give the responsibility will have a great deal of work to do. That is one of the more urgent recommendations to the Minister of Finance and Personnel.

We also welcome last week's judgement in the House of Lords. It is a disgrace that sufferers had to go to the House of Lords to get employers to take responsibility. That leads me to the recommendation to the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment. Its Minister, Sir Reg Empey, has just spoken about limited liability partnerships. In future, we should make it mandatory for employers to state who insures them. Some have gone bankrupt, such as in the case of the shipyard. Consequently, the Executive have taken responsibility for the insurance and are paying out huge sums of money. Since we have just debated liability, we should make it mandatory for companies to publish with whom they have taken out their employer's liability insurance, as well as their accounts, so that it is not up to solicitors to check who is responsible. To make employer liability insurance mandatory would be a simple yet important measure.

Mr Neeson said that cancer victims face huge complications when dealing with the Department for Social Development. Again I speak from a personal perspective, as my sister has recently been diagnosed with cancer. It is an added burden to have to deal with bureaucracy day after day to check what benefits she is entitled to.

Mr Neeson has reported on a constituent who is already suffering, and who is being told that he will be denied incapacity benefit. Again, that is a disgraceful situation. People are being told what they will be denied, but are they then being told that matters will be sorted out and that they will be informed of what they are entitled to? That issue should be seriously addressed by the Department for Social Development.

The Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety recently held an inquiry into cancer services. One of its major findings was the huge amount of bureaucracy that victims of cancer have to suffer in trying to discover their entitlements. For example, if they are self-employed, they need to find out whom they can turn to and whom they can fall back on. A long time can pass before they receive a single penny. My sister was diagnosed three months ago, but she has yet to receive a single penny. That is just one case, but other constituents have told me about the difficulties that they have faced in their illnesses. The Department must carefully consider those serious matters. What happens to people with a specific disease at the point of diagnosis, and how long will it take before they are entitled to some form of welfare, given that they have no other income?

The point has been made about the Housing Executive's investigation into homes. The debate today seems to have focused on occupational welfare. However, we may be looking at tenants' welfare in the near future. I urge the Health and Safety Executive for Northern Ireland to publicise information about wearing masks and protective clothing, and to ensure that that information is taken seriously by men. I have spoken to men in the construction industry recently who told me that they are reluctant to wear protective clothing, masks and gloves in case they are seen as being pansies. Is that a weakness in our culture? Is it an attitude that has not been addressed seriously enough? We now know that smoking is a danger to health. So too is exposing oneself to substances that can cause cancers. People must take that seriously. Where employers have failed in their responsibility, individuals must take responsibility for themselves. Health and safety bodies must constantly be urged to put that message across.

I urge the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to give as much support as possible to the Northern Ireland Chest, Heart and Stroke Association, which recently came to Stormont to discuss the difficulties that are faced in relation to respiratory illnesses, and the support for the victims of asbestosis, such as the increasing need for nebulisers. We now realise how important it is to have a regional cancer centre. People are coming forward in thousands and are having to go through the antiquated Belvoir Park Hospital. The sooner a decision is reached on the new regional cancer centre, the better.

The Minister for Employment and Learning is present to speak about the Statutory Rules that have recently been introduced. It seems that on the one hand there are flat-rate payments, yet Statutory Rules are constantly being introduced to increase payments in line with inflation. Perhaps there is a less bureaucratic way to look at that entire issue. The debate has not just been about civil justice - it has been widened to take into account all the types of injustice that are currently taking place. That is why I lay the responsibility for that injustice at the doors of many Departments.

I remind the next Member to speak that there is some flexibility on time.

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I support my Colleagues Mr Neeson and Mr John Kelly in proposing the motion.

The victims of asbestosis, and their families, are calling for compensation claims to be resolved with speed and urgency. They want to see an end to the use of asbestos in buildings. They want the removal of asbestos from roof spaces in all homes, and proper control of that removal, so that workers and householders are not in danger of contamination.

All water main pipes containing asbestos must be removed. The country is full of them, and has been for years. It is ridiculous. Every time such a pipe bursts, it is cut in order to repair it. Asbestos is carried into the water and directly into the home. That is not on; it must stop, and the Minister for Regional Development will have to take it on board.

The situation is improving. New water mains are being installed in many areas. Importantly, however, people are not being told that there is a small percentage of asbestos in the new pipes. It has been denied, but my information categorically shows that there is asbestos in those pipes. It is coated round the outside of the pipe. Burst pipes are repaired by sawing through them. Asbestos, therefore, is getting into the water supply and is causing more problems.

Since the middle of the twentieth century, thousands of victims have suffered a catalogue of problems, including cancer, enormous stress and disabilities. Homes containing asbestos have caused numerous health problems. The Minister of Health must take that on board.

