Damages (Asbestos-related Conditions) Bill [HL]

My Lords, this Bill appeared in the previous Session in another place, where the Member in charge was Mr Andrew Dismore. I am pleased that it passed through all its stages in the other House and, indeed, that it received all-party support in that House. However, its Third Reading did not take place until 20 October last year, which meant that, by the time it was sent to this House, there was unfortunately insufficient time for it to proceed through its parliamentary stages before the end of the Session. However, my interest in this Bill, and the reason that I was keen to sponsor it in your Lordships’ House, derives from a speech made in this House by my noble friend Lord Dixon, to whom I pay tribute for his work on the issue. My noble friend spoke powerfully in December 2008 about the many cases that he knew of in the shipbuilding industry on Tyneside where people exposed to asbestos developed pleural plaques and lived with the constant worry of contracting life-threatening asbestos-related conditions as a result. In that debate, he said that he himself had worked in the shipbuilding and ship-repairing industries for 37 years and that some of the colleagues with whom he had served his apprenticeship and worked alongside had died of asbestos-related diseases. He knew from that direct experience what a terrible death it was. He also reminded us that there is no way in which anyone can get pleural plaques other than through exposure to asbestos, so it is very clearly an industrial condition. Like my noble friend Lord Dixon, my home area is the north-east of England, and at different times in my political life—in the European Parliament and in the other place—I have represented the shipyard areas of both Tyneside and Wearside. Because of that, I know how much the issue of pleural plaques causes fear and dread. I also know that, before the House of Lords 2007 judicial ruling, compensation had been paid to people over a 20-year period but that since then many others have tragically been caught by the ruling and have been unable to benefit. This, I believe, has created an unfair and anomalous situation between people in the same neighbourhoods and the same workplaces. My Bill would restore the position that existed before the House of Lords 2007 ruling on the case, which had been brought before the House of Lords by insurance companies. Importantly, the Bill would also create parity of treatment between Scotland on the one hand and England and Wales on the other. The Scottish Parliament has already legislated to restore compensation to affected workers and, interestingly enough, the Scottish courts have recently confirmed the legality of the new position in Scotland in rejecting arguments against the legislation by insurers, in particular. While I respect, and indeed fully support, the right of the devolved institutions to introduce their own policies, I urge the Government to follow the Scottish example. I hope that the Government will accept—as indeed I hope will the spokespeople of the opposition parties—that it is particularly galling for former shipyard workers on Tyneside and Wearside, many of whom have done stints of work in the Scottish yards, to have to endure this discriminatory and unfair treatment. While many of the people affected by pleural plaques are in shipyard areas such as mine, the issue affects many workplaces and former workplaces throughout the country, particularly in the engineering sector. Yesterday, I had the pleasure of meeting our colleague the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lincoln to discuss this issue. He is unable to be here today but supports the Bill strongly. He told me of the significant research done into the incidence of pleural plaques by the industrial chaplain to the engineering industry in the Lincoln area. The evidence collected shows the way that workers were exposed to asbestos, and it also highlights the negligence that occurred through the lack of information given to those who were exposed to this highly dangerous substance. I know that the Government will have some fears that if the 2007 ruling is entirely reversed and we go back to the situation that existed previously, injury lawyers, for example, may seek to profit through this by maximising every possible claim, resulting in costly bills to industry and government. However, I hope that the Government will consider tackling the issue of excess legal profits in other ways. It would be quite wrong—even grotesque, in my view—to let concerns about the cost of justice prevent justice from being granted to those who deserve it and need it most. It is of course hard—it has certainly been hard for me—to get completely reliable figures for how many claims could be introduced as a result. My understanding is that there were probably about 4,000 or so claims pending which were halted by the 2007 ruling, and that there have probably been about another 3,000 since then. I have to say that my figures are guesstimates based on information supplied by one firm which was probably representing about 30 per cent of cases at a time, but that is the best guesstimate that I have been able to make in the circumstances. I assume, however, that as compensation had been paid for a considerable number of years before the ruling, and as, too, the outcome of the ruling was far from being a foregone conclusion, the Government must have planned for a certain level of ongoing expenditure on such cases. If the judgment had not taken place, or if the result had gone the other way, the Government—and, of course, insurers—would have had to continue to pay compensation in any case. I willingly concede that the Bill raises a number of legal aspects, some of the details of which can of course be looked at in Committee. There is also the recent helpful case in Scotland for our guidance. That case was decided on 8 January of this year and ruled firmly against the challenge to the Scottish legislation brought by insurance companies. On the legal aspects of the Bill before us today, my honourable friend in another place, Andrew Dismore, met lawyers from the Ministry of Justice. I have seen an account of the meeting, and none of the legal issues seem insurmountable—far from it. Indeed, at this point I pay tribute to the work done by Andrew Dismore and a considerable number of other colleagues in the other place, who have shown both persistence in raising the issue of pleural plaques and considerable knowledge of the legal and other issues involved. The Government, including both the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Justice, have met me and other interested Members of both Houses about the issue, and I appreciate that they understand the concerns of those with pleural plaques because of exposure to asbestos. I know, too, that the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Justice have been considering the issues raised in the Bill and looking at a variety of ways of helping people who are affected. I am grateful for that, but I still hope that my Bill can make progress. In conclusion, although this time on a Friday, at the end of Parliament's working week, is not a time at which attendance is high, I am sure that noble Lords will none the less not underestimate the great interest in this issue in both the national and local media. Indeed, the media interest in areas such as mine is constant and intense. There is hope and expectation that the discrimination created by the 2007 ruling and the financial hardship experienced by many pleural plaque sufferers will be addressed by your Lordships' House, by the Government and by Parliament as a whole. I beg to move.