Government’s planned consultation on pleural plaques is not a hasty response to an unwanted judgment

The pre-emptive attack by insurers and their solicitors on the government’s planned consultation on pleural plaques is unwarranted and contributes little to the discussion (see [2008] Gazette, 17 July, 4).

Pleural plaques are essentially scarring on a person’s lungs and this should be treated, at the very least, like scarring on any other part of the body. While there is no visual cosmetic deformity, the scarring on the lungs denotes exposure to asbestos and with this comes the real anxiety that the person may subsequently develop fatal diseases such as mesothelioma, a form of lung cancer which remains asymptomatic for 20-30 years.

The consultation is a means of reflecting the impact which pleural plaques have on victims’ lives. It is not – as has been suggested – an example of the government responding rashly to an unwanted judgment.

Those citing constitutional principles to support their position should perhaps remember the ultimate principle, that of the supremacy of Parliament. This principle enables those democratically elected to assess and, where appropriate, introduce legislation to promote and protect the welfare of citizens. Perhaps insurers should remember that the law is not an asset which appears on their balance sheets to reduce their expenditure.