Post by nickd on Aug 25, 2012 12:07:46 GMT 1
DWP announce new help for Mesothelioma victims
Or is it just more money for the Insurance industry?
25 July 2012 – "£300m support for future mesothelioma victims"
Here's how the DWP promote the new help scheme via the DWP website. From the 25th July newly diagnosed victims of mesothelioma will receive help through a new support scheme, the Minister for Welfare Lord Freud and the Association of British Insurers (ABI) have announced.The new scheme will allow around 3,000 mesothelioma victims across the UK who are unable to claim compensation because they cannot trace a liable employer or employers’ liability insurer to receive approximately £300m in payments in the first 10 years.
Although the majority of people are able to claim compensation through the employers’ liability insurance held by their employer, more than 300 mesothelioma sufferers a year currently lose out on compensation because they are unable to trace a liable employer or employers’ liability insurer.
This new scheme, funded by insurers, will help support mesothelioma sufferers as they face the unique circumstances of this terrible disease. These payments will be in addition to the £200m the insurance industry already pays each year in compensating mesothelioma sufferers.
Lord Freud said:
"We have worked tirelessly together with the insurance industry to agree this package of measures on behalf of those who face this terrible disease.
"The new scheme will mean that, for the first time, sufferers of diffuse mesothelioma, who cannot trace either a liable employer or employers’ liability insurer, will have access to extra payments."
Otto Thoresen, the ABI’s Director General, said:
"Mesothelioma is a particularly aggressive cancer and the insurance industry, working with government, is determined to do all it can to ensure that sufferers get the support they need as soon as possible. This package of measures will deliver help to claimants much faster, including to those who would otherwise go un-compensated.
"We appreciate the urgency of this disease, and while implementation depends on legislation being put in place, we hope that the scheme will be up and running and the first payments made by July 2014."
The scheme will come into force subject to primary legislation and membership will be compulsory for all employers’ liability insurers. However, Ministers and the ABI have agreed anyone diagnosed with mesothelioma from today (25 July 2012) will be eligible to make a claim.
Membership of the Employers’ Liability Tracing Office (ELTO) – which runs an electronic database of employers’ liability policies – will become compulsory for all employers’ liability insurers, including companies who have provided employers’ liability insurance in the past to ensure that where there is a liable insurer, they will pay the claim.
New measures to speed up the process of receiving compensation for all mesothelioma victims are also being introduced.
The integrated package of measures will also include:
- A levy on current employers’ liability insurers to fund the scheme at an estimated cost of £25-£35 million a year;
- Changes to speed up the process of getting support to all mesothelioma sufferers, including:
- An online portal for all mesothelioma sufferers to register claims and for the parties involved to exchange information in a secure electronic way in order to settle claims more quickly.
- Changes to the Civil Procedure Rules to support the use of a mesothelioma pre-action protocol to ensure that evidence is disclosed early.
- Improvements in providing the information held by the Government needed to support claims, including standardised medical diagnosis, employment schedules from HM Revenue and Customs and information on state benefits from the Department for Work and Pensions;
- Addressing the civil litigation costs for all mesothelioma claims, to reflect the faster claims process and in line with the Government’s wider reforms.
Mylegal Comment
Obviously anything that will bring about earlier settlement of claims brought by Mesothelioma victims can only be for the good. I am however sceptical given how vehemently opposed Government was in granting Legal Aid to victims earlier this year, in essence they could not agree that sufferers of this awful illness should be seen as a special case. Legal aid is the mechanism by which victims secure justice and it may well involve having to take an insurance company to Court to get them to pay out, not all Insurance companies willingly pay out when a claim is made by someone who should be covered by one of their policies and nor do people readily accept causation or liability when at fault. The scheme also only applies to those who are 'newly diagnosed'; what about those who have already been diagnosed but who have not yet been able to take action to obtain compensation?
