My Lords, the argument here reminds me very much of the discussion that we had at Second Reading. Indeed, the tone is the same. The condition affects someone who has clearly been placed at risk, but there is a degree of worry. Have they escaped and dodged the bullet, with a reminder left within their bodies, disguised? How much damage will this cause to their mental health? Future research may prove that it is a precursor to a more damaging condition.
We can dance around this for ever and a day, but that is where we will be left. As the noble Lord, Lord Henley, pointed out, other schemes have been ambushed by ambulance chasing. We are entitled to have some reassurance from the Government, if this is brought in, that it will be a skilled medical practitioner who identifies the problem. If that occurs, some of my concerns disappear. I hope that the proposal in Amendment 2 will be taken into account for any form of compensation.
Amendment 3 means that the provision would apply, ""only where the person suffers physical symptoms directly attributable to the presence of the pleural plaques"."
We come back to the problem. Let us say that you have the condition and have scarring—and what adult does not have a few scars on their knees, acquired in childhood? It is scar tissue; it does not really affect you very much, especially if you cannot see it and it is not disfiguring. What does this do? It is a problem only if it leads or can be attributed to some other condition, but we do not know whether it will.
If the Government are prepared to give us some guidance on who they will allow in and how they will define the condition, I am less worried. That way you will get rid of the bad practice that has marred other schemes. Of all the amendments that have been tabled, the one that would lead to an assurance that that is covered or accepted deals with many of my problems. There is a problem with the idea that you can get compensation for being nearly in that situation or having been placed at risk. That is something that still rattles around with me, although others may disagree. I will probably not have to intervene again if I get a good indication of what will happen and what the case is with the medical practice. I hope that we can get a good answer, because this is where the problem lies. A good answer will help to speed up the procedure.
I should add that, in the previous bit of business, my noble friend made a mistake about what would happen if there was a vote. I have to admit that that was me whispering in her ear. Anyone reading Hansard who finds that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, got something wrong should know that it was the fault of the noble Lord, Lord Addington.
Damages (Asbestos-related Conditions) Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Addington
(Liberal Democrat)
in the House of Lords on Friday, 5 March 2010.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Damages (Asbestos-related Conditions) Bill [HL].
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
717 c1700-1 
Session
2009-10
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 20:11:57 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_627108
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_627108
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_627108