Damages (Asbestos-related Conditions) Bill [HL]

My Lords, I welcome the fact the noble Baroness, Lady Quin, has introduced this Bill, which deals with a very important matter that deserves debate in this House, possibly unlike the debate in which the Minister and I were involved earlier today. I am aware that one of the noble Baroness’s colleagues in another place, Mr Dismore, hoped to introduce an equivalent Bill in another place today, following on from his attempts to debate it in the Commons earlier. I start, as the noble Baroness did, by expressing my sympathy for those people who have had the misfortune to come into contact with asbestos and had to suffer its consequences. Those consequences have led, in many instances, to compensation being paid to victims of asbestos-related injuries. That is the principle which the House should bear in mind as we debate this Bill, because that is the basis on which the laws of personal injury compensation are based; someone who has suffered and is suffering because of the work that they did should be entitled to compensation. Like the noble Baroness, I would like to go back into the history of this. As she reminded us, the Court of Appeal decided in the Rothwell case in the autumn of 2007 that pleural plaques are not compensatable—a decision that was upheld by this House, sitting in its judicial capacity in the case of Johnston v NEI International Combustion Ltd. The Bill, which seeks to overturn that decision, departs from that principle. I think the noble Baroness would accept that the Bill is very narrowly about pleural plaques. The condition is asymptomatic, and therein lies the difference between pleural plaques and other asbestos-related diseases that do have symptoms that amount to injury, are therefore actionable in law and can therefore be compensated for. The noble Baroness has made a good and passionate case for her Bill. She has made a virtue of its narrowness and its intended application. However, I urge her to consider the possible ramifications of widening a settled and general principle of personal injury law. If there is an identifiable and provable link between suffering or injury in such cases and action taken by or negligence on the part of the employer—a legally provable causal link with the injury that someone is now suffering—the normal law of this country, without any amendments such as in this Bill, would give those people a locus for action. As I understand it—I will accept any correction if I am wrong—pleural plaques do not turn malignant or become malignant mesothelioma. I will probably refer to it as "meso", as do most lawyers. The pleural plaques do not cause asbestosis to develop, nor do they increase the risk of lung cancer. They are a different condition. If anyone who has pleural plaques also develops meso, he will have grounds for a personal injury claim. The passage or not of this Bill will not affect that situation, which is as it should be. The noble Baroness is attempting to overturn a decision of the House of Lords in its judicial capacity, now the Supreme Court, which was an effort to reassert the general principle of the law as the understanding of asbestos-related conditions developed and changed. I accept that it is a matter for Parliament to do those things. This is obviously the only route that the noble Baroness or her colleagues in another place can now seek in order to effect that. Only Parliament can change the law if the Supreme Court or the House of Lords in its judicial capacity has declared it to go one way or the other. If that was the case, it might be more appropriate for a Government-led initiative. I would welcome the Minister’s comments on that. I have a number of questions I should like to put to the Minister, particularly as his department has much greater access to resources than the rest of us. I should be grateful if he would take note of these and for some answers. First, the Government conducted a consultation process nearly two years ago, after which I believe they estimated that the cost of implementing the changes being sought under this Bill were somewhere between £4 billion and £28 billion. Those are very large sums and to go from £4 billion to £28 billion is a very large range. Will the noble Lord confirm that those are the figures provided by the department? Does it still stick with them or is there an accurate update of its the estimates? Secondly, how does the retrospective nature of the Bill affect the estimates of what the costs might be? That is a serious question for the insurance companies, particularly those which possibly have ceased to exist. Thirdly, will the noble Lord—or this might be a question more for the noble Baroness—give the House an idea of how quantum would have to be decided in each case if the Bill were to be passed? Again, since the noble Baroness referred to it, one might draw on the experiences in Scotland. That might help the noble Lord to answer the first question on the estimates of total cost. Fourthly, I would be grateful if the noble Lord could tell us about what is happening in Scotland. We know that the Bill was passed and that there has been a subsequent judicial challenge. I think that it has gone to the highest levels of the courts in Scotland, but obviously it could go from there to the Supreme Court. Fifthly, a few moments ago I drew the attention of the House to the difference between pleural plaques and mesothelioma. I am aware that mesothelioma claims can be a long and drawn-out process, and indeed it is one of the problems in those claims. This debate is therefore a useful opportunity to ask the Government whether they have any intention, or even suggestions to make, as regards speeding up the process so that compensation can be paid on a somewhat more helpful timescale. Again, I congratulate the noble Baroness on bringing forward this Bill for debate. As I said, it is an important issue and one about which she and a great many others, particularly in the north-east, feel strongly. I am sorry that I cannot agree with her, and while I have full sympathy for all sufferers of any asbestos-related disease, I am not persuaded that this is necessarily the time to overturn the decision of the court. However, I will of course listen carefully to what the Government have to say and to the response of the noble Baroness when she concludes the debate and then during the further stages of the Bill.