That the Bill be read a second time.

My Lords, this Bill appeared in the previous Session in another place, where the Member in charge was Mr Andrew Dismore. I am pleased that it passed through all its stages in the other House and, indeed, that it received all-party support in that House. However, its Third Reading did not take place until 20 October last year, which meant that, by the time it was sent to this House, there was unfortunately insufficient time for it to proceed through its parliamentary stages before the end of the Session.

However, my interest in this Bill, and the reason that I was keen to sponsor it in your Lordships’ House, derives from a speech made in this House by my noble friend Lord Dixon, to whom I pay tribute for his work on the issue. My noble friend spoke powerfully in December 2008 about the many cases that he knew of in the shipbuilding industry on Tyneside where people exposed to asbestos developed pleural plaques and lived with the constant worry of contracting life-threatening asbestos-related conditions as a result. In that debate, he said that he himself had worked in the shipbuilding and ship-repairing industries for 37 years and that some of the colleagues with whom he had served his apprenticeship and worked alongside had died of asbestos-related diseases. He knew from that direct experience what a terrible death it was. He also reminded us that there is no way in which anyone can get pleural plaques other than through exposure to asbestos, so it is very clearly an industrial condition.

Like my noble friend Lord Dixon, my home area is the north-east of England, and at different times in my political life—in the European Parliament and in the other place—I have represented the shipyard areas of both Tyneside and Wearside. Because of that, I know how much the issue of pleural plaques causes fear and dread. I also know that, before the House of Lords 2007 judicial ruling, compensation had been paid to people over a 20-year period but that since then many others have tragically been caught by the ruling and have been unable to benefit. This, I believe, has created an unfair and anomalous situation between people in the same neighbourhoods and the same workplaces. My Bill would restore the position that existed before the House of Lords 2007 ruling on the case, which had been brought before the House of Lords by insurance companies.

Importantly, the Bill would also create parity of treatment between Scotland on the one hand and England and Wales on the other. The Scottish Parliament has already legislated to restore compensation to affected workers and, interestingly enough, the Scottish courts have recently confirmed the legality of the new position in Scotland in rejecting arguments against the legislation by insurers, in particular.

While I respect, and indeed fully support, the right of the devolved institutions to introduce their own policies, I urge the Government to follow the Scottish example. I hope that the Government will accept—as indeed I hope will the spokespeople of the opposition parties—that it is particularly galling for former shipyard workers on Tyneside and Wearside, many of whom have done stints of work in the Scottish yards, to have to endure this discriminatory and unfair treatment.

While many of the people affected by pleural plaques are in shipyard areas such as mine, the issue affects many workplaces and former workplaces throughout the country, particularly in the engineering sector. Yesterday, I had the pleasure of meeting our colleague the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lincoln to discuss this issue. He is unable to be here today but supports the Bill strongly. He told me of the significant research done into the incidence of pleural plaques by the industrial chaplain to the engineering industry in the Lincoln area. The evidence collected shows the way that workers were exposed to asbestos, and it also highlights the negligence that occurred through the lack of information given to those who were exposed to this highly dangerous substance.

I know that the Government will have some fears that if the 2007 ruling is entirely reversed and we go back to the situation that existed previously, injury lawyers, for example, may seek to profit through this by maximising every possible claim, resulting in costly bills to industry and government.

However, I hope that the Government will consider tackling the issue of excess legal profits in other ways. It would be quite wrong—even grotesque, in my view—to let concerns about the cost of justice prevent justice from being granted to those who deserve it and need it most. It is of course hard—it has certainly been hard for me—to get completely reliable figures for how many claims could be introduced as a result. My understanding is that there were probably about 4,000 or so claims pending which were halted by the 2007 ruling, and that there have probably been about another 3,000 since then. I have to say that my figures are guesstimates based on information supplied by one firm which was probably representing about 30 per cent of cases at a time, but that is the best guesstimate that I have been able to make in the circumstances.

I assume, however, that as compensation had been paid for a considerable number of years before the ruling, and as, too, the outcome of the ruling was far from being a foregone conclusion, the Government must have planned for a certain level of ongoing expenditure on such cases. If the judgment had not taken place, or if the result had gone the other way, the Government—and, of course, insurers—would have had to continue to pay compensation in any case.

I willingly concede that the Bill raises a number of legal aspects, some of the details of which can of course be looked at in Committee. There is also the recent helpful case in Scotland for our guidance. That case was decided on 8 January of this year and ruled firmly against the challenge to the Scottish legislation brought by insurance companies. On the legal aspects of the Bill before us today, my honourable friend in another place, Andrew Dismore, met lawyers from the Ministry of Justice. I have seen an account of the meeting, and none of the legal issues seem insurmountable—far from it. Indeed, at this point I pay tribute to the work done by Andrew Dismore and a considerable number of other colleagues in the other place, who have shown both persistence in raising the issue of pleural plaques and considerable knowledge of the legal and other issues involved.

