Damages (Asbestos-related Conditions) Bill [HL]

My Lords, I very much welcome the fact that we are dealing with this Bill in Committee today. I also welcome the spirit in which the noble Lord, Lord Henley, has put forward his amendments, which he has told us are probing amendments. In his remarks, he asked the Government a number of valid questions, to which I hope responses will be made. Some of the noble Lord’s questions related to the Written Ministerial Statement on this matter that the Government issued on 25 February. I say from the outset that I welcome the announcement that the Government made last week about helping those people who had made claims but whose claims were then stopped because of the Law Lords’ judgment in 2007. The level of payments that the Government outlined in that Statement are reasonable; they are in the middle of the range previously awarded under the old scheme, before the Law Lords overturned it in 2007. Secondly, I very much welcome the fact that in the Government’s Statement there are measures to speed up the payment of compensation claims for mesothelioma and other serious asbestos-related diseases. That is obviously very important. Thirdly, I very much welcome the fact that part of the Government’s Statement refers to expanding the research into asbestos-related diseases and asbestos cancers. Therefore, much is to be welcomed in the Statement. We last debated this Bill on 5 February, when we had the Second Reading. On that day, an identical Bill, presented by Mr Andrew Dismore, succeeded in passing through the other place in all its stages. It might seem slightly odd that somehow we are not considering that Bill at the same time as my Bill, since they are identical. I am not a procedural expert and do not fully understand the reasons for that, but I hope that the fact that the Bill has reached us from the other place in the form that it has, which is identical to my Bill, will strengthen the case for my Bill today. I hope that the Government will give time for the further consideration of the two Bills. The amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Henley, go to the heart of the Bill. For that reason, I was not surprised at his comments on Clause 1 as a whole, as it is really the major part of the Bill. When I first saw his amendments, I was somewhat alarmed because, on the face of it, they looked as if they might contain a rather different policy line from that pursued by the noble Lord’s colleagues in the other place—I am thinking in particular of the strong support given to the Bill by Mr Henry Bellingham, who spoke for the opposition Front Bench. His speech in the other place on 16 October last year was very powerful. He said: ""We should not forget that we are talking about victims … Imagine waking up every day knowing that you have a physical condition that could lead to an evil and wicked illness that is invariably fatal … That is why we need to show compassion to those who are suffering and never forget that they are the only people who really matter in this debate".—[Official Report, 16/10/09; col. 572.]" In the same speech, he referred to some of the concerns that the noble Lord has expressed about the possible costs in this case. However, compensation has largely been of a fairly modest nature—not a life-changing sum but varying between £4,000 and £7,000 for each victim. Those points are important to take into account. The noble Lord’s amendments raise a number of detailed issues. Some of the issues relating to costs and the diagnosis and assessment of pleural plaques can be dealt with through provisions already in force. Certainly, the Civil Procedure Rule Committee and the Jackson review are looking at issues of cost, which are best taken care of in that context rather than through amendments to this Bill. As the person sponsoring the Bill in this House, knowing that it has proceeded twice through the other place in unamended form—because, as the opposition spokesperson in the other place recognised, it was tightly worded and had been carefully checked out beforehand—I hope that, although the amendments raise many useful points, the Bill and Clause 1 can remain in their current form.