Damages (Asbestos-related Conditions) Bill [HL]

My Lords, perhaps I, too, may respond to one or two of the points that have been made. I feel less warm about this group of amendments than some of the previous amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Henley, because these issues are taken care of elsewhere in the legal system. He said that the proposed level of awards is rather high. I have already said that I feel that it is about right, because of the response I gave earlier to the noble Lord, Lord Addington. I am reinforced in this by the fact that the noble Lord’s Front-Bench colleague in another place very much took the same line; namely, that the level of awards was modest. It would not be a life-changing sum of money but, as he said, for people who are probably out of work or perhaps from families with no prospect of getting work, it could bring some relief and happiness when the individual would be suffering great anxiety. I know that many people who received awards under the old scheme were workers who had lost jobs because of the closure of shipyards. In many cases, they were in their 50s with virtually no prospect of working again. While the award was in relation to the diagnosis and the presence of pleural plaques, and the worries therefore about further asbestos-related diseases as a result, none the less the level of awards was such as to give some very valued and welcome compensation for exposure to a dangerous disease at what was frequently a difficult point in that person’s life and career, as the noble Lord’s colleague said in the other place. The noble Lord talked about allowing a tariff of damages to be established in one of his amendments, and allowing the Secretary of State to fix by regulation the amount of damages to be paid. But my understanding is that common law sets the damages and tariffs. It might be an unfortunate precedent for that approach to be changed on the basis of this single, fairly tightly drawn piece of legislation. The noble Lord talked about regulations being laid before Parliament. I am not sure that there would be regulations if the Bill was passed in the form in which it appears before us. Incidentally, at an earlier stage he asked me if the wording in my Bill was identical to the Bill that had come from the other place. It is my understanding that it is identical. But, in any case, the other Bill has also been sent to your Lordships' House for consideration. The noble Lord’s desire to see regulations laid before Parliament also links into a later amendment concerned with the Government reporting back to Parliament with an impact assessment on this issue. While I understand why he wishes to do that, it is important to point out that parliamentarians have many ways in which we can raise issues about the operation of particular Acts. We can do so through Parliamentary Questions, debates and so on. Certainly the issues around pleural plaques have been debated not only on the Floor of the other place, but in Westminster Hall. Further, the matter has been raised repeatedly with Ministers at Question Time. There are a number of ways already open to us in which Parliament can closely monitor legislation. Having said that, these and the rest of the amendments tabled by the noble Lord raise issues that it is completely proper to discuss at this stage of our proceedings. From that point of view, I welcome them.