February 2010

Consultation

"Accessing Compensation - Supporting people who need to trace Employers Liability Insurance."

This consultation by the Department for Work and Pensions envisages setting up:-

1. A better database that will help mesothelioma victims and their families find insurers of employers that have gone out of business.

2. An Employers' Liability Insurance Bureau to compensate people or families who can still not find insurers.

http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/elci-compensation-consultation.pdf

If you want a copy of the consultation paper, I will send you one.

The consultation process ends on 5 May 2010.

November 2009

Mesothelioma & Palliative Care Seminar 12th November

Greater Manchester Asbestos Victims Support Group is holding a seminar on palliative care for mesothelioma sufferers in Manchester on 12th November. The keynote speaker is Dr. Helen Clayson, clinical director, St. Mary's Hospice, Ulverston and founder of the Barrow in Furness Asbestos Victims Support Group.

The seminar will be at

The Mechanics Institute
103 Princess Street (side entrance Major Street)
Manchester M1 6DD
Thursday 12th November 2009
Lunch 12.30 – 13.00 Seminar 13.00 – 16.00

Contact: GMAVSG, Windrush Millennium Centre, 70 Alexandra Road, Manchester, M16 7WD
Tel: 0161 636 7555 Fax: 0161 636 7556

e mail asbestos.gmavsg@virgin.net

July 2009

Payments made under the Pneumoconiosis etc (Workers Compensation) Act 1979 and the 2008 Mesothelioma Scheme will no longer be deducted from payments later made by the T&N Asbestos Trustee Company Limited.

February 2009

Action Mesothelioma Day - Manchester

Photograph - Geoff Tweedale

October 2008

The Health & Safety Executive (HSE) is running a campaign about mesothelioma and the risks of asbestos. There is a lot of useful new information on its website. The link is

http://www.hse.gov.uk/asbestos/

September 2008

Book review - Defending the Indefensible

July 2008

Pleural plaques

A consultation produced by the Ministry of Justice is available on the Ministry of Justice website: www.justice.gov.uk

Mesothelioma UK July 2008 update

Asbestos Victims Support Groups Forum UK update July 2008

April 2008

Mesothelioma sufferers have featured in a DVD especially produced by the
Asbestos Victims Support Groups' Forum

This is their message in their words, speaking for all mesothelioma sufferers and their families: Awareness - Prevention - Action.
For copies of the DVD ( these cost £5.60 - inc. P&P ), please e-mail : asbestos.gmavsg@virgin.net

April 2008

Mesothelioma UK update April 2008

27 February 2008

Action Mesothelioma Day, Manchester

Photograph, Geoff Tweedale

Home About Us Social Day Fundraising Contact Us

Welcome to Greater Manchester Asbestos Victims Support Group

(GMAVSG)

Greater Manchester Asbestos Victims Support Group (GMAVSG) is a registered charity ( Reg. Charity No. 1113201) established by asbestos victims to provide advice, information and support for people with asbestos-related diseases.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Remembering Nancy Tait MBE Hon DUniv
Obituary

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MESOTHELIOMA UK

Bulletin January 2008

Direct Line 0116 256 3739

Fax 0116 250 2810

National Macmillan Mesothelioma Resource Centre

Email: mesothelioma.uk@uhl-tr.nhs.uk

Helpline 0800 1692409

Website www.mesothelioma.uk.com

MESOTHELIOMA UK UPDATE

The helpline continues to be open Monday – Friday 09.00 -16.30 hours. To date it has taken 2030 calls, averaging 73 a month or 17 calls per week. We have also received 435 email enquiries. The website is continually being reviewed and currently receives over 1000 hits each month.

In October 2007 Mesothelioma UK held the second patient and carer day in London. An overwhelming 150 delegates attended and evaluation following the event was outstanding. A Mesothelioma UK Newsletter for patients and carers that will be distributed quarterly was launched shortly after, which included a comprehensive write up by Debbie Brewer on the Patient and Carer day presentations. For more information please check the Mesothelioma UK website.

The third Mesothelioma UK Symposium at the National Lung Cancer Forum for Nurses annual conference was also held in November 2007 and again this received excellent evaluation.

Working with the Asbestos Diseases Forum a booklet advising mesothelioma patients how to gain access to Pemetrexed has recently been completed. It explains the NICE process for approving drugs, how to apply for funding and appeal against local negative PCT decisions. Copies can be obtained from any of the Asbestos Diseases Support Groups or Mesothelioma UK.

Mesothelioma Nurse Action Team M-NAT

In response to the National Mesothelioma Framework 30+ members of the National Lung Cancer Forum for Nurses, representing every cancer network, have joined forces to form an action team, M-NAT, the aim being to identify priorities for nurses within mesothelioma care and develop a national action plan to enable nurses to work together to achieve improved standards. The team’s progress will be reported in the Mesothelioma UK bulletin.

ACTION MESOTHELIOMA DAY – 27th FEBRUARY 2008

The third annual Action Mesothelioma Day (AMD) is being held on February 27th 2008. The main aim of AMD will be to build on previous years with regard to raising awareness of mesothelioma and campaigning on the points in the Mesothelioma Charter. A variety of activities are taking place around the UK, many organised by Asbestos Support Groups, patients and carers. The British Lung Foundation has surveyed cancer networks to evaluate progress made toward the National Mesothelioma Framework. They are also continuing to explore the variation in coroners’ practice and will be holding a parliamentary reception.

Mesothelioma UK communicates events for the day to everyone and anyone interested. If you are organising an AMD event in your area please forward details so that we can let everyone know.

Action Mesothelioma Day Case Studies

The BLF are hoping to get The Sun to support this year's Action Mesothelioma campaign and the health editor seems quite keen as trades people are among their key readers, but would ideally like three case studies, so for example, a builder, carpenter and gas fitter.

If you have a patient who would consider having their story 'in print' please seek their permission and forward their details to Mesothelioma UK or to Kerry Kalcher, Press Officer, The British Lung Foundation, Tel: 0207 688 5564.

Mesothelioma Provisions in the Child Maintenance and Other Payments Bill (CMOP)

Little has changed since we last reported on this bill in July 2007 and until it is enacted regulations remain unchanged. If you would like to keep up with what is happening yourself follow the link Bills and Legislation under the Business Heading http://www.parliament.uk/

Meso Uk was contacted recently by one department within the DWP. Forms are currently being developed for the new act which is currently referred to as the 2008 Diffuse Mesothelioma Act. It is thought that the act will be in place by this summer.

Health Technology Appraisal

Pemetrexed disodium for the treatment of mesothelioma

Nice have now confirmed that full guidance along with the final appraisal decision will be published and made available on their website (www.nice.org.uk) on Wednesday 23 January 2008.

British Mesothelioma Interest Group

The BMIG held its first meeting in Leicester in 2001, when 183 delegates met to discuss research findings and clinical aspects of mesothelioma.

