Compensation Bill [Lords]

May I first pay warm tribute to the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham)? He, naturally, because of his constituency and background—but not necessarily because of that—made it clear that the issue would not go away from our deliberations in Parliament and I unreservedly pay tribute to him for that. I thank the Minister for her commitment to ensure that, if it were humanly possible, the new clause and the other new clauses and amendments would be included in the Bill during its passage through this House. In the debate on Second Reading, the issues were well and truly aired. She made a commitment to do what she could. At the beginning in Committee, we said that we were happy to take the new clause in Committee if it were possible. It just was not. I do not blame anyone for that and the Minister has kept us all well informed at all stages. I am pleased that we have the opportunity to include the new clause before the Bill leaves the Commons, which is the right place for the matter to be discussed, and where people who represent past, present and prospective sufferers of this terrible disease can express their strong views on behalf of their constituents. One or two of my colleagues have raised the matter before. I mention them because they, like colleagues on both sides of the House, have, perfectly properly, a constituency interest in these issues. My hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Danny Alexander) was supportive the other day on the basis that there should be a scheme, which should be moulded to look after the people who are suffering. My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Willie Rennie) has in his short time in the House already expressed an interest, as has my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Paul Rowen), who again has an obvious constituency commitment. I made it clear from the Front Bench on Second Reading that the Liberal Democrats would do all we could to facilitate the speedy passage of the legislation. There is one technical point. Perhaps there is more than one, but there is one important technical point that my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (David Howarth) will want to raise about the specific implications of these proposals for the law and about the importance of getting all this right. It is important that we do not go back to the position of the law before the Barker v. Corus case and discover that people who want to be included are excluded. I will leave my hon. Friend to make that case, if he catches your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker. We must ensure that we do not lose opportunities to adjust the scheme if there is anything we need to do to catch everyone we need to catch. I will make some quick points because many other colleagues want to speak. This disease is serious and sudden in its manifestation and consequences. It affects people who have worked away, often in dangerous and hard jobs, in all sorts of industries— mining, shipping, industrial warehousing, as laggers, painters, doing all sorts of jobs—and discovered, after what could be a long lead time, that they are suffering from mesothelioma and that the asbestos fibres may eventually have fatal effects. The hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone made the other point that it is not just the workers; it is people who have come into contact with them, normally wives, but even other family members, too. This is about trying to find a scheme that covers the significant number of people who have been affected. We have heard the figures and I think we agree about them: 2,000 a year, peaking only in about 14 or 15 years and then continuing. So a lot of families are affected, and sometimes more than one family member is affected. In some cases, the father or husband has died or become ill, and other family members are affected later. It is right that we should seek to address the issue. I only ever had one major concern and, from conversations with the Minister and colleagues, I believe that it has been addressed. I was concerned that Parliament should not legislate retrospectively if that adversely affected the rights of anyone who had not agreed with the change. That is an important principle of law. It was therefore sensible that the courts stayed almost all the cases under consideration—the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone raised one case that might have slipped through the net—once they realised what the Government were doing. It is important that the legislation covers those cases that will be the subject of litigation in the future, but the Minister has been able to assure me and others that, because the insurers have agreed, retrospective change is not a problem. In recent years, the House has only once legislated to change the law retrospectively, on war crimes. It was controversial, but was regarded as so important that, after great difficulty in reaching agreement, Parliament decided to do that. It is an important principle that individuals and companies know what the law is, so we should not normally change it retrospectively. In this case, my understanding is that those whom the retrospective change will adversely affect have all signed up to it, because natural justice demands that people are not left suffering without a scheme to help them. I asked the Minister how we can ensure the law is implemented as quickly as possible. Hon. Members said on Second Reading, in their lobbying and in Committee, that once the legislation had been sorted—with the help of the draftsmen and women—and the Lords had agreed it, we wanted to be able to move quickly. I accept the Minister’s comments about it being quicker to use the process that she has described for working out the compensation than to have a separate independent board, which was my initial preference. It was also suggested by the insurance industry initially and by the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald). I am slightly troubled by one remaining issue. The Bill will, I hope, be put into its final form today and pass through its stages in the Lords before the summer recess. However, from what the Minister said, it sounded as if we will have to wait until after the recess for the regulations to be laid and agreed, and only then will it come into force. That could be another six months wait. I hope that the Minister will clarify whether that is a fair assessment when she winds up. I do not wish to be unreasonable, but I would remind her that one of the reasons for the new clause is the need for speed to help people who are ill and suffering today or are the bereaved relatives of those who have suffered in the past. The life expectancy after diagnosis can be very limited—months or perhaps not much more than a year—so time is of the essence. I hope that we can work together to get the regulations on the statute book by agreement of both Houses, so that people may receive the compensation they need for an illness that was an unexpected consequence of working in this country’s interest in all sorts of places over many years.