Asbestos victims have never been properly treated or compensated, either by Governments or companies, which are directly responsible. Victims took the health and safety laws that said that asbestos would not kill or cause illness at face value. The Housing Executive is now doing the same thing. Many workers from Harland & Wolff are suffering from exposure to asbestos. What about public liability? For many years, big insurance companies have been getting enormous amounts of money from public liability cover, yet they refuse to pay the victims. It is time that that point was taken on board.

Responsibility lies with the Department for Employment and Learning and the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment. They must act now on behalf of the victims. As with the Fairchild judgement, the High Court will force Carmel Hanna's Department to act. A safety net must be put in place for asbestosis sufferers. Better legislation is required to effectively hold companies to account. I thank all the Members who have supported the motion. Go raibh míle maith agat.

I acknowledge and highlight the very real human cost of this dreadful disease, not only to the individuals who contract it, but also to their families. Through recent coverage, we have all seen the plight of sufferers and how their lives are literally taken away from them, in some cases in just a few short months, leaving their families bereaved and in shock. As a human being, I can only offer my deep sympathies to all those afflicted by this terrible disease.

First, I will refer to the recent House of Lords' judgement on the Fairchild ruling. Many people in Northern Ireland and Great Britain have been afflicted by dust-related industrial diseases, particularly mesothelioma, as a result of their past working environment. It can be many years before the symptoms are detected. Therefore, a significant period may elapse before sufferers realise that a disease caused by their working environment is afflicting them.

For workers who have been affected by asbestos in their working environment to seek redress, the legal process is clear. Individuals take civil actions against their past employers through the court system. In many cases that worked well and people received appropriate redress. Moreover, where the relevant employer had gone out of business or could not be identified, the Government provided the pneumoconiosis (workers' compensation) scheme in respect of dust-related diseases, and that is administered by my Department.

However, Members are aware that some people who were exposed to asbestos by more than one employer have had real and substantial difficulties in pursuing their claims. The Court of Appeal explicitly addressed those difficulties in the Fairchild ruling. The effect of that ruling was that sufferers from work-related mesothelioma who had worked for more than one employer were prevented from seeking compensation through the courts if they could not prove which employer was responsible.

In the light of concerns expressed about the Fairchild ruling, I took action in the short term to help affected sufferers from work-related mesothelioma. On 22 April, I announced that the pneumoconiosis scheme in respect of dust-related diseases would be extended to cover qualifying workers affected by the ruling, provided that the eligibility conditions were met. Mesothelioma is a terrible disease, and it would have been dreadfully wrong for former employees and their families to have been left without help as a result of that court judgement.

The Fairchild ruling was taken to the House of Lords, which adjourned the appeal against it until 7 May 2002. On 16 May, it was announced that the House of Lords had set aside the ruling. Although we await the detail of that judgement, my understanding is that people who suffer from work-related mesothelioma and who worked for more than one employer are no longer prevented from seeking compensation through the courts. I am pleased that sufferers now have access to compensation, to which they are rightly entitled.

When the decision by the House of Lords is published, my Department, together with other Departments, must examine the detailed reasons behind it carefully. We can then determine further necessary action in relation to the pneumoconiosis (workers' compensation) scheme. With regard to primary responsibility for the provision of compensation for sufferers, the current position is clear. Responsibility rests with the employers and their insurers, and, to date, that point seems to have been accepted by insurance companies in the immediate aftermath of the judgement by the House of Lords. My Department will therefore have little change to make to the pneumoconiosis (workers' compensation) scheme.

My past responses have dealt with the implications of the Fairchild ruling. I recently announced a plan to extend provisions specifically to cover those affected by it. The judgement by the House of Lords may now have made that extension unnecessary. However, my Department will continue to monitor the situation carefully.

It is accepted that the legacy of human suffering resulting from past exposure to asbestos is terrible. Northern Ireland is not unique in that regard. It is currently estimated that in Northern Ireland previous exposure to asbestos causes, or contributes to, approximately 60 to 80 deaths each year. Asbestos-related diseases are currently responsible for an estimated 3,400 deaths a year in Great Britain. It is estimated that the number of deaths resulting from such diseases will not peak for a further 10 to 20 years. Tragically, the full extent of the dangers of asbestos was not realised by Government, employers or employees until it was - sadly - too late for so many people.

Asbestos was used widely in the shipbuilding, ship repair, thermal insulation and building industries from the 1940s to the 1970s, mainly because of its superior insulation and fire-resistant properties.

Asbestos-related diseases remain latent for a long time; typically, 35 to 40 years will elapse between a person's exposure to the substance and the development of a disease. It was, therefore, only after many workers were exposed to asbestos that the true extent of the danger was fully appreciated and legislation introduced to better control its use. The use of asbestos is banned in Northern Ireland.

