Damages (Asbestos-Related Conditions) Bill

Consideration of Bill, not amended in the Public Bill Committee

Clause 2

Pleural thickening and asbestosis

09:40:00

Mr. Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con): I beg to move amendment 10, page 1, line 15, leave out

‘, is not causing or is not likely to cause’

and insert

‘and is not causing but is likely to cause’.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment 11, page 1, line 21, leave out

‘, is causing or is likely to cause’

and insert ‘or is causing’.

Amendment 12, page 1, line 22, at end insert

‘if it is likely to cause such impairment’.

Amendment 13, in clause 3, page 2, line 10,  leave out

‘, is not causing or is not likely to cause’

and insert

‘and is not causing but is likely to cause’.

Mr. Chope: Amendment 10 would amend the Bill’s definition of the personal injury which would constitute actionable damage. Amendments 11, 12 and 13 would make similar changes to other parts of the Bill to ensure consistency.

I hope that I will not be thought to be critical of the Bill but, rather, will be considered to be a critical friend of the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore). The subject of pleural plaques and whether they should be regarded as a condition amounting to an actionable personal injury is highly emotionally charged. As a former member of the Health and Safety Commission, I am well aware of the health and safety aspects of exposure to asbestos, and as a former Member for Southampton, Itchen—a constituency containing a disproportionately large number of people who had worked in the ship repair industry and related industries—I am well aware of the hardship caused to the families of those who have died or are suffering as a result of asbestos-related disease. I am therefore very sympathetic to the cause espoused by the hon. Member for Hendon. However, as a lawyer by training and background, I am also anxious that we should retain consistency in the application of legal principles, even when dealing with highly charged and emotional subject matter. Everyone is familiar with the dictum that hard cases make bad law. Indeed, I believe that some of us in the House are currently experiencing the application of that dictum in other contexts.

When clause 2 was discussed in Committee, the hon. Member for Cambridge (David Howarth)—I am sorry that he is not present today—argued that

“anyone who has been exposed to asbestos is in a similar position to someone with pleural plaques, asymptomatic pleural thickening or asymptomatic asbestosis, in that they are at risk of developing the serious diseases in the future.” –– [ Official Report, Damages (Asbestos-Related Conditions) Public Bill Committee, 1 July 2009; c. 12.]

In responding to his point, the Minister led us to believe that she was rather sympathetic to it and would wish to return to the issue on Report. It was with some amazement that I noted that the amendment paper contained no Government amendments, given that on two occasions in Committee the Minister had indicated that she would have to consider the issues and whether the Government might wish to table amendments.

What concerns me is that the Minister herself, having expressed reservations, seems still not to have pronounced on whether she wishes the Bill to proceed in its current form, whether she would like it to be amended, or whether she wishes that it was not there at all and wants to will it into the long grass. The position is made worse by the fact that on repeated occasions over the past 15 months or so the Government promised that the results of their consultation paper on this sensitive matter would be published shortly, very shortly or imminently, before the recess. In July, at the very end of the period when the House was sitting, no less a person than the Secretary of State for Justice said that he would respond after the recess. I have discussed the matter informally with the hon. Member for Hendon, and I believe that I am not alone in feeling surprised that we have not yet heard that statement from the Justice Secretary.

Mr. Henry Bellingham (North-West Norfolk) (Con): Does my hon. Friend agree that it is curious that the Government have not been more supportive of the Bill? As I understand it, the Bill would return to the position to the status quo ante, and would solve the problem caused by the House of Lords ruling, obviating the need for the Government to come up with a large amount of taxpayers’ money. It could be a win-win situation for everyone.

Mr. Chope: I am not sure I agree that if the Bill were passed in its current form it would bring back the status quo ante, because I think that what is in the Bill is slightly different from the status quo ante. That is one of my reasons for trying to draw out a response from the Minister. However, I share my hon. Friend’s scepticism and criticism of the extraordinary way in which the Government have been behaving.

