Sufferers of asbestos-related lung cancer are not receiving the compensation they are owed, this has to change

On Monday this week I secured a debate on the Compensation Act 2006 and asbestos-related lung cancer.

An injustice persists at the heart of the UK’s compensation system for victims of asbestos-related disease. Although asbestos has been banned in the United Kingdom for more than 25 years, its deadly legacy continues. It is still the single biggest workplace killer in the country and each year, around 5,000 people in the UK die from cancers caused by exposure to asbestos. The impact is particularly clear in former industrial communities such as those in my West Dunbartonshire constituency, where decades of shipbuilding and heavy engineering exposed generations of workers to asbestos fibres, often without adequate protection.

The current legal framework is rooted in key court rulings. In Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services (2002), judges recognised the unique challenges faced by mesothelioma victims, allowing claims where an employer had simply increased the risk of harm. But a later decision in Barker v Corus UK (2006) limited liability to each employer’s share, meaning compensation could be reduced if employers or insurers could not be traced.

Parliament unanimously stepped in to correct this through Section 3 of the Compensation Act 2006. It made sure mesothelioma sufferers could claim full compensation from any one negligent employer, leaving insurers to divide the costs later. However, this protection does not extend to asbestos-related lung cancer, despite its similar causes and severity.
While the Compensation Act 2006 marked a significant step forward in securing justice for sufferers of mesothelioma, it left behind a closely related group: those diagnosed with asbestos-related lung cancer. Even though mesothelioma is almost medically indistinguishable from asbestos-related lung cancer, victims are treated very differently when it comes to claiming compensation.

This is why my debate was so important. It is incredibly unfair that victims with asbestos-related lung cancer must still track down every responsible employer, a task often impossible decades later. Many companies have ceased trading, and insurance records are frequently incomplete or lost. Despite the two diseases being strikingly similar, those with asbestos-related lung cancer often receive only a fraction of the compensation they deserve.

In numerous cases, families have lost tens of thousands of pounds due to untraceable employers. One particular example is the case of James Heneghan. After a lifetime of occupational exposure, Mr Heneghan died of lung cancer in 2013. Although some former employers admitted liability, others could not be traced. Of a claim valued at £175,000, his family received just £61,100. Had he suffered from mesothelioma instead, full compensation would have been guaranteed.

This is really where the heart of this issue lies. I want to emphasise that the severity of a disease doesn’t change based on how easy it is to trace former employer. Yet, under current law, the financial burden of missing defendants falls on victims and their families rather than on the negligent employers or insurers.

I believe the solution is simple and not unprecedented. Extending Section 3 of the Compensation Act to cover asbestos-related lung cancer would align the treatment of these two diseases. Victims would be able to claim full compensation from any one responsible employer or insurer, who could then seek contributions from others. This approach has already proven effective and fair in mesothelioma cases and there is no reason why it shouldn’t be extended to other victims.

Beyond individual cases, reform would also ease pressure on public services by enabling patients to fund their own care needs, while ensuring that the costs of workplace negligence are borne by those responsible rather than by taxpayers.

The Compensation Act 2006 remains a landmark piece of legislation. However, its omission of asbestos-related lung cancer represents an unintended gap rather than a deliberate policy choice. Closing that gap would not require an overhaul of the law, only the extension of an established and widely supported principle.

20 years later, I am calling for an amendment to the law. Equal exposure to harm should mean equal access to justice. For victims of asbestos-related lung cancer, that principle is long overdue.

I was really encouraged by the Minister’s response to my debate. She has enthusiastically agreed to meet with me and other organisations relevant to this issue to discuss amendments to the Compensation Act 2006 to include sufferers of asbestos-related lung cancer. This is a big step forward for victims of this horrific disease and I will continue to fight for change until they receive the full and fair compensation they deserve.