The Joint Union Asbestos Committee* (JUAC) said that a recent judgement against the University of Lincoln, which exposed staff to asbestos fibres, indicated how easily things can go wrong if asbestos is not properly managed in educational institutions. It underlines how important it is that the Government does not transfer responsibility away from local authorities who have the specialist knowledge and resources to help local authority schools safely maintain their asbestos.

 Julie Winn, Chair of JUAC, today said that making school governing bodies (and therefore the governors) the ultimate employer means they will have to assume the full legal responsibilities for the health and safety of their staff and pupils.

 Ms Winn, also a former chair of governors, said: “Governors freely volunteered their time and expertise to support schools, but this is a step too far. It is hard to envisage how governors will cope with this additional responsibility with the limited time and resources available to them.

 “Although more than 75% of all UK schools contain asbestos, currently there is not any specific school guidance for the management of asbestos nor any specific training on the management of asbestos in schools. The Government has also recently scrapped the health and safety inspections of schools that ensured they were achieving safe standards.

 “This is yet a further attempt to deregulate without proper consideration of the practical impact on the risk to the health and safety of staff and pupils in UK schools. The UK already has the highest incidence of mesothelioma deaths in the world, with teacher deaths from mesothelioma increasing year on year. We fear these changes will put more staff and pupils at risk of potentially deadly exposure to asbestos.”

 Michael Lees, founder of the Asbestos in Schools Group (AIS), said: “Asbestos can kill unless it is effectively managed, therefore the best local authorities have trained, dedicated officials so they can achieve the rigorous standards required. This proposal will inevitably put staff and pupils at risk. It will also impose an intolerable burden on governors, for if something does go wrong then instead of legal action being taken against the local authority, it will in future be taken against the governors. One must question how many people will volunteer to be governors if that is the case.”

 Christine Blower, General Secretary of the National Union of Teachers (NUT), said:  “These proposals will do nothing to protect children and teachers from the threat of poorly-managed asbestos in schools. Governors will be left to manage school buildings – around three quarters of which contain asbestos – without access to local authority support and expertise. This is a huge responsibility. With the UK having the highest incidence of mesothelioma deaths in the world and with teacher deaths from mesothelioma increasing year on year, aasbestos exposure in schools is a grave concern. It is high time the Government started treating it as such.”

 Dr Mary Bousted, general secretary of the Association of Teachers and Lecturers (ATL), said:  “The government needs to put the health and safety of children and school staff first – it must not be sacrificed for deregulation. The safe management of asbestos in our schools is too important to leave to chance, and is already too piecemeal and poorly managed in many schools. Unless asbestos management in schools improves more pupils and school staff will be at risk and their lives will be potentially endangered. It is hard to see how transferring the management of asbestos to school governors will bring about an improvement.”

 For further information please contact Julie Winn on 07736 490357.

The measures change the way that Conditional Fee Agreements operate so that injured claimants will have to pay legal costs of up to 25% of damages for pain and suffering and past losses and they will also have to pay for the cost of insurance in the event of losing a case.

The current CFA arrangements were made to offset the abolition of Legal Aid for almost all personal injury claims and were designed to improve access to justice.

Charities are warning that the proposed changes will deter many seriously injured people from claiming compensation because of the potential financial risks they may incur and the heavy burden of legal costs. In many cases, compensation is needed to pay for round the clock care, and if compensation is unavailable it is likely these costs will have to be picked up by the NHS and local authorities, potentially causing extra strain on public services.

The following charities are appealing to MPs and Lords to reject measures within the Bill which will hinder access to justice for victims who need and deserve full compensation for their horrendous injuries, traumatic bereavements and terminal diseases. They are calling for an alternative approach to be sought, which will control the costs of civil litigation without restricting access to justice for innocent victims.

Asbestos Victims Support Groups Forum

Aspire - Charity supporting people with spinal injuries

Child Brain Injury Trust

Headway, the brain injury association

RoadPeace, the national charity for road crash victims

Spinal Injuries Association (SIA)

All media enquiries contact for the charities: Tony Whitston 07748189837

CASE STUDY AND CALLS FOR ACTION

Trevor Oldham who is 63 suffers from mesothelioma, a fatal asbestos cancer. On leaving school he worked as a lift engineer for a company for 25 years during which time he was regularly exposed to asbestos. He was never warned of the dangers of asbestos or given adequate protection. Over 2,400 people are diagnosed with mesothelioma each year and claiming compensation while coming to terms with such a shocking diagnosis is extremely difficult. Many mesothelioma sufferers never make a claim because of the devastating effects of this cancer.

Trevor says: “I was shattered when I was diagnosed with mesothelioma on the 5^th March 2010 when our lives were changed forever. We would never have taken on the stress of claiming compensation if I had to take any financial risk. If this Bill is passed many asbestos victims will never claim compensation and never get the justice they deserve.”

Calls for action

Tony Whitson, Chair, Asbestos Victims Support Groups Forum UK, says:  “This Bill misses the target: it punishes innocent victims instead of tackling real issues with the system, such as irresponsible claims marketing and fraudulent claims. We are calling on MPs and Lords to listen to the voice of victims, and address the inherent problems with this Bill, which will hinder victims’ access justice if it goes through in its present form.”