I did a bit of research overnight, as one does, and noticed that when consultation was announced last year, no less a person than the Government Chief Whip—from whom we have already heard once today—expressed the view on his website, on behalf of his constituents, that it was very good news and that progress would be made as a result. I hope that he will return to the Chamber during the debate, and will let us know his present view of the way in which the Government have behaved since then.

The amendments are designed to try to find a middle way, and above all to provoke a response from the Government. As currently drafted, clause 2(1) would enable compensation to be paid even when the condition

“has not caused, is not causing or is not likely to cause impairment of a person’s physical condition”.

Even when there is no likelihood of future physical impairment, damages would be payable. How can such a proposition be consistent with the law of tort? I do not think that it can be, and, indeed, that is what the unanimous ruling of the House of Lords amounted to.

In February, during a debate in Westminster Hall—another signpost on the route march to what people hoped would be a declaration of the Government’s views on the matter—the hon. Member for Wansbeck (Mr. Murphy) said:

“People who have been diagnosed with pleural plaques can think of little else, and all that they can consider is that their next step could be a fatal one, so it is vital that compensation is paid.” —[ Official Report, 11 February 2009; Vol. 487, c. 445WH.] As he said, he was speaking as somebody who had worked in the mining industry for some 30 years during which he had been almost continuously exposed to asbestos. His own position is therefore almost identical to that of people with pleural plaques. They have had long exposure to asbestos, but do not yet have—and it is to be hoped will not get—pneumoconiosis as a result.

An issue to do with morbidity rears its ugly head at this point. We know that people who think that they are likely to get a serious, life-threatening or fatal disease sometimes become morose and morbid about that. The Government’s consultation process was designed in part to raise the issue of whether we should try to allay the fears of people who have been exposed to asbestos by stressing that mere exposure to it does not necessarily result in physical harm let alone loss of life, although we know that, sadly, in many cases that has been the consequence.

What I propose is a middle way. I have used the word “likely”. When we define something as likely to happen, we mean that there is more than a 50 per cent. chance or risk of a particular outcome. If we say something is as likely or not to happen we mean that there is a 50:50 chance, but if we say something is likely we mean that there is a greater than 50 per cent. chance of its happening. I think that if somebody has got a more than 50 per cent. chance of suffering a physical result from exposure to asbestos, a genuine argument can be put forward as to why they should be entitled to damages. However, I do not think that it is possible to put forward that argument with the same strength if it is said that there is a zero chance that a person will be subjected to some life-threatening disease as a consequence of such exposure. That highlights the challenge that the promoter of the Bill, the hon. Member for Hendon, must meet.

It is also a challenge that may have been causing some problems for the Government, but however difficult a legal issue might be, ducking it, running away from it, prevaricating or delaying is not helpful. The consequence of the Government’s failure to address this issue is that thousands, if not tens of thousands, of people are completely in limbo land in respect of their claims. They are in limbo land if their claims are before the courts at present and have been suspended pending the announcement of the outcome of the Government consultation and its being known whether they wish to legislate. People who might have to pay any bills as a result of a retrospective change in the law are also in limbo land.

It appears that there is a lot of activity in the Labour party, with one group of people or another being blamed. Lord Mandelson has come in for quite a lot of stick in the Daily Mirror , I read; I do not know whether that is fair. What I do know, however, is that a failure to reach a decision is oppressive for all those people who are affected in one way or another by this situation. I hope that the Minister will tell us today, in words of one syllable, exactly what the Government will do and when they will do it, and that she will explain and apologise for the fact that the Government have not faced up to this issue up until now.

The Government must realise that if the opportunity to legislate on the matter through this Bill is missed there would have to be emergency legislation at the tail-end of this Parliament, and that might not be at all easy to achieve. The Bill could be used as a vehicle for achieving the objective, and at one stage I thought the Government were using it as such, but their failure to table any amendments notwithstanding the concerns expressed in Committee makes me suspicious of their motives. I may be being unfair, but I judge things today on the basis of the record, and the current Government’s record of being open and forthcoming with the House is dismal and appalling in the extreme.