This meeting was highly successful and attracted the regional press and television. All went quiet for a while, whilst BMIG was incorporated into the ever-growing British Thoracic Oncology Group, which has held annual meetings since 2003. A BMIG Investigators Meeting was held in July 2007 in London, at which point it was decided to use the organisation to:

disseminate information about basic science research
encourage collaboration between research groups
act as lobby group for matters pertaining to mesothelioma research, in particular to dedicated research funding
act as a “think tank” for future clinical trials, reporting to the National Cancer Research Network Mesothelioma Subgroup

Co-ordinated by Mr John Edwards, Consultant Thoracic Surgeon in Sheffield, the BMIG intends to meet twice yearly with these aims in mind. There will be two sessions dedicated to Mesothelioma at the BTOG meeting at the end of January, at which basic science research and current and future trials of chemotherapy and surgery will be discussed.

Mr Edwards can be contacted at john.edwards@sth.nhs.uk

Royal Oldham Hospital Cordotomy Service

The Department of Health early this year produced their Mesothelioma Framework document. In this it stated that palliative care plays a key role in these patients care. To quote: “Specialist palliative care including specific interventions such as radiotherapy to the site of chest drainage/biopsy, nerve blocks & cordotomy, are of particular importance in providing relief for some patients”.

Cordotomy is a specialised pain intervention technique, which can be done under local anaesthetic. It is best done early if indicated, rather than late in the disease when patients are unable to lie flat for the procedure. Doing large numbers in a specialist centre is more likely to consistently achieve high success rates with low complication rates. Currently the only centre doing large numbers of patients each year in the UK is at Portsmouth.

In order to provide cordotomy services across the country a large expansion will be required, to allow sufficient numbers to meet demand and to allow for convenient patient access to these specialist services.

A new service outside Manchester has been established in the RoyalOldhamHospital by myself and is open for referrals from December 2007.

I am attempting to contact known cordotomy practitioners across the UK to try to encourage the establishment of a service within each Strategic Health Authorities (SHAs). To date Dr Hugh Antrobus (see previous newsletter) has agreed to coordinate a cluster of clinicians around Birmingham area.

Each new ‘centre’ will need a small core of doctors who are prepared to do large numbers of cases (at least 40-80 per annum) with the resource implications implied on time and funding. This will ensure service continuity. They will need Trust and regional backing. In addition, training new additional practitioners will be a priority. For more information contact: Dr Paul Cook, Consultant in Anaesthesia & Palliative Care on: 0161 627 8829 or email: paul.cook@pat.nhs.uk.

TRIALS UPDATE

MALCS and TIPS

MALCS was set up over 6 years ago, to recruit mesotheliomaand primary resected lung cancer patients from across the UK, and we have obtained MREC approval to continue recruiting patients until 2015.

We aim to identify the occupations and work practices currently conferring the highest risk of mesothelioma through telephone interviews with patients.

We would like to say a big THANK YOU to all those individuals and centres who have been recruiting patients for us over the years and encourage you to continue. We would also be delighted to hear from new centres able to recruit patients for us. We are actively seeking to recruit all female mesothelioma patients (of any age) and male mesothelioma patients aged under 60. In addition, we are seeking to recruit male resected lung cancer patients born after 1940. Data from the first 624 mesothelioma patients and 425 resected lung cancer patients interviewed and are just about to be published and anyone on our mailing list will receive an outline of these results.

The Inhaled Particles Study (TIPS) is closed to recruitment of new centres as we have enough centres currently participating.

TIPS was set up to evaluate the risk of mesothelioma to much younger (construction and other) workers. This study will also determine any possible risks from current environmental or DIY asbestos exposures.

If you would like to help us with MALCS and you see mesothelioma patients or resected lung cancer patients, we would be delighted to hear from you.

Please contact the MALCS study team on MALCS@icr.ac.uk or email Elaine.Mills@icr.ac.uk.

MESOVATS Trial

The MesoVATS study has seen a marked increase in activity at Papworth towards the end of last year and we predict that this trend is likely to continue for a while as we have several patients in screening at the moment. Recruitment at Guys and Leicester is ongoing although numbers are small. It is hoped that Basildon (Andy Ritchie), Brompton (Eric Lim) and Sheffield (John Edwards) will all soon be in a position to start recruiting - all systems are in place to facilitate this. We are optimistic that with six surgical centres and their local hospitals, we will experience a corresponding rise in MesoVATS activity. For further information, please contact either Helen Munday - helen.munday@papworth.nhs.uk or Robert Rintoul - robert.rintoul@papworth.nhs.uk.

Chemotherapy in Mesothelioma Project (ChiMP)

ChIMP (Chemotherapy In Mesothelioma Project) is a 1 year national project that aims to clarify what, where and how much chemotherapy treatment is being prescribed to Mesothelioma patients in England. Once completed the audit will help the funders of health care assess the likely cost impact, provide evidence of the characteristics of the patient group being treated, their fitness for treatment and any toxicity they experience. It should demonstrate where such patients are being treated and give insight into the frequency of suitable patients not being treated and why this occurs.

A clinical advisory group is monitoring progress of the audit and every effort has been made to ensure the audit is patient focused, uncomplicated and remains as user friendly as possible. Any help and support required by clinical teams to enter patients into the audit will be provided where possible.

Our intention is to start the audit on the 1st February 2008 and get as many centres involved as possible. We will be attending BTOG where you will be able to enrol your hospital or centre on the day or pick up an information leaflet.

Mesothelioma UK is leading this project and with your help and support it will be a success. For further information contact Jill Lemon via Mesothelioma UK Mon - Fri 9.00am – 5.00pm on 0800 169 2409 or e-mail mesothelioma.uk@uhl-tr.nhs.uk

2 November 2007

Mesothelioma pre action protocol

These comments apply to the latest draft pre-action protocol for mesothelioma claims. If you want a copy of the draft, I will e mail it to you.

This draft protocol has been produced following negotiations between a small number of people representing specific insurers and/or the Association of British Insurers (ABI), and the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers (APIL), overseen by the relevant government departments.

APIL has not at the date of writing consulted its membership about the desirability of having a new protocol, or the text of the protocol.

At the time of writing, the final version has not been published. The final version will be published and will go out to consultation in about 2 weeks.

It may be a limited consultation over a short time.

The draft pre action protocol is designed to compensate mesothelioma victims without court proceedings being necessary, and to delay court proceedings until substantial steps have been taken and information exchanged.

If a victim’s solicitor starts court proceedings too soon, the solicitor or the victim will be subject to sanctions – “Sanctions” means costs orders against the solicitor or the victim, or no payment for the solicitor for the work done and money paid out on behalf of the victim.

My experience is that mesothelioma cases just do not settle, and do not settle on the best terms for the victims, until court proceedings are not only issued, but close to completion, and that the best thing for the client is to start court action as quickly as possible.

