Damages (Asbestos-related Conditions) Bill [HL]

My Lords, I have heard of pleural plaques on several occasions, but was never clear exactly what they were until I started doing some research for this debate. The judgment that removed compensation included the statement that they do not do you any harm in themselves, but it does mean that you have been exposed to a potentially lethal substance. That leaves us in a rather odd situation. If we could prove that certain types of pleural plaques would lead to certain conditions—I have not been made aware that we can—there would be an unanswerable case that compensation should always be given. However, there does not seem to be enough medical knowledge here to decide even the likelihood—if there has been improvement on this I would be very interested to hear it—of developing further complications and damage. In that very odd situation, when trying to decide what to do, we are left with the question: is the fact that you have been exposed to a potentially lethal substance in itself worthy of compensation, because the risk and possibility of further complications is there? People have also decided that the establishment of risk is not enough; you must have something that damages your health in the long term. That was my interpretation of the judgment. Is the worry worthy of compensation? That seemed to be one of the key issues. I appreciate that this was not their decision but a legal decision, but are the Government prepared to accept that the worry itself is sufficient to warrant some form of compensation, given that it is accepted that asbestos can lead to something that is life-threatening or even fatal? It is a very odd question and, thinking about it, is there much more to say? The noble Baroness gave a very good example of what has gone before. Will the Government say what they are about to do? I am inclined to think that there should be at least some form of compensation, although I probably speak for myself and not for my party on this one. Unless there is a good reason why there should not be—perhaps certain categories can be removed as being low-risk—worry should be taken into account. When someone discovers they have damage such as pleural plaques, unless you can tell them definitively that there is no need to worry—of course, some will still worry—surely their lives will be blighted to a degree. I have another question for the Minister. Now that the established legal position is that there is no condition, does that affect your life insurance and other insurance claims, such as healthcare? If it does, there clearly is a knock-on effect. If it does not, I still suggest that we need to take the matter slightly further. If we are in the process of establishing risk, I would like to hear more about how the Government and the machinery of government have established the degree of risk and how the perception of risk affects people, because even if the risk is heightened only slightly, it can still affect people’s lives. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.