The Government, including both the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Justice, have met me and other interested Members of both Houses about the issue, and I appreciate that they understand the concerns of those with pleural plaques because of exposure to asbestos. I know, too, that the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Justice have been considering the issues raised in the Bill and looking at a variety of ways of helping people who are affected. I am grateful for that, but I still hope that my Bill can make progress.

In conclusion, although this time on a Friday, at the end of Parliament's working week, is not a time at which attendance is high, I am sure that noble Lords will none the less not underestimate the great interest in this issue in both the national and local media. Indeed, the media interest in areas such as mine is constant and intense. There is hope and expectation that the discrimination created by the 2007 ruling and the financial hardship experienced by many pleural plaque sufferers will be addressed by your Lordships' House, by the Government and by Parliament as a whole. I beg to move.

My Lords, I have heard of pleural plaques on several occasions, but was never clear exactly what they were until I started doing some research for this debate. The judgment that removed compensation included the statement that they do not do you any harm in themselves, but it does mean that you have been exposed to a potentially lethal substance. That leaves us in a rather odd situation. If we could prove that certain types of pleural plaques would lead to certain conditions—I have not been made aware that we can—there would be an unanswerable case that compensation should always be given. However, there does not seem to be enough medical knowledge here to decide even the likelihood—if there has been improvement on this I would be very interested to hear it—of developing further complications and damage.

In that very odd situation, when trying to decide what to do, we are left with the question: is the fact that you have been exposed to a potentially lethal substance in itself worthy of compensation, because the risk and possibility of further complications is there? People have also decided that the establishment of risk is not enough; you must have something that damages your health in the long term. That was my interpretation of the judgment. Is the worry worthy of compensation? That seemed to be one of the key issues.

I appreciate that this was not their decision but a legal decision, but are the Government prepared to accept that the worry itself is sufficient to warrant some form of compensation, given that it is accepted that asbestos can lead to something that is life-threatening or even fatal? It is a very odd question and, thinking about it, is there much more to say? The noble Baroness gave a very good example of what has gone before. Will the Government say what they are about to do? I am inclined to think that there should be at least some form of compensation, although I probably speak for myself and not for my party on this one. Unless there is a good reason why there should not be—perhaps certain categories can be removed as being low-risk—worry should be taken into account. When someone discovers they have damage such as pleural plaques, unless you can tell them definitively that there is no need to worry—of course, some will still worry—surely their lives will be blighted to a degree.

I have another question for the Minister. Now that the established legal position is that there is no condition, does that affect your life insurance and other insurance claims, such as healthcare? If it does, there clearly is a knock-on effect. If it does not, I still suggest that we need to take the matter slightly further. If we are in the process of establishing risk, I would like to hear more about how the Government and the machinery of government have established the degree of risk and how the perception of risk affects people, because even if the risk is heightened only slightly, it can still affect people’s lives. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

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.

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lady Quin on securing a Second Reading debate on this important issue. The main focus of her Bill is pleural plaques. I know that this issue was the subject of a similar Bill in the last Session of Parliament and several previous adjournment debates in another place, where an identical Bill is also receiving its Second Reading today.

The Bill provides for asymptomatic pleural plaques and the separate conditions of asymptomatic pleural thickening and asymptomatic asbestosis to constitute actionable damage under the law of tort for which damages may be awarded. In approximately 1 per cent of cases, pleural plaques cause symptoms, and in these cases it remains possible to bring a claim under the civil law. The Bill also contains provisions on limitation and retrospectivity to enable claims to be brought in cases which were stayed pending the House of Lords decision on pleural plaques and those which have not been concluded subsequently. The issue of pleural plaques has been the subject of considerable interest and attention both within Parliament and outside it. It may be helpful if I begin by explaining the current position before turning to the Bill.

As noble Lords may know, the Government have carried out a consultation exercise on the question of whether pleural plaques should be made compensatable under the civil law. The consultation paper proposed action to improve understanding of pleural plaques and to provide support and reassurance to those diagnosed with pleural plaques to help allay their concerns. It considered the issues that arise in relation to changing the law of negligence and invited views on whether this would or would not be appropriate. It also sought views on the merits of offering no-fault financial support to people diagnosed with pleural plaques, and on two possible ways of doing this. I understand the concerns that have been expressed about the time it has taken to reach conclusions in the light of this consultation. The House of Lords decision raised extremely complex and difficult issues which have required very careful consideration within Government. It has also been important to look beyond the issue of pleural plaques itself to consider how people who have been exposed to asbestos can be supported much more widely.