There is already a pre action protocol for disease and illness claims. It deals with mesothelioma.

It states: “In a terminal disease claim with short life expectancy, for instance for a claimant who has a disease such as mesothelioma, the time scale of the protocol is likely to be too long. In such a claim, the claimant may not be able to follow the protocol, and the defendant would be expected to treat the claim with urgency.” In other words, mesothelioma victims can issue their cases and get on with them, and there is no suggestion that there will be sanctions against solicitors and victims who do progress their cases rapidly. There is nothing wrong with the existing disease and illness protocol.

Contrast the proposed new protocol: “1.4…If proceedings are issued, it will be for the Court to decide whether non-compliance with a protocol should merit adverse consequences. Guidance on the Court’s likely approach will be given from time to time in practice directions. 1.5 If the Court has to consider the question of compliance after proceedings have begun, it will not be concerned with minor infringements e.g. failure by a short period to provide relevant information. One minor breach will not exempt the “innocent” party from following the protocol. The Court will look at the effect of non-compliance on the other party when deciding whether to impose sanctions.”

In other words, complete uncertainty. The victim or his solicitor may be punished for getting on with the case, or might avoid sanctions, if “lucky”.

The notion of financial sanctions being imposed on mesothelioma victims or their solicitors, simply for pushing ahead with their cases, beggars belief.

This is a regressive and destructive document that, if implemented, will damage the interests of one of the most vulnerable and deserving groups of people. It should be opposed.

September 2007, Alimta

Two appeals have been filed against a decision by the National Institute of Clinical Excellence (NICE) to make the chemotherapy drug Alimta available on the NHS. Guidance for the use of Alimta was issued in July that would have allowed it to be given to patients under the NHS in many cases. Now, that decision has been put on hold, as NICE waits to hear two appeals against its original decision. NICE cannot yet make public who has appealed, or the basis of the appeals.

Mesothelioma incidence growing

"For men, the most rapidly increasing cancer incidence rates were for malignant melanoma (56%), prostate cancer (39%), mesothelioma (31%) and liver cancer (30%).

For women the most rapidly increasing rates were for mesothelioma (38%), liver cancer (38%), malignant melanoma (35%) and uterus cancer (33%)."

Source: Cancer Research UK Website

Alimta (Pemetrexed) to be available under NHS for malignant pleural mesothelioma in many cases, June 2007.

National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence
Final appraisal determination – Pemetrexed for the treatment of malignant pleural mesothelioma, June 2007

"The Committee discussed the subgroup of patients with both advanced disease and good performance status, in view of the relatively favourable ICERs of pemetrexed plus cisplatin versus cisplatin alone (£37,000 per QALY gained, or £34,500 per QALY gained assuming a 100-mg pemetrexed vial becomes available) that were calculated for this subgroup.

The Committee was aware that most people with unresectable disease would be considered to have advanced disease and that this subgroup of patients comprised the majority of people with Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma (MPM) seen in UK clinical practice. The Committee accepted that it was plausible that people with good performance status were likely to show a better response to treatment than those with poor performance status.

The Committee noted that not all patients respond to treatment with pemetrexed plus cisplatin and saw that, in the EMPHACIS trial, 87% of those who responded had done so within four cycles.

Furthermore, the Committee noted from the consultation that it would be unusual for a UK oncologist to continue treatment beyond four cycles if there was disease progression or no response to treatment. The Committee therefore accepted that the mean number of cycles in clinical practice was likely to be less than the mean of six cycles reported in the EMPHACIS trial, and this would result in lower estimates of pemetrexed drug costs.

The Committee discussed the possibility that differences in symptom relief (including pain and dyspnoea [breathlessness]) and quality of life between pemetrexed plus cisplatin and cisplatin alone may not have been captured fully by the economic model because the utilities for both treatment and comparator had been estimated based on data from people with NSCLC.

The Committee noted that there was some evidence from the EMPHACIS trial showing that pemetrexed plus cisplatin was associated with statistically significant symptomatic improvements (especially with pain relief) compared with cisplatin alone. The Committee agreed that the economic analyses may have underestimated the overall quality of life benefits of pemetrexed in people with Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma.

Having considered the likelihood of lower numbers of treatment cycles in clinical practice, the potential availability of a 100-mg pemetrexed vial and the likelihood of greater quality of life benefits than assumed by the cost-effectiveness analyses, the Committee agreed that the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for pemetrexed plus cisplatin in the fully supplemented subgroup with advanced disease and good performance status was likely to fall within acceptable levels.

The Committee also noted that pleural mesothelioma is a rare and aggressive malignancy caused by occupational exposure to asbestos, and was mindful that this disease has a very poor prognosis.

The Committee concluded that pemetrexed in combination with cisplatin should be recommended as an option for the treatment of Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma only in people who are considered to have advanced disease and who have a performance status of 0 or 1, in whom surgical intervention is not considered appropriate."

International Workers Memorial Day
28 April 2007

Manchester Joint Union Workers Memorial Day Rally
Saturday 28 April

11am in Peace Gardens, behind Manchester Town Hall

Speakers: Tony Lloyd MP, Regional Trade Unionists and
Families of those killed by work

Names of those killed will be read out

Minute's silence at 12 noon

Music from Claire Mooney

Followed by Refreshments at Mechanics Institute
Sponsored by Thompsons Solicitors

Later in Manchester 4pm to 6pm at Friends Meeting House, Mount Street:
Families Against Corporate Killers (FACK) sponsored FREE event
featuring a play: 0.079 p/h by Escape Theatre, followed by a discussion.

Plus video - 'The Human face of mesothelioma '

from the Asbestos GroupsForum

More details, contact

GMHC at mail@gmhazards.org.uk

Tel 0161 636 7557.

29 March 2007. Withdrawal of NHS funding for Alimta chemotherapy for mesothelioma

The press statement below by Eli Lilly, manufacturers of Alimta, comments on this decision, and the background to it.

NICE SAYS NO TO TREATMENT FOR PATIENTS DYING OF LUNG CANCER CAUSED BY ASBESTOS EXPOSURE

The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) is turning its back on men and women dying from asbestos-induced lung cancer in the UK. In the latest communication concerning the use of the licensed chemotherapy, Alimta® (pemetrexed disodium), NICE makes the recommendation that “pemetrexed disodium is not recommended for the treatment of (malignant pleural) mesothelioma. ”

Consequently, hundreds of patients are to be denied access to treatment which could give them up to an extra year of life. The recommendation also calls into question the use of cisplatin, a widely used chemotherapy agent that is given in combination with Alimta.

Professor Nick Thatcher, specialist lung consultant at the Christie Hospital NHS Trust and South Manchester University Trust Hospital comments: “Yet again NICE have applied their particular costing approach of one size fits all and as a result NHS patients will die prematurely from pleural mesothelioma. NICE’s way of assessing clinical evidence fails for drugs which treat rare and difficult conditions. This is devastating news for those people living with mesothelioma and their families who deserve better from the NHS, and will prevent further clinical research into rare and deadly conditions”.

