Westminster refuses to say who’ll pay for Scots asbestos law

MINISTERS HAVE accused Westminster of hampering a new law to let Scots workers sue for asbestos exposure.

The SNP government hopes to pass a Holyrood bill this month allowing compensation claims for scars on the lung known as pleural plaques.

The plan has support from all parties, and would give Scots workers broader scope for damages claims than in England and Wales.
advertisement

However, ministers are being frustrated by repeated Westminster refusals to say how much the law will cost the Scottish government.

If Westminster agrees that UK departments such as the Ministry of Defence MoD should absorb the cost of pleural plaque claims in Scotland, the cost to Edinburgh would be £75,000. However, if Westminster invokes its right to make Edinburgh pay for the impact of the law on UK departments, the cost could run into tens of millions.

Despite months of being asked for clarity, the UK government is refusing to say whether it will invoke its "Statement of Funding" right until after the new law is passed, forcing MSPs to try to legislate without knowing the bill's full financial impact.

Westminster is thought to be reluctant to state its position in case the Scots law leads to calls for a similar law in England, which would generate huge government compensation pay-outs.

Fergus Ewing, the community safety minister, last night expressed his anger at the "chicken and egg" impasse and said the bill, "if it becomes law", would redress a great wrong.

"I am obviously concerned that we have not yet received a meaningful response from the UK government, despite repeated requests to them to clarify if they will invoke the Statement of Funding Policy.

"We cannot imagine that the UK departments, notably the MoD and Berr the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform would wish to shirk their legal responsibility to pay due compensation to those who have pleural plaques, particularly those who have worked in shipyards. It would be irresponsible to deny these people justice."

The new law would overturn a 2007 House of Lords ruling that pleural plaques, which are symptomless and do not develop into mesothelioma, are too trivial to merit damages, despite being caused by asbestos.

Until the ruling, workers throughout the UK could sue employers for damages for pleural plaques, provided they could prove negligence.

The average settlement was £8000, with legal costs to the employer of £6000 per case.

After the Lords ruling, Scottish ministers promised to restore the right to sue. Although accepting they cause no physical harm, ministers say the scars generate anxiety and stress, and confirm exposure to asbestos.

The estimated cost to businesses of restoring damages claims is put at £17m to settle existing cases, then £5.5m per year. Scottish councils face a £1m bill to settle existing cases, plus £500,000 a year. Central government faces a bill of just £75,000 to settle existing cases.

However, that figure depends on Westminster bearing the cost of claims against the MoD, over the Naval Dockyard at Rosyth, and Berr, over British Shipbuilders and the British Coal Corporation.

The Berr liability for Scots workers is estimated at £5.3m, while the MoD bill is put at £520,000 to settle existing cases plus £170,000 per year.

However, insurers predict the new law will lead to a wave of fresh claims and that the bills could run into tens of millions. Solicitor advocate Frank Maguire of Thompsons Solicitors, who represents the majority of pleural plaques victims in Scotland, said: "If the MoD recklessly exposed workers to asbestos, why should they be exempt when these workers develop pleural plaques?

"The Statement of Funding Policy is a very flimsy convention that can in no way be allowed to act as some sort of Get out of jail free' card.

"This legislation is desperately needed by victims of pleural plaques, who have to live with the terrible fear of developing fatal cancers like mesothelioma."

But Nick Starling, of the Association of British Insurers, which is deeply sceptical about the new legislation, said: "It's vital that members of the Scottish parliament understand the full extent of the costs involved in this bill before they vote on it and hand those costs on to insurers and other parts of the public sector."

A spokeswoman for the Ministry of Justice, which handles cross-border relations, said: "It would be inappropriate to comment on the possible jurisdictional effects of the Scottish bill."

By Tom Gordon, Scottish Political Editor