Peter McCabe, Chief Executive of Headway – the brain injury association, says: “The unintended consequences of these reforms will see people who have sustained catastrophic, life-changing injuries who are already trying to cope with severe injury or disability, becoming victims for a second time.

 “It is illogical to shift the cost of providing access to justice from civil wrongdoers to wronged and injured claimants. To do so would be to punish victims who in many cases are facing lifelong disability and rely on the damages received to meet new and ongoing needs such as adapting property or accessing specialist rehabilitation services.”

 Amy Aeron-Thomas, Executive Director RoadPeace

These proposals will make it harder for victims to claim compensation after they have been bereaved or injured by another. They will also receive less compensation with solicitor fees deducted. Innocent victims are being sacrificed in the government’s zeal to reduce fraudulent claims and legal costs. Injured pedestrians and cyclists will be hardest hit by these proposals and that cannot be right at a time the government is promoting active travel.

 Frederick Cameron, 72, who suffers from mesothelioma and may have only months to live, warns that if the justice secretary Ken Clarke removes the principle of ‘polluter pays’, and makes asbestos victims pay legal costs, many will never make a claim.

 The Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill, currently before Parliament, will mean that asbestos victims:

• will have to pay up to 25% of their compensation for pain and suffering to fund their solicitors’ success fees;
• will have to fund insurance to run their case;
• will risk their savings in order to make a claim.

He said: “Having been told that you are going to die is unbelievably hard. I am not an old man. Deciding to bring a claim was tough. I have worked all my life and never made a claim, you feel disloyal in a way but I don’t see why my employers should get away with giving me a death sentence. I am a pensioner and don’t have money for medical reports and insurance. Fortunately for me all these costs were paid by the guilty party. I fear for others who are in the same position as me and who will not risk taking a claim because they will have to face these costs.”

 Tony Whitston, Forum Chair says: “Innocent asbestos victims are being punished for the government’s failure to enforce the law banning illegal texts and cold-calling to solicit injury claims, perpetuating the myth that all claimants are cashing in on a so-called compensation culture. It’s time the Government addressed the real problems and stopped scape-goating dying asbestos victims and blaming them for the costs of the litigation system.”

 In recognition of the failure of so many asbestos victims who suffer serious illnesses to get compensation because they cannot trace insurance policies the previous government promised to address this problem when the Law Lords ended compensation for pleural plaques.

 A Labour Government consultation on a proposal to set up an insurance fund of last resort to provide cover for asbestos victims who could not trace their insurers closed in May 2010. Lord Freud has still not responded to the consultation and hundreds of asbestos victims are dying without compensation.

 Tony Whitston, Forum Chair says: “The insurance industry routinely destroyed insurance policies long after it was known that asbestos disease could take decades to develop. They have escaped liability for insurance they were paid for and have saved hundreds of £millions. It seemed fair that asbestos victims should be treated no differently than injured motorists who are paid from a fund if an insurance policy cannot be traced. This view was strengthened when insurers’ liability for plaques was removed. It is time that this injustice is remedied, especially now when pleural plaques sufferers outside Scotland are further disadvantaged.”

These particular paintings are very specific to the MKMRF, as they were inspired by the River boat trip taken from South Shields down to the Tyne Bridge and back again with The Mesothelioma Support group.

 I accompanied my Mum Betty Thoms that day, as I often did to these events with the group as they meant so to Mum.

Millennium Arch

It was a glorious day and the river never looked better. It was a very enjoyable day indeed. I snapped with my camera throughout and got some great shots of the Newcastle bridges which I later used as reference for these paintings.

 This is my way of saying a HUGE THANK YOU to the support group for the life-line they gave to Mum, the group made a huge difference to Mum’s world after Dad died from Mesothelioma now 6 years ago.

Sadly Mum passed away too in December last year and I know she would have been keen to support the work of the Mick Knighton Mesothelioma Research Fund.

 It seems right and fitting that these two original watercolours should be given to the MKMRF to help fundraising. They were recently hanging in The North East Collective Gallery in Eldon Gardens where they had a price tag of £325 each. Without gallery commission the value should be in the region of £220 ono . 

Any reasonable offer considered, please contact Chris Knighton: 0191 2637386 or c.knighton@mkmrf.org.uk for more details

 The paintings are also available by order as signed Limited Edition prints @ £55 each (mounted but unframed).  I will donate a further £10 from any order received by Mesothelioma supporters.

 Carol White.

We are writing to mesothelioma sufferers and their families who are making a claim for compensation, or who have made a claim for compensation, because the Government intends to make major changes which may seriously affect mesothelioma claimants in the future.

Currently, on winning your case the guilty defendant pays all the legal costs associated with your case so that no legal costs are deducted from your compensation and you do not have to take any financial risk on making a claim for compensation. We think that is fair.

The Government has introduced a Bill (the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill) to make people who claim compensation for a personal injury or disease, including mesothelioma sufferers, pay some legal costs out of their compensation. It will also mean lawyers are less likely to take on difficult cases which mesothelioma cases often are.