Mesothelioma is primarily caused by exposure to asbestos – in the UK that means it affects people who have historically worked in manufacturing industries such as shipbuilding, construction work and railway engineering and is therefore concentrated in areas such as Glasgow, the North East, the North West, Belfast, Plymouth and Hampshire. Asbestos affects not only those who are directly exposed to it but other family members who have come into contact with the deadly fibres on clothing worn at the place of work.

Safety concerns with asbestos were first voiced in the UK in late 1970s meaning that most cases today are linked to exposure that occurred over 30 to 40 years ago. In the UK over 1,600 people died from mesothelioma in 2004 with the number of new cases of the disease expected to peak at 2,500 in 2015 .

Following a review of clinical trial data, Alimta received a licence in the UK in December 2004 and has been prescribed to patients for over 2 years . As recently as February this year, an independent review of Alimta data by The Cochrane Collaboration – a highly respected and influential review body - concluded that Alimta is an effective agent in the treatment of malignant mesothelioma providing a significant gain in survival when used with cisplatin.

According to Bob Stephenson, North East Asbestos Support and Awareness Group: “This latest decision by NICE is an injustice to those men and women who were unwittingly exposed to asbestos in their working lives. Alimta can extend life and yet is being denied to patients because it is not considered cost-effective. The cost to the NHS is minimal as pleural mesothelioma affects a minority of the population and will decline after the peak anticipated in 2015. On behalf of our members, we will continue to fight for access to Alimta and to raise awareness of this unjust decision.”

Dr Joanna Nakielny, Medical Director of Lilly UK, makers of the medicine, comments; “We are dismayed by this latest recommendation from NICE which makes it almost impossible for clinicians across the UK to prescribe Alimta, the only licensed treatment for malignant pleural mesothelioma, to their patients. We are committed to challenging this decision, and hope that those healthcare professionals and MPs that come into contact with this devastating condition continue to challenge their Primary Care Trusts to ensure local access to this treatment.”

ENDS

For further information please contact:

Jennie Talman, Just:: Health PR 020 8877 8404 07970 282209

Nick Francis, Lilly UK 01256 775201 07786 277 980

Note to Editors:

The NICE Process for Alimta

In June 2006, NICE issued draft guidance recommending a ban on mesothelioma patients receiving Alimta. Following appeal, NICE have now circulated the latest Appraisal Consultation Document (ACD) for a consultation period ending on 8th May 2007. If it becomes final later in the year, the only course of action is Judicial Review.

Anyone wishing to submit comments regarding this decision may write to NICE at the following address:

National Institute of Clinical Excellence

Technology Appraisal Manager/Alimta (pemetrexed disodium) in Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma

MidCity Place

71 High Holborn

London

WC1V 6NA

Prepared March 2007, AT 221.

National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Appraisal Consultation Document. Pemetrexed disodium for the treatment of malignant pleural mesothelioma. March 2007.

Data on File. Eli Lilly and Company Limited. 2007.

CancerResearchUK. http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/images/excel/cs_mort_t6.1.xls.

Health & Safety Executive. Mesothelioma mortality in Great Britain: estimating the future burden. National Statistics 2003. http://www.hse.gov.uk/statistics/causdis/meso.htm

Alimta® (pemetrexed) is a registered trademark of Eli Lilly and Company. Launched in December 2004 pemetrexed was the first licensed treatment for malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM), in combination with cisplatin. SPC, December 2004.

Green J, Dundar Y, Dodd S, Dickson R, Walley T. Pemetrexed disodium in combination with cisplatin versus other cytotoxic agents or supportive care for the treatment of malignant pleural mesothelioma. The Cochrane Collaboration. February 2007.

13 March 2007, Reform of mesothelioma compensation

Extracts from Information sheet provided by The Government at the Mesothelioma Summit on 13 March 2007.

MESOTHELIOMA SUMMIT – WORKING IN PARTNERSHIP
IMPROVING CLAIMS HANDLING FOR MESOTHELIOMA CASES.

ANNEX A
STAGE ONE - PRESCRIBED CLAIMS HANDLING PROCESS

Civil compensation:

· Mesothelioma claims process streamlined through new pre-action protocol and, where appropriate, civil procedure rules/practice direction

· Improved process will speed up the system and aim to resolve disputes without litigation, by providing, for example:
o Better and earlier exchange of information
o Earlier admissions of liability
o Less legal work before some admissions of liability
o Fixed time periods in which to carry out certain steps preproceedings
o Standardisation of relevant information
o Agreed expert lists
o Significant reduction in the time taken to pay final compensation
through agreed timescales
o Interim payments at the earliest opportunity once liability and
causation have been established.

· Where a claim cannot be resolved, the process will have identified the issues still in dispute; claims can then be resolved by the current effective court-based mesothelioma fast track system.

State benefits:

· Standardised claims forms for IIDB and the 1979 Act ensuring
consistency of completion and usage across GB · Better links between claims for the various state benefits available
· Streamlined approach to evidence provision
· Improved provision of information on leaflets and claim forms
· Look at speeding up benefit recovery process (recovery from incomerelated benefits when IIDB award backdated).

Progress so far

9. On 20 July 2006 SoS announced a number of interim measures to ensure faster compensation for those with mesothelioma. These interim measures already go someway towards meeting the objectives of this approach:

· Mesothelioma Pre-Action Protocol: Work on the pre-action protocol is making good progress and DCA will shortly seek the views of stakeholders more widely.

· Claimant leaflet explaining the help available: APIL, TUC and the
British Lung Foundation have drafted a leaflet which will be available at the Summit.
· Financial Services Compensation Scheme to be able to pay money direct to defendant employers/ insurers. Regulations were made on 6 December and FSA rules changed with effect from 22 December 2006.
· HM Revenue and Customs trace employer records in 10 working days (compared with the previous 25-30 days) introduced in July 2006.
· Code of Practice for tracing Employers’ Liability Compulsory Insurance policies. ABI agreed to pilot a new system involving: a draft leaflet on using the Code; an updated request form for easier identification of mesothelioma claims; designated postbox for fast tracked cases; and to recruit a designated contact point to manage a dedicated telephone helpline, filter duplicate/multiple claims, train insurers on using the Code, and share best practice. Many of these are already in place and the Code Review Body members will review progress later this year.
· Removing the need to resurrect insolvent companies to access ELCI policies: DCA is awaiting a legislative slot to do this as part of a package with other Law Commission proposals on third party rights against insurers.

What still needs to be considered?