We cannot undo what has been done, but we have learnt important lessons, and we should continue to do so. Northern Ireland's stringent legislation to control the use of asbestos is comparable with that of any other country in Europe. The Health and Safety Executive's inspectors are responsible for that legislation.

The situation is more complex for private citizens. Responsibility for asbestos control falls to different Government Departments or the court system, depending on such factors as how the material was used, the environment in which it was found and the owner of the premises. Each citizen has a large responsibility for his or her health, safety and welfare. To that end, I am aware of the need for comprehensive, objective information on asbestos and the related health and safety, social and financial issues. That is especially important given that a problem has been identified in Andersonstown, in respect of which I hope an agreement will be reached between the Housing Executive and local residents, whether they own their houses or not.

The debate helped us to identify many information issues that must be addressed. All Departments, including my officials, will take note of all the matters raised and will address them as speedily as possible. I thank the Members who proposed the motion, and those who participated in the debate, for highlighting these important issues that tragically affect many people, and which I hope will be addressed seriously.

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I am glad that such an important issue has been debated. It is important because asbestosis and related diseases have brought tragedy to many families and have been covered up for many years. I am glad that Robbie Brown and his colleagues are here today with their wives and children. They have fought a tough campaign to highlight the sustained suffering that they have endured without any public or political attention.

I am glad, too, that the Law Lords, in their wisdom, made their recent ruling. Trade unions and lawyers agree that the judgement will help thousands of sufferers and will teach the insurance industry a lesson that it will never forget. The insurance industry has consistently denied its responsibility to those who were left without any recourse to claim compensation for the effects that, unbeknown to them, exposure to asbestos had on them.

The people themselves did not know that they were breathing in death. Death by asbestosis is described as a silent death, a death that comes unnoticed. As someone who served his time in a small Corporation Street marine repair yard in the early 1950s, I know that asbestos was the only material that was available for lagging pipes. It was there in the morning, during the day, in the evening and at tea break. Asbestos was everywhere. It was thrown about, yet people were unaware that they were breathing in death. That alone was bad enough, but it was even worse to discover that insurance companies in particular, and unscrupulous employers, tried to evade their responsibilities. The Law Lords' judgement has cut off that escape hatch for those unscrupulous employers and insurance companies.

I want to thank those Members who contributed to the debate. Many Members have spoken in support of the motion, and I am glad about that. I will not rehash everything that they said, but all aspects have been well ventilated. Mr Neeson mentioned issues that campaigners against asbestosis raised with us.

The comments on Housing Executive houses in Andersonstown were new to me. I was unaware that that was a factor that caused asbestosis among people who were unaware that they were being exposed to asbestos daily.

I pay tribute to the Assembly's research services, which supplied us with information on asbestosis and asbestos about which we were unaware. We learned that asbestos was first heard of 2,000 years ago when the Greeks used it for yarn, and people died from lung-related diseases in those days - that is how far back the disease goes.

I recommend that compensation be exclusive of benefits. People who receive compensation should not be punished by having their benefits cut or stopped. That is the current situation for people with asbestosis. Compensation should be payable after someone has died from asbestosis. The wives and children who are left behind should remain beneficiaries of that compensation.

Today I was talking to an Assembly staff member whose father worked in the shipyard. His father recently had an X-ray taken that showed the presence of asbestos fibres on his lungs. That man carried asbestos home from work on his overalls, as did many shipyard workers. Mothers and daughters shook out the overalls and the dust was in the kitchen, the sitting room and the yard. Unknowingly, even the children breathed in death.

I welcome the presence of the Minister for Employment and Learning and the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety. However, given the seriousness of the subject, it is disappointing that other Ministers are absent.

As Monica McWilliams said, innocent children who hugged their fathers when they came home from work are now infected with asbestosis without knowing it. According to researchers, asbestosis is a silent and invisible killer that lies dormant for up to 40 years before striking in the form of a terrifying and painful illness.

I have just been reminded that Desmond Nesbitt is here. I am sorry for not including the Member in my remarks.

Mr Deputy Speaker, my name is Dermot. Is that the Irish?

I was using the vernacular. Sorry.

One lawyer described the ruling as the most significant decision in the history of industrial disease compensation. Like many people here, I worked in industry. We have been ignored. Diseases such as dermatitis and other industrial-related illnesses have been ignored over the years. This ruling might mark a watershed, and all industrial diseases may now be put under the spotlight and dealt with properly. This case has been settled as we had hoped it would be for those who have suffered silently and for so long from asbestosis.

TOP

<< Prev / Next >>