The costs could amount to 25% of compensation for pain and suffering and past financial losses as well as for outlays such as essential medical reports or for taking out insurance to cover the defendant’s legal costs.

It would not be possible to know in advance exactly how much would have to be paid out of compensation in order to pay for legal costs and insurance

We would like to know if you think it is right that mesothelioma sufferers should, in the future, have to risk part of their compensation to pay legal costs, and whether your decision to claim compensation would have been affected if you had to risk losing part of your compensation to pay legal costs.

We would be very grateful if you would kindly complete the attached short questionnaire and return it to the Asbestos Forum.

Yours sincerely

 Tony Whitson

Chair of the Asbestos Forum UK

———————————————————————————————

Questionnaire

Q. 1. Do you oppose the proposals to make innocent mesothelioma sufferers who make a claim for compensation risk paying for some of their legal costs out of their compensation?

Please tick  Yes                                                       No

Q2. Do you agree or disagree with the following statements?

A) Making me pay part of my compensation in legal costs would have made a difficult time worse.

Agree                                                  Disagree

B) It was a big decision to make a claim; having to risk any of the compensation in legal costs would have made that decision even more difficult.

                      Agree                                        Disagree

C) It was a big decision to make a claim; having to risk paying costs, like the cost of insurance premiums, if the case had been lost would have made that decision even more difficult.

Agree                                                    Disagree

Comments:

Please return this form to:
Tony Whitson
Windrush Millennium Centre
Unit 2.5
70 Alexandra Road
Moss Side   Manchester M16 7WD

Email:asbestos.gmavsg@virgin.net

General Statistics

MOD pay compensation to family of man killed by asbestos in RAF housing
exposed to asbestos as a child.

The family of a dad who died after he was exposed to asbestos as a child in his family home on an RAF base has received a substantial six figure sum in compensation from the Ministry of Defence.

Richard Rouse, from Winchester, was aged just 53 when he died in May 2008 after he was diagnosed with the fatal asbestos related condition, mesothelioma.

Asbestos claim specialists, Thompsons Solicitors, successfully obtained the compensation on behalf of his family.

Mesothelioma is an aggressive cancer of the lining of the lungs which takes decades for symptoms to occur after inhaling asbestos fibres.

Asbestos in RAF Married Quarters
He was exposed to asbestos when he was living with his parents in married quarters at RAF Debden in Essex from 1956 to 1959.

Between the ages of two and five he slept every night next to a radiator which had pipes covered with asbestos and he played hide and seek in a cupboard which contained asbestos insulated pipes.

Richard went onto serve in the Army and reached the rank of Colonel before he left in 2005. Between 1986 and 1995 he served at Army premises in Worthy Down where he was exposed to dust from the repair and maintenance of asbestos based building materials.

Thompsons commenced court proceedings against The Ministry of Defence which denied liability.

Evidence relied upon by Thompsons confirmed the extensive presence of asbestos to which Richard was exposed. Although The Ministry of Defence maintained a denial of liability, the High Court entered judgment on liability in favour of Mr Rouse’s family.

Diagnosed with mesothelioma after leaving the Army
Richard retired after serving in the Army for 33 years with the intention of commencing his own business as an IT Consultant. Unfortunately before doing so he was diagnosed with mesothelioma shortly after leaving the Army.

Before his death Richard felt strongly about claiming compensation. He instructed Thompsons Solicitors and his wife, Sally, continued his claim on his behalf.

Tony Hood from Thompsons Solicitors’ specialist asbestos team dealt with the case. He said: “We pursued this compensation claim because the MOD failed in its duty to protect this child of service personnel from a well recognised carcinogenic risk of asbestos. As a result of this negligence his life was tragically cut short.

“The level of compensation recovered reflects the earning capacity that he would have achieved had it not been for his premature death. Whilst it will provide financial security for his family it can never replace their loss.”

His wife, Sally Rouse added: “Words cannot describe the full extent in which this disease has ripped our family apart. Despite suffering terribly, he was brave and mentally strong until the end.

“It was extremely important to him to claim compensation. He was appalled that his family had been exposed to such a danger in Armed Services accommodation. He was also determined to make sure that our two sons were looked after financially.”

Part 2 of the Bill contains provisions to make personal injury claimants bear legal costs which were paid by the defendant who is guilty of causing injury.

The provisions are drawn from Sir Rupert Jackson’s ‘Proposals for Reform of Civil Litigation Funding in England and Wales which “provide the opportunity to rebalance the risks of litigation between claimants and defendants”

Tony Whitston, Forum Chair, says:
“Mesothelioma sufferers endure pain and suffering and an untimely death because of the risks of exposure to asbestos they had to take. Now they are told that they must carry the risks of suing for compensation – isn’t the risk of losing their lives enough? Where is the justice in making dying asbestos victims bear the burden of legal costs on top of the pain and suffering, while rich and powerful insurance companies enjoy relief from costs which the losing party have, and should, rightly bear. The fact is that many frail and terminally ill sufferers will no longer sue for compensation, fearing more uncertainty and stress of litigation. A victory for Government cost cutting but a defeat for justice and a shameful attack on compensation for those who have lost their health and their lives.”