10. Work to fully achieve this approach would include consideration of:
· Consolidating claim forms eg finding either an administrative or
legislative solution for combining a claim for IIDB and a claim under the Pneumoconiosis (Workers’ Compensation) Act 1979
· Removing overlaps in the information required for both claims
· Streamlining claims for other benefits such as DLA and AA where mesothelioma is involved
· Speeding up the benefit recovery process (from income-related
benefits when IIDB awarded)
· Ensuring consistency of completion and usage of forms across GB.

We consider that these are achievable and we will involve stakeholders in developing them further.

STAGE TWO - IMMEDIATE FINANCIAL SUPPORT

1. This approach is more complex and will need legislation, so it cannot be introduced as quickly as the Stage One actions. It provides up-front financial support as in the Pneumoconiosis (Workers’ Compensation) Act 1979 (“the 1979 Act”). We suggest we do this by breaking the occupational link so everyone with mesothelioma can claim. In practice this will mean that all those with mesothelioma will be eligible for payment similar to the 1979 Act, irrespective of their employment status or history, provided that they have not already received compensation in respect of
their condition through an action for personal injury against an employer.

2. Financial modelling for this approach suggests that, over time, savings from compensation recovery will be sufficient for payments to a broader range of people as outlined above. But there are issues surrounding introductory costs. However, we can introduce this more quickly if we initially pay at a rate commensurate with what can be afforded out of projected compensation recovery amounts, and increase payments to match those paid to others under the 1979 Act as funds allow.

How we would make this happen

3. This would involve:
· Introducing a compensation recovery process so that all payments under the 1979 Act can be recovered if a civil compensation claim is subsequently successful, in order to prevent double provision and continue with the policy line that the “polluter pays”;
· Introducing compensation payments to those people who do not
currently receive payments from the 1979 Act. These will initially e at a rate commensurate with what can be afforded out of projected compensation recovery amounts.
· Increasing these latter amounts to match those paid to others under the 1979 Act as funds allow.

Who would be affected?

4. Some customers currently receive both civil compensation and payments under the 1979 Act which was never originally intended to happen and can result in over-compensation. Introducing compensation recovery would mean that, in future, the compensation received would accurately reflect the loss and would be consistent with Government policy.

5. However, some liability holders successfully reduce the amount they pay in civil compensation by the amount of any award under the 1979 Act without having to reimburse DWP, which they would no longer be able to do.

Action Mesothelioma Day, 27 February 2007

Events include:

Greater Manchester Asbestos Victims Support Group

Balloon release in Albert Square Manchester at 12:30 p.m. to raise money for mesothelioma research and treatment.

Donations may be sent to GMAVSG, Windrush Millennium Centre, 70 Alexandra Road, Manchester M16 7WD.

Contact: 0161 636 7555

Merseyside Asbestos Victims Support Group and the Cheshire Asbestos Victims Support Group

Meeting at Liverpool Town Hall attended by the Lord Mayor of Liverpool and the Mayor of Wirral at 12:00 noon followed by a sponsored balloon release at the rear of the Town Hall in Exchange Flags at 2 p.m. with proceeds going to mesothelioma research and treatment.

Contact: 0151 236 1895 (Merseyside) and 01928 576 641 (Cheshire)

Derbyshire Asbestos Support Team (DAST)

Asbestos meeting at Winding Wheel, Holywell Street, Chesterfield 11 a.m.-12:00 noon. Followed by a balloon release in Rykneld Square, Chesterfield at 12:30 pm; tea and coffee to follow at the Winding Wheel.

Balloon release at Leicester Town Hall at 12:30 p.m. followed by a memorial service.

Contact DAST: 01246 231 441

Sheffield and Rotherham Asbestos Group (SARAG)

Balloon release with speakers at 11 a.m. at All Saints Square, Rotherham to raise money for mesothelioma research and treatment. From February 26- March 10, there will be a SARAG display in the Central Library, Doncaster.

Contact SARAG: 0114 282 3212

Mick Knighton Mesothelioma Research Fund (MKMRF) (Newcastle)

Balloon release on Gateshead Millennium Bridge at 11 a.m. followed by refreshments.

Contact MKMRF: 0191 2630276

Ridings Asbestos Support and Awareness Group

Asbestos rally at 11 a.m. in Victoria Square, Leeds (opposite Leeds Town Hall) followed by sponsored balloon release to raise money for mesothelioma research and treatment at 12:30 p.m.

Contact: 0131 231 1010

Clydeside Action on Asbestos (Glasgow)

Details of the Glasgow event are awaited.

Contact: 0141 552 8852

In addition to these activities, a short video presentation to raise awareness of the UK mesothelioma epidemic will be shown on giant TV screens belonging to the BBC in city centres including Birmingham, Liverpool, Manchester. The video will be shown repeatedly throughout February 27.

On February 27, there will be a parliamentary reception from 4-6 p.m. in the Jubilee Room of the House of Commons, Westminster, hosted by Mick Clapham MP, Chair of the Asbestos Sub-Committee.

In the run-up to AMD, on February 21, there will be an opportunity to hear about the making of the UK's most influential asbestos documentary: Alice – A Fight for Life. John Willis will talk about the problems encountered in the making of this landmark documentary and the effects it had on the UK asbestos industry. This event will take place at 7:30 p.m. at the Frontline Club, 13 Norfolk Place, London, W2 1QJ; tickets cost £7. For more information email: events@frontlineclub.com or call 0207 479 8947.

Thanks to IBAS for this information.

Mesothelioma consultation process:

Suggestions, November 2006

1. Formalise and expand Master Whitaker’s specialist court and encourage its use. Develop a specialist court with a growing body of knowledge and practice, and encourage lawyers to issue cases there.

Victims obtain early judgment or “show cause” hearing why judgment should not be given, and interim payments of £47,000.0 within a few weeks of issuing court action, in most cases.

Final hearing dates are within 4-6 months of proceedings being issued.
Hearings are conducted by telephone, saving costs.
Communications are by e mail. Parties can raise issues by e mail rather than schedule new hearings.
Master Whitaker can allocate a case to a High Court Judge quickly in the minority of cases that do not proceed to assessment of damages by a Master.
Legal costs will be reduced because cases are dealt with faster and consciously more economically.
A small group of Judges specialising in mesothelioma, led by Master Whitaker, would be better placed to deal with the increasing number of cases.

2. Establish a centralised source of information about employers’ liability insurance.

The Association of British Insurers searches do not produce any results in 3 out of 4 cases, in my experience. The Association of Persona Injury Lawyers has a database, but depends upon goodwill of members. Individual solicitors have databases or documents, but may not spend the time looking for information to assist other solicitors. Finding insurers is very “hit and miss” at the moment. A centralised archive or database would help victims.

3. Financial Services Compensation Scheme

Something should be done about the delays in payment as a result of having to look for alternative solvent insurers or defendants.
Pay 100% of damages in pre 1972 FSCS cases to mesothelioma victims.