The amendments do not purport to provide a perfect solution. I believe that they are an improvement on the current draft, however, and I look forward to hearing what the Government have to say. I am sure that many Labour Members, as well as my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) who supports the amendments, are of a similar view. A few succinct words from the Minister—I am happy to give way to her if she wants to intervene on me now—could certainly allay a lot of concerns. Amendments 11 and 12 amend clause 2(3) and amendment 13 amends clause 3 to achieve the same objective.

We do not need to go into the alternatives possible should amendment 10 not be agreed—and, indeed, if the Bill is not passed—but perhaps the Minister will comment on the suggestion made in obiter dicta by some of the Lords in the House of Lords decision that those who are seemingly without a remedy in negligence may be able to get access to a remedy for breach of contract. If she were to share with the House any thoughts on that that she might have, it would inform the debate on future amendments and on Third Reading. Question put, That the amendment be made.

220|09:57|3|39| The House divided: | Question accordingly negatived. ||0|0

Clause 3

Limitation of actions

Mr. Chope: I beg to move amendment 14, page 2, line 13, leave out paragraph (b).

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment 15, page 2, line 15, leave out subsection (2).

Amendment 16, page 2, line 20, leave out clause 4.

Amendment 17, in clause 5, page 2, line 31, leave out subsection (2).

Mr. Chope: The purpose and effect of amendment 14 are to remove a retrospective element from the Bill. In Committee, the Minister said that clause 3

“does not reflect the different legislation on limitation periods for Northern Ireland. We shall have to look at that at a later stage.” –– [ Official Report, Damages (Asbestos-Related Conditions) Public Bill Committee, 1 July 2009; c. 13.]

I am amazed that in the previous debate, notwithstanding the concern expressed in all parts of the House on this issue, the Minister did not have the courtesy to explain the Government’s position on the Bill. In private, during the Division, I asked her why she had not spoken and her reply was that it was because she was neutral on the Bill. If the Government are neutral on it, how come so many Ministers voted against the previous amendment? There seems to be some inconsistency.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure the hon. Gentleman realises that we cannot dwell on the previous amendment and the vote on it. We must move on to the amendments before us.

Mr. Chope: I fully accept that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I am hoping that as a result of what I am saying the Minister will earn her keep—her substantial salary—by making the effort to stand at the Dispatch Box after I have spoken to explain her views on amendment 14 and the associated amendments and explain what she meant by those comments in Committee. I know the frustration of so many Members—mainly, but not exclusively, Labour Members—who have been campaigning on this issue at the fact that the Government have not responded to the consultation and not yet said what they are going to do. I am surprised and disappointed that there was not greater participation in the previous debate—I hope that there will be more in this one.

The importance of these amendments is that they deal with retrospection and the consequences of changing the law. The promoter of the Bill, the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore), said that if anyone wanted to take advantage of the law, they would still be able to do so on a retrospective basis. In my view, if anyone wishes to take advantage of the new law, they should have to commence proceedings for the remedies under it after the Bill comes into force—that would be the normal procedure. I do not believe that the Bill is an exact replication of what happened before the House of Lords judgment, so it would create a new legal framework. If people wish to take advantage of that framework, they would have to start proceedings under that framework. The Bill, as drafted, would mean that those who had begun their actions but had not brought them to a conclusion would be in a better position than those who had brought actions and had them determined for lesser sums or on a compromise basis under the old law, so some people would be at a severe disadvantage.

I am also concerned about the issue of retrospection, which is a hot topic. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) said yesterday, it goes to the root of what we mean by the rule of law. If we do not comply with the rule of law and if we start implementing retrospective legislation, we create —[Interruption.] So many sedentary comments are being made at the same time that I cannot hear them. If hon. Members wish to intervene one by one—seriatim, to put it in legal terms; I know that the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) will understand that term, even if some of his colleagues do not—I shall do my best to respond to them.