We have made clear throughout that it is very important to ensure that any decisions are reached on the basis of the best available medical evidence on the nature of pleural plaques. For that reason, we have commissioned and published reviews of the medical evidence carried out on behalf of the Chief Medical Officer for England and Wales and by the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council to help inform consideration of the issue. Helpful further discussions have also taken place with key medical experts in relation to the medical evidence.

As I have said, it is also important to consider much more widely how people exposed to asbestos can be supported. The Government have been consistent in their commitment to give people suffering from mesothelioma and other serious asbestos-related diseases the help and support they deserve, and we are determined to build on the positive steps that we have already taken on this. With that in mind, the Justice Secretary has confirmed that the Government are actively considering measures to make the UK a global leader in research for the alleviation, prevention and cure of asbestos-related diseases; and to help speed up compensation claims for those who develop serious asbestos-related diseases such as mesothelioma. This includes examination of the process for tracking and tracing employment and insurance records, as well as looking into the support given to individuals who are unable to trace such records. Further details of the Government’s plans on these extremely important issues will be announced shortly.

The Bill has to be considered in the context of all these developments. It represents one possible approach to the issue of pleural plaques. However, there are a number of other approaches to the wider issues surrounding asbestos-related diseases which could be appropriate. We want to ensure that these are considered fully and the best response identified. As we are still in the process of assessing what the Government’s response should be on pleural plaques and the wider issues affecting those suffering from asbestos-related diseases, it is not possible to give a firm indication today of what the Government’s ultimate position on the noble Baroness’s Bill may be.

The noble Lord, Lord Henley, asked five questions, to which I do not have answers, other than that the Scottish judgment is, as he said, currently being appealed and it would be inappropriate for me to comment on it. The essential point about the speed at which the asbestos-related claims I have alluded to are considered, and his other questions, will be answered when we complete the process of consultation and publish the results. We hope that will happen shortly.

On the basis of what I have said so far, I can confirm that the Government are content for the Bill to proceed today.

My Lords, I am grateful for the three contributions to the debate that we have heard and for the support that I have received from many of my noble friends in the House for the ideas contained in the Bill.

The noble Lord, Lord Addington, referred to the fact that pleural plaques are largely asymptomatic and asked relevant questions about the medical evidence and the medical implications of pleural plaques. Obviously this issue can be considered in further detail in Committee; none the less, I refer the noble Lord to the information supplied by the House of Commons Library for the debate there on Wednesday 11 February, in which Members referred to studies of groups of patients with pleural plaques. These studies showed that where the plaques were thickened and widespread there was an increased risk of developing more serious asbestos-related diseases. However, when you know that someone has been exposed to asbestos, it is difficult to say whether the more serious disease develops because of the plaques or because of the exposure over a prolonged period of time to that substance.

I was merely trying to say that if the condition can be seen as an indication of further problems occurring, early action may be appropriate.

Indeed. I accept that point. There seems to be a link between those people who have very thick pleural plaques and later problems of the kind to which the noble Lord refers. I was also grateful to the noble Lord for understanding the psychological damage that people experience as a result of knowing that they have pleural plaques, and the anxiety and concern that that causes for them ever afterwards.

I was grateful too to the noble Lord, Lord Henley, who also showed understanding for those who have been diagnosed with pleural plaques and their worries and concerns. I was a little concerned that he was not more enthusiastic about the Bill. I hope that he is persuadable, because the Bill had strong, all-party support in the other place. Strong statements of support came from both the Liberal Democrats and the noble Lord’s own party.

One reason for my expressing considerable caution is the whole problem of potential costs. My understanding is that the Government had estimated costs to all parties of somewhere between £4 billion and £28 billion, which is a pretty wide range. That is why I put that question to the Minister. I was hoping for an answer which might help us in this debate. Perhaps we will get it in due course.

I understand the noble Lord’s point. Without having a clear idea of the potential number of cases, it is very difficult to estimate the costs. However, if the ruling had been different, the situation which had existed for 20 years previously would have continued and, therefore, those costs would have had to be met. As I said in my opening speech, there are ways of trying to limit the profits that companies try to make out of bringing forward claims of this kind.

The Minister reminded us of what I also should have mentioned when I introduced the Bill earlier; namely, that the Bill is being presented in pretty well identical form in the other place today. I pay tribute once again to my honourable colleague, Andrew Dismore, for his persistence in bringing the issue forward.

Many of the issues that have been raised could very fruitfully be explored in Committee. This issue will not go away, because many elected representatives as well as Members of your Lordships' House feel very strongly about the situation of people with pleural plaques and the discrimination that we feel has been created by the ruling in 2007.

I remind noble Lords that the legal situation in Scotland is now very similar to that which existed in England and Wales for so long. My Bill merely tries to return us to the status quo ante. That is much more a matter of political will than of insurmountable, detailed issues of principle or legal ramifications. For all those reasons, I hope that the Bill will be able to proceed. I ask the House to give it a Second Reading.