4. Increase the value of lifetime claims by making the value of the victim’s services in the “lost years” recoverable as part of his own claim. The value of these services, usually house and garden maintenance, is only recoverable by dependants, once the victim has died. Most mesothelioma victims want their cases to be resolved while they are still alive.

5. Industrial injuries disablement benefit and Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers Compensation) Act 1979.

I cannot speak too highly of the positive attitude and efficiency of the civil servants administering both schemes, particularly at Jobcentre Plus in Barrow in Furness.

Suggestions

Disregard IIDB for mesothelioma and other terminal conditions from means assessment for other, means tested benefits. Justification – payable only for a short time by definition, and designed to help people cope with a dreadful situation.
One application form for IIDB and 1979 Act payment, sent to the same place.
Increase amounts paid under the 1979 Act, particularly for older victims – most victims are in age bracket 60-70.
Increase the levels of payment to fatal cases so they are the same as payments made to living victims. No logical reason for them to be less. The sum paid to dependants is typically one third or less of what a living person would have been awarded.
Pay constant attendance allowance and exceptionally severe disablement allowance automatically to mesothelioma victims at the same time as IIIDB.
Government should recover1979 Act payments from employers/insurers if court action is subsequently brought, rather than crediting employers and insurers with these payments, which are deducted from damages.
Use all or some of the money to set up specialist court and/or contribute towards an ELIB fund, from which victims who cannot trace insurers of defunct employers can recover compensation, like victims of uninsured drivers.

6. Government should discourage the insurance industry from its attempts to de-rail mesothelioma compensation and restrict common law rights. These attempts are ongoing.

3 insurers, Independent Insurance Company Ltd, Builders Accident Insurance Ltd and Excess Insurance Company Ltd (in run off) have stopped compensating mesothelioma victims, arguing that the trigger date for their EL policies might be the onset of disease and not the period of exposure to asbestos. It has been accepted for 20+ years that the responsive EL policy is the one in force when the victim was exposed to asbestos. This strategy could bring chaos to the system.
Insurers are currently attempting to undermine Section 3 of the Compensation Act 2006, introduced to reverse Barker - by arguing apportionment in relation to innocent and guilty periods of exposure in single employer cases.
Insurers generally continue to threaten common law rights. I would guess their response to this consultation will, in some cases, involve removal or by-passing of common law rights. The reality is that victims need specialised legal representation, and insurers drive up the costs of these cases by failing to settle them early.
Any mechanism that postpones the issue of court proceedings will lengthen the period for which victims must wait for their compensation. The key to success for victims is that their lawyers issue court proceedings quickly and obtain final hearing dates. This observation is based on 25 years experience of court proceedings and schemes.

Protest outside Manchester Town Hall, 2006.

Thanks to Jason Addy for photograph.

Full compensation restored for mesothelioma victims, but consultation process opened.

On 25 July 2006 the Barker decision was reversed by the Compensation Act 2006.

The Act means each employer has to compensate victims of mesothelioma in full. So your compensation will not be reduced if one of more of your former employers has gone out of business, and cannot be sued.

On 20 July 2006, Mr. John Hutton, Minister for Work and Pensions, announced these measures to speed up mesothelioma claims:

A standard letter of claim is being developed.

A new information leaflet containing sources of help and advice.

Speeding up industrial injuries disablement benefit awards.

Providing official government work histories more quickly.

A telephone enquiry helpline at the Association of British Insurers to help trace employers' liability insurers.

Review of code of practice for tracing insurers.

Encouraging people to use specialist lawyers.

The Government intends to put in place a long term solution to ensure that, wherever possible, sufferers of mesothelioma can receive compensation quickly.

A consultation process about this is underway in which people have been asked for their ideas by 23 November 2006.

This is being dealt with by

Department of Work and Pensions,

Workplace Health Division,

The Adelphi, 1-11 John Adam Street,

London WC2N 6HT.

mesothelioma@dwp.gsi.gov.uk

Latest move by insurers to avoid paying compensation to mesothelioma victims

Most mesothelioma claims are brought by victims or their families against employers that exposed their workforce to asbestos.

If you were exposed to any asbestos at work without protection in the last 40 years, and developed mesothelioma recently, your employers will have no legal defence to your claim.

They will pass the claim to the insurers that were their employers liablity insurers at the time the exposure to asbestos took place.

Some insurers may have found a new way to avoid paying claims.

They say that, because the disease process does not begin for a long time, if they were no longer the insurers by the time the mesothelioma began to develop, they should not have to pay up.

The very early stages of mesothelioma begin about 10 years before you experience any symptoms. If your employer went out of business 15 years ago, then, if this agrument is accepted by the courts, there will be no insurers by the time the mesothelioma disease process began to develop. The employer itself will have no assets.

The insurance industry stands to save tens of millions of pounds at the expense of victims if they succeed with this argument.

Insurers say it is necessary to study each insurance policy. In many cases they destroyed the insurance policies years ago - they say this was because of shortage of office space or computerisation.

It is to be hoped that the insurers are not given any support by judges with this latest strategy.

The insurance companies making these claims are: Independent Insurance Company Ltd, Builders Accident Insurance, and Excess Insurance.

But they will certainly achieve two things - more delay in paying compensation to the victims, and more anxiety for the victims and their families.

Emptying sack containing asbestos fibres into a drum

Withdrawal of Alimta for mesothelioma

26 June 2006

The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) has decided Alimta (Pemetrexed) should only be recommended for use in new or ongoing clinical trials.

NICE concluded there was not enough evidence the drug was better than cheaper treatments.

Eminent specialists say patients will suffer. Professor Nick Thatcher, consultant oncologist, Christie Hospital NHS Trust, Manchester said:

"This decision, if upheld, will remove a very useful treatment option for patients with this resistant cancer. It is contrary to the scientific evidence and is purely based on the value NICE place on a person's life."

Where appropriate, lawyers will claim the cost of Alimta and Cisplatin chemotherapy in court actions.

Some of the best informed mesothelioma specialists think Alimta with Cisplatin is the best treatment available for certain mesothelioma patients. Paying privately is an option, but most people do not have the money. The treatment is likely to cost £8,000, but if all associated hospital and medical fees have to be paid this could rise to £25,000 for 6 treatments.

Thanks to Jason Addy for photo

Cape plc Scheme of Arrangement approved by Court

14 June 2006

Cape plc's proposals to insulate itself from asbestos claims have been approved by the High Court.

The executive chairman of Cape is quoted:

" I am also delighted to be able to confirm that Cape's scheme of arrangement to provide for the long term financing of a great majority of all future UK asbestos-related claims likely to be successfully made against the Company has been approved by Scheme creditors, sanctioned by the High Court and became effective on 14 June 2006. We believe that the implementation of the Scheme has significantly increased the likelihood that Cape will be able to satisfy all Scheme claims in full. The Scheme also provides considerable de-risking for Cape, removes a significant obstacle to the Group's growth and leaves the Group better able to generate the resources needed to secure the continued payment of compensation to claimants."