10:15:00

Mr. Simon Burns (West Chelmsford) (Con): I can understand in principle my hon. Friend’s antipathy to the whole concept of retrospection. With regard to asbestos, however, a problem emerges. A constituent of mine is suffering from lung cancer as a result of asbestos in schools; it has been established that her working environment caused her medical complaint. If the Bill were to be enacted, she would presumably not be able to claim any compensation. That is a bit unfair, given that after this Bill is enacted—if that is what happens—other people would be able to claim. Unfairness might be created purely because of the use of an arbitrary date.

Mr. Chope: My hon. Friend makes a good point. As soon as we start discussing retrospection, we are talking about arbitrariness. That is why most people deplore the principle of retrospection. Most written constitutions outlaw retrospective legislation, which means that if a Parliament seeks to introduce such legislation, it can be challenged successfully through the jurisdiction of the courts of the country in question, on the basis that it is contrary to the constitution. This country does not have a written constitution and we rely, in a sense, on this House to police the standards that we have traditionally held dear and the principles that we have traditionally held dear, which include being against retrospection. Yet this Bill would have the effect of changing the rules back to what its promoter thinks they were before. However, they would not return to what they were before, because what he is really saying is that the law would be changed back to what is contained in this Bill. That means using some indeterminate point in the past, the length of which backwards would be limited only by the operation of the limitation legislation. That would create all sorts of unintended consequences and manifest injustices, along the lines that my hon. Friend has outlined.

I do not know whether the Government are neutral about this matter, whether they are silent or whether they are just in contempt of Parliament. If we do not get an answer on this, it would be very sad indeed, because surely those outside this place should be able to know the Government’s response on this issue, which has been included in the Bill. I do not know whether there is a conspiracy of silence involving the Government and Labour Members, and I do not know the Government’s motive on this matter. I feel sad that a Bill that has progressed this far, through the ingenuity of the hon. Member for Hendon, is being looked at by the Government as if it were of no relevance whatever. The Minister will not account for herself. I shall give way to her if she wishes to indicate whether or not she will respond to this debate. Is she just going to sit there and not respond? She is smiling—perhaps she will say whether she will respond to this.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Bridget Prentice)Later.

Mr. Chope: That is great; we are making some progress. If the Minister responds to this debate, I will have the chance to respond to her comments, and that will be helpful.

Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend’s point about the principle of retrospection, which is clearly arbitrary and unfair. Does he agree that it might well not be a good argument to use with this Government to try to persuade them of our case, since they have already introduced legislation retrospectively? In fact, they went even further than that and introduced taxes retrospectively in this Parliament.

Mr. Chope: My hon. Friend is right. We have had lots of complaints about those retrospective tax changes, but in fairness to the Government—although I am reluctant to be fair to them—there has always been an element of retrospection in relation to tax legislation. That is why at the beginning of the Budget debate certain of the measures in the orders on taxation are always deemed to have had retrospective effect even though they have not been passed by the House at that stage. There have always been arguments in very special circumstances for the use of retrospective legislation in relation to tax, but my hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that this Government have extended those conventions far in excess of what they used to be.

We now have this Bill, which might or might not have been connived at by the Government—we will find out shortly—and which sets a dangerous precedent. It makes it much more difficult for those who compromise their principles about retrospection to argue against the retrospective elements of Sir Thomas Legg’s rulings, because it makes them look as though they are prepared to argue against retrospection only when it affects them personally rather than a matter of principle. My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) and I can openly say that we are against retrospection in all circumstances rather than just in circumstances where it might affect us. There is some commendable consistency on this issue coming from Conservative Members, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham), who sits on the Front Bench, will likewise be able to endorse that and say that he, as a shadow Justice Minister, supports the principle that we should not have retrospection. As a barrister by profession and training, he will understand and share my concerns about that.

I shall sit down now and listen to what the Minister has to say, so that I can respond to her points. Perhaps the promoter of the Bill might give the House the courtesy of a response on the issue, too, because it is too important a subject to be left uncommented on.

Mr. Burns: I do not wish to detain the House for long, but I wanted to make one or two points on the amendments introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope).

