Damages (Asbestos-related Conditions) Bill [HL]

My Lords, I take the opportunity to respond to some of the points made in the amendments and some of the subsequent points made by noble Lords in the debate. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for his understanding that piloting a Private Member’s Bill is a challenge. Having been a Minister, I remember the bank of comforting advice that I could resort to. It is certainly very different when you are trying to pilot a Bill of this kind, although I must say that I am grateful to my colleagues in another place, who have raised these issues on many previous occasions, and whose arguments have been extremely useful in dealing with the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Henley, is quite right to raise the issue of costs. It goes back to what he said earlier when he expressed some alarm at floodgates being opened as a result of such legislation. The Bill returns the situation to what it was prior to 2007. Although there was certainly a number of claims—we have heard about the number of claims in the pipeline—I do not think that they amounted to a flood. However, I agree with what both the noble Lord and my noble friend said about being vigilant that lawyers do not simply use this to tout for business and try artificially to inflate the number of cases. In this instance, my noble friend is quite right: the findings of the Jackson review and the work of the Civil Procedure Rule Committee will be very important in that respect. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Henley, that those issues go much wider than the Bill. They relate to a whole range of compensatable industrial injuries and need to be dealt with on that wider basis, which is why I hope that there will be a positive outcome to the Jackson review process. I should also stress, and the Government have recognised, that previous awards have been fairly modest. That is quite right, given that—this point has been made—you may have been exposed to asbestos, but you may not necessarily develop a more serious disease. I take issue with the reference of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, to the fact that we all have scarring on knees, elbows and so on. It is a very real worry if you have been exposed to such a highly dangerous substance as asbestos. Many colleagues in the other House who represent constituencies where people are affected have graphically described the worry and, in some cases, trauma, that people go through worrying whether they will develop a very serious asbestos-related disease in consequence. I certainly would not want to underestimate that in any sense, although it seems to me that the level of awards that have been given in the past recognises the situation: they are not comparable to the awards given when more serious illnesses or conditions have developed. I gave an estimate—I freely confessed that it was a guesstimate, given the amount of information available to me—of the number affected, but it is interesting that it was rather similar to the Government's estimate in their statement on pleural plaques just a week ago. Finally, the Minister invited me earlier to refer to the situation in Scotland. Obviously, I accept the point that further appeals are taking place. None the less, I continue to have huge concern, which relates to the fact that I live in a border region of the United Kingdom where workers may have worked in both English and Scottish shipyards and may be resident in England but have been exposed to asbestos in their time working in a Scottish shipyard, or vice versa. It worries me that, although I normally support different policies being pursued by devolved Administrations, on this issue we could be leading towards an unfair and discriminatory situation, which would badly affect a lot of working people in my part of the country. I am sure that your Lordships will understand my human concern for people who might find themselves in that situation.