Mesothelioma victims will be able to bring court actions against Cape as before.

Very few creditors voted on these proposals. The voting forms were very difficult to understand.

Problems for victims will arise if the £40m fund that has been created to pay asbestos victims proves to be too little, or is not topped up. Only time will tell.

Former Cape workers, Prieska, South Africa. Cape, through its subsidiaries, mined and milled blue asbestos there for its international operations.

Law to be changed to help mesothelioma victims

22 June 2006

The press release this week by the Department of Constitutional Affairs containing a commitment by Lord Falconer and Mr John Hutton, DWP Minister, to amend the Compensation Bill in order to reverse the outcome in Barker is to be welcomed.

It is cheering that a Labour government that has come in for a lot of stick recently has decided to act in such a principled way to protect a particularly vulnerable and deserving group - victims of mesothelioma and their families.

The Asbestos Groups Forum, the TUC, many individual MPs, Clydebank and Clydeside asbestos groups, and representatives of APIL are to be congratulated on the work they have done on this issue.

Experience shows that the commercial interests now threatened will not take this lying down.

Their agenda, as shown at the time of Fairchild in 2002, is some sort of scheme to replace the court system. Ideally, they want a scheme in which the government, and therefore the taxpayer, picks up a sizeable part of the bill, and in which victims are left to their own devices, without lawyers.

Schemes up to now have worked badly. They are characterised by delay. Mesothelioma victims need compensation within weeks or months. Claims made in schemes for other types of industrial disease have typically dragged on for years. One reason for the delay is that there is no end point to the process, such as a trial in court. There is no sanction for delay against the paying party. It is nearly always in the interest of the paying party to delay. The court system has the advantage of concentrating opponents' minds on resolving the issues before someone else resolves them.

Some very well intentioned people would like to see a scheme. There is no doubt that the civil justice system has let the victims down in Barker, and it is not surprising that people's faith in the system has been shaken. Can they be sure that judges will not side with employers and insurers in future challenges?

Court proceedings are currently too expensive, and lawyers' fees on both sides are too high.

If we had a truly specialist asbestos disease court run by judges who dealt with these cases every day, where an issue once decided did not have to be decided again in every new case, we would cut through a lot of the delay, and reduce legal costs.

The model is there already. Cases issued now in Master Whitaker's list in the Royal Courts of Justice can reach a final hearing within 4 months. But there is too much work, and more resources are needed.

We will not get a specialist court because it will cost money, and the civil courts have to pay for themselves.

At the same time, adequate provision must be made for those victims of mesothelioma who are not compensated properly.

Victims whose employers have all disappeared and who cannot trace their insurers must rely on the Pneumoconiosis etc (Workers Compensation) Act 1979. Its payments are far too low, especially for older people, and for claims made after the victim has died.

Wives who washed asbestos-contaminated clothes only before 1965 and later develop mesothelioma stand to get no compensation from the State or through the Courts. Provision must be made for them and their families.

The employers and insurers often get a windfall because they are entitled as a result of another court decision to be given credit against the victim if a 1979 Act payment is made and later on a court action is brought and settled. The employers simply pay the victim the proper amount of compensation, less the 1979 Act payment. This means that the government is already subsidising insurers and employers in mesothelioma cases on a grand scale. It should not be asked to subsidise them further.

John Hutton

John Hutton

Mesothelioma compensation reduced in many cases

3 May 2006

Today, the Law Lords gave judgment in Barker v Corus, and 2 other cases, test cases on mesothelioma compensation.

By a 4 to 1 majority, they accepted the employers' argument that individual employers are only liable to compensate mesothelioma victims to the extent that they increased the risk of mesothelioma developing.

This will result in greatly reduced compensation for many victims and their families, because in many cases it is not possible to sue all of the employers. They have gone out of business. Compensation for mesothelioma was already modest. Now, in many cases, it will be derisory.

The decision is a windfall for insurers and employers, at the expense of victims.

This point had already been considered in Fairchild v Glenhaven in 2002. Many of us understood then that it had already been decided in favour of the victims, but employers in these new cases were given another chance to argue the point in front of a different panel of Law Lords.

In Barker, the decision given now, Lord Rodger, in his dissenting judgment, wrote:

"Why then, is this House spontaneously embarking upon this adventure of redefining the nature of the damage suffered by the victims? The majority are not just on a mission to tidy up the reasoning in McGhee and Fairchild. Their aim is to open the way to making each defendant severally liable for a share of the damages, rather than liable in solidum for the whole of the damages. This is said to be a preferable, fairer, solution when the defendants are found liable for creating the risk of illness rather than for causing it."

Plain speaking. This is a policy decision that will protect the insurance industry and employers from the increasing number of mesothelioma claims, predicted to peak at 2500 to 3000 a year within the next few years.

This decision places the interests of commerce above those of the dead and dying, most of them reliant on compensation from the courts to avoid financial destitution on top of the death sentences handed down by their negligent employers.

The majority of the Law Lords could have focused on the outcomes for the victims and their families. Had they done so, the decision would have been different.

It will make each case much harder and expensive to complete successfully, because most cases will from now on involve competing expert evidence about relative doses of asbestos in different jobs.

It will turn each case into an prolonged enquiry by insurers and employers about where else the victim might have been exposed to asbestos, even if not mentioned in his or her evidence.

It will encourage insurers to try to avoid liability for periods of asbestos exposure during which they did not provide employers liability cover, transferring the liability for those periods to the employers themselves. This will put more employers out of business, whereas up to now they could have relied on their insurance.

Most importantly, this decision will leave many widows and families in severe hardship following the death of the breadwinner.

Each of the employers in these cases had exposed the victims to more than enough asbestos dust to cause the disease on its own.

Mesothelioma is caused by inhaling tens of thousands and often millions of microscopic asbestos fibres. Recent developments in the study of causation of cancer make it likely that mesothelioma causation is a cumulative process, even though mesothelioma itself, once tumour growth has been triggered, is inevitable.

By increasing the risk of mesothelioma, asbestos is the cause. With mesothelioma there is only one outcome.

In a civilised and compassionate society, the world's fourth richest economy, the stark realities of illness and death and their financial consequences must be compensated, insofar as money can ever do this, not some risk to be picked over by professionals unlikely to be hit personally by this disease.

Action Mesothelioma Day, Manchester

The Greater Manchester Asbestos Victims Support Group is supporting this British Lung Foundation initiative to hold a national Mesothelioma Action Day on 27th February 2006.