Here's what Lord McNally (for the government) said when opposing the legal aid amendments in the House of Lords' earlier this year:
"The Government are determined to see more proportionate costs in civil litigation, with greater fairness in the risk borne by parties. Without our reforms, high and disproportionate costs in civil litigation will continue. Access to justice would not become more meaningful for all parties. If these amendments were accepted, claimants in these particular cases would have an advantage over others who may be suffering from equally debilitating conditions."
We covered the legal aid amendment debates in some detail here on mylegal. There was an appalling moment during the debates when Legal Aid minister Jonathon Djanogly 'giggled and smirked' whilst his fellow ministers seriously discussed the significant suffering experienced by victims. The Asbestos Victims Support Groups Forum UK were heavily critical of Djanogly saying “He was dismissive and contemptuous and acted like a public school lout" they were positively angered by his contemptuous attitude during the important debate:
“He knows nothing of those condemned to death for working with asbestos.”
You can read more about Djanogly's disgraceful behaviour during the debates when the amendments were returned to the House of Commons in an article in the Daily Mirror and their campaign for victims article. There's an emerging agenda here and it's becoming all too clear that in opposing legal aid for victims the government's motive is to ensure potential claimants are covered by insurance policies rather than any reliance on the State when it comes to funding the cost of their legal actions.
The DWP rarely in its social media presence promotes the views of others but they certainly don't seem to be backwards at coming forwards in their promotion of the British Insurance Industry, I rather suspect that the Ministry of Justice and the DWP are a little closer in their working agendas than many care to realise. It definitely would not be the first time attention has been drawn to Djanogly and his controversial ties with the insurance industry, read more about how he was accused of pushing the BIA's 'doors ajar' in the Guardian. Djanogly's links with insurance extend even closer when it's revealed that amongst the millionaire minster's wider family's assets they have an insurance firm.
So what's so wrong with insurance firms and increased employee liability insurance you may well ask? Well nothing in principle except they do have an inherent knack of relying on the small print when it comes to getting out of paying out a policy. Remember also how insurance always comes at a price, increased risk means higher cost to someone; an insurance firm will inevitably always seek to cover the risk by bumping up its premiums, but will hard pressed employers be able to stump up the cash for the inflated policies?
Let's also not forget how the emergence of mesothelioma is often delayed by many years since exposure to the initial hazardous contact. An employee may have been exposed to asbestos in a number of working environments in their previous working life and therefore establishing causation may be difficult. Unless this scheme really does pays out, a lack of access to justice will make it all the more difficult to prove in cases. This scheme has to genuinely help the victim and shouldn't be seen as an alternative to legal aid in cases where the victim is unable to benefit from inclusion. On the face of it this scheme should help those victims who are unable to trace a former employer or their otherwise 'liable' insurance firm which provided cover at the time of causation; but will it really work in practice? Or will it be yet another bureaucratic nightmare in having to progress a claim? With cash starved advice agencies and law centres who will be guiding potentially very unwell claimants through yet another 'on - line portal' to a package full of promises which are accessible only to those with access to a computer?
Let's also not forget how we should expect to see an increase in claims related to incidents from many years ago when exposure was probably more widespread as potentially hazardous public buildings (often State owned) were occupied by employees and in some cases pulled down by construction workers involved in demolition & repair work. There will also be victims who were not directly linked to an employment related asbestos hazard, how will this this scheme benefit them? These are the cases which will be emerging now and in the future. Is government seriously saying it will do all it can to ensure it will get this scheme to pay out (potentially alleviating it of a liability if it has since sold on what were once State entities) or will it be just another farcical scheme where insurance companies & government fight for years on end whilst a claimant has no direct access to legal aid to sort out who should be coughing up the cash?
One thing is for certain whilst an employer liability firm may well have to sign up to compulsory membership; the cost incurred in meeting increased claims will be met by someone. Government has alleviated itself of yet another liability, the cost will be passed on to employers; - who in turn will no doubt be forced to bring wages down through having to meet the higher premiums.
And is anyone telling me the insurance firms won't profit?