In principle, I have considerable sympathy with what my hon. Friend seeks to do. If his amendments were to be successful, they would remove the retrospective nature of the Bill. Like him, I have concerns about retrospective legislation because it can be arbitrary and—in many unforeseen and foreseen circumstances—unfair. However, when one is considering retrospection, one has to judge it case by case. There are some circumstances in which retrospection is not so unfair, or in which it should be considered as an evil, as it might appear at first sight. There are cases—such as in any legislation that involves medical conditions—where it might actually be more unfair not to have a retrospective element. Medical conditions do not occur uniformly and some people might be affected by a new piece of legislation whereas others would not, which would cause unfairness.

As I said in my intervention, I have a constituent who spent all her working life as a dedicated teacher. Unfortunately—this is beyond dispute—she contracted lung cancer as a result of working in an environment where asbestos was present, which has had a life-changing and dramatic effect on her health. If this Bill were to become law and these amendments were accepted, she would not be eligible to seek compensation under the Bill. In theory, someone else who might have been working at the same time and on the same premises might at a later stage develop the same medical condition. Presumably, if the amended Bill became law, that second teacher could seek to claim compensation as it would not be a retrospective claim, but my constituent could not. That, to me, seems arbitrary, unfair and illogical.

That is why I have a misgiving about the intention of the amendments although I have considerable sympathy with the principle of what my hon. Friend is trying to do. When the Minister speaks, perhaps she can address this point and give us the benefit of her role as a Justice Minister and of the legal advice that she can receive by suggesting how we could get round this problem so that we do not have to take the all-or-nothing approach that my hon. Friend’s amendments would introduce.

Mr. Andrew Dismore (Hendon) (Lab): I do not want to detain the House, but I would question whether this is a fully retrospective measure. As the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) conceded, the cases that have already been disposed of will not be reopened as a consequence of these changes. Earlier, the hon. Gentleman talked about the thousands of cases that were in limbo. The Bill will make provision for those thousands of cases and will ensure that those people can bring their cases forward rather than having them simply stay as they are. There is nothing, of course, that would stop new claims being brought.

The hon. Gentleman is overstating his case a little when he talks about the retrospectivity of the provisions. They are there to plug the gap in the law that was created by the House of Lords. Effectively they suspend the limitation period for the period since the decision in the House of Lords to the date when the Bill becomes an Act, and then the limitation period starts to run again. The arbitrary nature of retrospectivity was talked about, but this provision is not arbitrary—it is extremely circumscribed and will apply only to cases of pleural plaques.

The hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) referred to his constituent’s case. As he will probably know, I was a personal injury lawyer before I came to the House. Once a lawyer, always a lawyer, and although I am not practising cases I still have a practising certificate and am a consultant with my firm. If he wants to have a word with me afterwards, I will discuss his constituent’s case with him and see whether I can come up with any ideas. It is not clear from what he said whether his constituent’s case failed because of the limitation defence under section 14 of the Limitation Act 1980, which concerns the date of knowledge, or because an application was made to extend under section 33 of the Act, or whether it failed for other reasons to do with liability.

Mr. Burns: I was not saying that my constituent’s case had failed. The point I was making was that if the amendments were accepted and the Bill become an Act and if my constituent now wanted to pursue a claim, she would presumably not be able to because her existing medical condition is known and she has known about it for some time, whereas if someone discovered after the Bill was enacted that they had the same medical condition, they would be able to make a claim. That would be an unfair difference between the two individuals.

10:30:00

Mr. Dismore: The hon. Gentleman is comparing apples and oranges. As I said, I am happy to discuss his constituent’s case with him after the debate if he wants to do so, but that case would be dealt with under existing law. The problem is that the House of Lords decision said that pleural plaques were not compensatable. Lung cancer attributable to asbestos is compensatable, although if the claim was left too long the three-year limitation period may have expired, and when the case was brought there may be arguments about the date when the claimant knew the cancer was attributable and about whether the judge should give discretion to disapply the limitation period under section 33. There may even be a defence on causation or failure to satisfy the burden of proof. There could be a series of reasons.

The Bill does nothing to affect existing law as it applies in the case of the hon. Gentleman’s constituent and she may indeed have other arguments to advance. On that basis, I hope he will withdraw his concerns about the Bill. It is a narrow, circumscribed provision to deal with a specific problem created by the House of Lords case.