In Manchester there will be a public meeting at Manchester Town Hall:

Public Meeting - Everyone Welcome
Action on Mesothelioma
Monday 27th February 2006
Manchester Town Hall, Lord Mayor’s Parlour
1pm—3pm

Speakers include:

Bereaved Families
Tony Lloyd MP
Hugh Robertson TUC
Prof. Thatcher (Oncologist)
HSE Asbestos Policy Unit

Asbestos—the World’s Worst Industrial Killer

1,900 people die from mesothelioma each year in the UK

95,000 people will die from mesothelioma by 2050 in the UK

65,000 people will die from mesothelioma between 2002 and 2050

250,000 people will die from mesothelioma in Western Europe by 2035

There is a petition demanding better treatment for mesothelioma sufferers and also for more action on prevention so that the worst industrial killer in the world does not go on and on killing workers and members of our families and communities. Examples of Mesothelioma petition demands:

Mesothelioma Charter Demands

Prevention of Asbestos-related cancer deaths
Research into mesothelioma
Better treatment of mesothelioma
Justice for mesothelioma sufferers

The petition is on the British Lung Foundation website.

There are currently (10th January 2006) about 600 signatures on there, but they want to get this up to about 2,000 before the end of January.

Action Mesothelioma Day, Scotland

To generate awareness of the increasing death-toll from the fatal asbestos cancer, mesothelioma, UK asbestos victims' groups, trade unions, NGOs and charities, working with the British Lung Foundation, have declared February 27, 2006 Mesothelioma Action Day. To ensure that this day achieves its goals, a national sbestos conference, organized by the Clydebank Asbestos Group, will be held in Clydebank Town Hall, Glasgow on February 27, 2006.

Eminent speakers from Scotland, England, South Africa and Canada will discuss a range of issues which will include:

The Mesothelioma Charter and Patients' Rights;

Asbestos-related illness: the Financial Burden on the NHS;

The Mesothelioma Patient's Journey;

The International Workers' Memorial;

Occupational Health Service for Asbestos Sufferers: the Canadian Experience;

South Africa's asbestos catastrophe.

For more information contact the Clydebank Asbestos Group at 0141 951 1008 or send an email to: information@clydebank-asbestos.freeserve.co.uk

Jimmy Cloughley and Tommy Gorman of Clydebank Asbestos Group , at James Hardie demonstration, Amsterdam, September 2004.

How much is your life worth?

We thought mesothelioma compensation was safe after the Fairchild decision in 2002. That attack was launched because mesothelioma could in theory be triggered by just one asbestos fibre. Insurers said that someone who had worked with asbestos for more than one employer could never prove where he got the disease. They also said that responsibility could not be shared between the employers because mesothelioma and lung cancer were “all or nothing” or “indivisible” conditions.

The Law Lords preserved compensation for mesothelioma when they decided 5-0 that any asbestos exposure that materially contributed to the risk that someone will develop mesothelioma meant that it caused the disease.

Now, the insurers have made a U turn in mounting a second attack on mesothelioma and lung cancer victims. They say that if more than one employer has exposed you to asbestos causing mesothelioma or lung cancer, the compensation should be divided up between all of them, and must be reduced f one or more of the employers has gone bust. The Law Lords will decide this case, Barker, in March.

What will happen if the insurers win? If your job with one employer involved more than enough asbestos exposure to give you mesothelioma, but you also worked with asbestos for another employer that has gone bust, your compensation will be reduced. This may leave you with very little, after benefits from the government are taken off the court award or settlement.

Why is this unfair? It is unfair because most mesothelioma victims already receive less than £150,000. A significant number receive less than £100,000. Compensation is meant to reflect the harm done. What greater harm to you and your family than to lose your life to this illness?

It would be wrong to reduce these modest amounts by a half or a third if you have sued a company that exposed you to more than enough asbestos to cause mesothelioma, just because you can’t find the insurers of another company that also xposed you to asbestos, but that has gone bust.

A handful of big insurance companies provided nearly all of this insurance. But there are no official records, and the insurers often don’t look very hard. Of every 100 mesothelioma victims, about 20 cannot sue at all because all of the employers that exposed them to asbestos have gone bust, and no one can find the insurers. Another 30 cannot sue all of their employers for the same reason.

It is unfair to punish the victims, when the insurers who took the premiums are still there, hidden behind the employers that have gone bust.

If you feel strongly about this, please write to your MP about it now.

Anthony Coombs, 13th February 2006

__________________________________________________

27th January 2006

Compensation halted for pleural plaques

Link to full statement

Download statement as PDF

17th November 2005

Anthony Coombs presents to "Mealy's Asbestos Forum", London

This talk covers four significant developments in UK asbestos compensation during the last 12 months.

1. Pleural plaques test cases
2. T&N Bankruptcy/Administration

3. Mesothelioma caused by contaminated clothing
4. Cape plc proposed scheme of arrangement

Download the text of the presentation

Protest at James Hardie AGM September 2004.

Asbestos disease victims support groups from Manchester, Cheshire and Clydeside joined Dutch trade unionists and Asbestos victims support groups and Trade Union representatives from Australia in a protest at James Hardie's AGM outside Amsterdam on Friday 17th September 2004.

The meeting was held early morning at a hotel several miles from Amsterdam.

The meeting was scheduled days before the report of the Inquiry into James Hardie's actions on 21st September 2004.

Above: Tony Whitston, Kevin Lynch, Janet Lee, Bill Packer with Dutch unionists

The Inquiry concluded that the company made misleading and false statements about its asbestos liabilities in Australia being fully funded. New South Wales Premier Bob Carr rejected a proposal from James Hardie for a statutory scheme to compensate victims. Such a scheme had been floated by the Company right at the end of the Inquiry proceedings. He said the company had to talk to the ACTU, the NSW Labor Council and victims and produce a scheme that was satisfactory to them, and that the NSW government would join the ACTU in boycotting James Hardie products if the company did not negotiate.

It is unclear whether this is the beginning of a move to abolish common law rights of James Hardie asbestos victims, a move that will be resisted strongly by victims themselves.

Above: Dutch trade unionists at the protest on 17th September 2004

Victims and unions asked state and federal governments to prosecute the company and its senior executives for "negligent conduct". ACTU secretary Greg Combet suggested the company could make annual payments to its foundation, which would be sufficient to meet the claims of victims.

Responding to the report issued after the 6 month Inquiry, Australian Manufacturing Workers Union (AMWU) NSW secretary Paul Bastian said : "We call upon the commonwealth government and the state government to do everything in their power to ensure that James Hardie is pursued through the courts and that every avenue is taken to bring these people to account for their actions against victims. The unions and the victims will be relentless in pursuing James Hardie in every forum, wherever they are, whatever they do. And if that means their share price plummets another 40 cents then so be it. Until they do what they need to do."

Queensland Asbestos Related Diseases Support Society secretary Mick Boss said: "The important thing for us is that the people who have been affected by James Hardie's products will be able to continue to claim and not be adversely affected by the restructure of the company."

Above: Anthony Coombs and Tommy Gorman of Clydebank Asbestos Group on 17th September 2004)