View In Large Print

John Battle's contributions to the House of Commons debate on asbestos 16th January 2002

Mr. John Battle (Leeds, West): In support of the case made by the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock), the judgment on fibres is the equivalent of saying that if someone is killed by two bullets, that person is responsible or is not really dead. The courts and the companies seem to be mocking the victims. People who have already won justice in the courts cannot get the compensation that they have been awarded because of corporate gamesmanship by companies that say that they are going into bankruptcy when they are trading and making millions of pounds. We cannot wait for 10 years of extended court proceedings. We need concerted, joined-up, co-ordinated Government help to break through the proceedings, rather than allowing them to drag through the courts for ever.

Mr. John Battle (Leeds, West): My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) has campaigned on these matters for many years and it is to his great credit that he has secured this debate. Having sat in the ministerial chair, I must say that I have never seen such a debate so well attended. That tells me that this matter should be given Government time and be properly debated on the Floor of the House, where it can be fully aired. We are discussing one of the most important and lethal legacies of the 20th century, and it will have to be dealt with in the 21st century. I have recently spoken in the House on these matters, so I shall not detain hon. Members, as I know that others wish to contribute and speak for their constituencies.

I represent a community in Armley, Leeds, where asbestos dust was blown out of the J. W. Roberts factory and on to the neighbouring streets. People who lived in the neighbourhood and played in the dust years later have contracted mesothelioma and died from it. It took us 10 years to fight the owner of the factory, Turner and Newall, which denied that it owned the company or had any records or documents, even though we unearthed 27,000 documents about what was happening. We won the 1995 case of Margereson and Hancock, who courageously took on the company and won a verdict saying that it was responsible for polluting them and their neighbourhood. It was a groundbreaking case. At the time, I thought that, as a Member of Parliament, I could then leave it to lawyers to do the decent thing, put the other cases forward, get the medical evidence, take them to the courts and get the compensation. Some 15 or 16 people were paid compensation, but others are in train and waiting to go through the process. Some hundreds of people are waiting. Some cases remain to be filed, while some people are waiting for medical evidence.

What happened next? From being a national company in Britain, Turner and Newall became part of a mega, multinational company--Federal Mogul in the United States of America--which started to play global corporate games and decided that it could wrap all the claims together, bury those of Armley and hold off liabilities. Consequently, even those who had won their case in court found that the cheque from the company bounced. Solicitors' letters stated that the company had been put into administration, was filing for bankruptcy and therefore did not need to respond. That process of administration could take years.

It has been reported that the company is trying to sort out the claims, but was Turner and Newall properly insured from the outset? From 1977, the board minutes show that there were doubts about its insurance. Who were the insurers? Nobody knows. When the case was won in 1995, Sir Colin Hope, the chairman of the company, said that he was confident that there was money in the kitty to pay the claims. He was confident that claims of up to £1 billion would be covered and that the victims of Armley would get the money. Where is it? Where is the money for the victims? Is it locked in administration? Why cannot we know? Why are we told that Turner and Newall's insurance cover is commercially confidential? Victims' lawyers cannot know about it.

If the company is not properly insured, it should be prosecuted. The Department of Trade and Industry should have prosecuted it in the past for illegal trading. If it is properly insured, why cannot the insurance money be made available to victims now, outside the administration process?

Games are being played in the world of insurance. We are in murky waters when we consider Turner and Newall's insurance cover. It now claims to be self-insured. I have a copy of the "General Report and Background to the Proposals of the Joint Administrators". The company went to the administrators and asked, "Please make us bankrupt", even though it is trading, getting millions of contracts every week and making millions of pounds. The report to the administrator states:
"In 1996, T&N purchased a £500 million layer of insurance, through the UK Group Company called Curzon Insurance Limited"--
it trades from Guernsey rather than the rest of the United Kingdom--
"which itself reinsured the cover through three major insurance companies. This will be triggered should the aggregate costs of claims made or brought after 1 July 1996 exceed £690 million. Management now believes that the aggregate cost of claims made or brought after 1 July 1996 will exceed the trigger point. Based on this assessment, the FM Group recorded an insurance recoverable asset under the T&N policy of US$577 million in the fourth quarter of 2000."
The report continues:
"One of the reinsurers, European International Insurance Company Limited (which is an affiliate of Swiss Re), issued proceedings on 22 November 2001 in the High Court to seek a declaration that it was entitled to avoid the reinsurance agreement."
The company is trying every trick in the book to avoid its liabilities.

We need a co-ordinated, joined-up Government response that involves the Treasury as well as the Department of Trade and Industry because the victims cannot wait for 10 years of litigation. The Armley victims have won court cases that prove the company's negligence. They are not covered by the workers' occupational schemes because they did not work in the company. The employers' liability schemes would not therefore cover them. We need a separate package for them. The proposals of my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone are along exactly the right lines and further proposals could tackle matters in the interim. Victims cannot wait for years for the determination of the court cases.

The companies are engaged in corporate gamesmanship on a massive scale to evade their liabilities. In other contexts, we have discussed corporate manslaughter. We are currently considering a classic example. We are not discussing hired hands in the 19th century; people's lives have been taken and the companies walk away and are not held to account. That is wrong and scandalous, and the Government must tackle it.

• View Menu In Large Print • Asbestos In Armley • Asbestos In Armley -The Fight Goes On • Armley Asbestos Adjournment Debate, 10th Jan 2002 • John Battle's contributions to the House of Commons debate on asbestos 16th January 2002 • John Battle MP still championing cause for mesothelioma victims • A War Of Attrition • Asbestos Companies Off The Hook • Tribute to brave June's battle for justice over asbestos dust • John Battle MP Advises Asbestos Victims To Ignore Federal Mogul Direct Appeal • John was quoted in a Guardian article on 16 Sep 2004 about mesothelioma • John Battle in Hansard on Asbestos in Armley - 1988 • Hansard 8 July 1992 - Asbestos Pollution (Armley) • Hansard 21 February 1994 - Mesothelioma Deaths (Leeds) • Emergency Debate On Asbestos • Leeds MP says battle will continue for Asbestos Widows • MP welcomes new help for mesothelioma sufferers • John Battle MP's welcome for mesothelioma drug ruling

• Asbestos Action Group • West Yorkshire Asbestos Action Group • June Hancock Mesothelioma Research Fund