Mr. Burns: I feel that I have nothing to withdraw. I am sorry if my comments were not clear enough, but my concerns were about the amendments, not the Bill.

Mr. Dismore: The amendments would make no difference to the case of the hon. Gentleman’s constituent. There would be no benefit to her whether or not they were accepted, because the measure applies only to pleural plaques.

Mr. Chope: One of the amendments we propose would leave out clause 4. Subsection (2) states:

“Sections 1 and 2 are to be treated for all purposes as having always had effect.”

That is a retrospective change in the law, so does the hon. Gentleman accept that clauses 1 and 2 do not replicate exactly the law as it was before the House of Lords decision?

Mr. Dismore: We could end up in a rather semantic jurisprudential argument about what was or was not the law before the House of Lords judgment. Theoretically, the House of Lords simply stated what the law always was, so to that extent I agree with the hon. Gentleman, but in practice the Bill turns back the law to what everybody thought it was before the House of Lords judgment. That may be a semantic point, but it is the thrust of the Bill—although only in so far as it relates to pleural plaques.

Philip DaviesBut with respect, the Bill does not change the law back to what people thought it was; it changes the law back to what the hon. Gentleman thought it should have been at that time. Surely that cannot be a basis for introducing legislation.

Mr. Dismore: On many occasions, when there has been some weird and wonderful House of Lords decision, the House has passed legislation to put the law back to what people thought it always was. I remember that the decision on causation in the Fairchild case was corrected in the House—putting the law back to what people thought it was before the House of Lords messed around with it. There is nothing particularly novel about the measure; it is very modest and circumscribed. To the minimal extent that it is retrospective, it is justified and I hope that the House will reject the amendment.

Mr. Bellingham: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) for proposing and explaining his amendments. I have only a couple of comments and questions.

As I understand clauses 1 and 2, they put back the old common law, but one of my concerns is the possibility for parallel litigation. Indeed, the Association of British Insurers has talked of a flood of exposure-related cases relating to different types of toxic products. However, having studied the Bill carefully, I think the association is being overly alarmist, because it is tightly drawn.

I should certainly like to hear what the Minister has to say, because we are really going to the hub of the Bill in this debate. I agree with my hon. Friend about retrospection: in principle, it is not a good thing. It is extremely unsatisfactory when applied to tax law—indeed, to any law—to Executive actions or involvement in Members’ affairs. On the other hand, if we are to overturn a judgment of the highest court of the land, there must, by definition, be provisions for individuals who might mount an action in the period between a House of Lords judgment and new legislation coming into effect. That is why the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) has a strong case when he points out that the suspension of the limitation period relates only to pleural plaques.

Although my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch is right about the principle, I should like to hear what the expert—who is of course the Minister—has to say. There is bound to be an element of retrospection but I agree with the hon. Member for Hendon that the Bill is absolutely focused and specific; it refers only to pleural plaques and cannot be extended as the ABI fears. I am comfortable with the clauses as they stand, although I share the concerns expressed by my hon. Friend. However, at this stage, it is important that we hear the view of the sponsoring Department.

Philip DaviesI am listening to my hon. Friend with interest, but does he agree that it is important to defend the retrospection principle? Retrospection may apply only in narrow cases in relation to this Bill, but once the principle of retrospection is conceded on a regular basis it makes it easier to introduce in many other things.

Mr. Bellingham: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He and I share opinions on many issues, including this one. The only point I put to him is that if one is to use legislation—albeit a private Member’s Bill in this case—to overrule a decision of the highest court in the land, there has to be an element of retrospection. Without it, I do not see how we could cope with people who would otherwise have mounted a claim in the intervening period. In my judgment, it is a fair and reasonable thing to do on an extremely defined basis, but I hope that the Minister will put our minds at rest and, above all, give us the opinion of the sponsoring Department, whose job it will be to ensure that if the legislation goes through it is carried out correctly.

Bridget PrenticeI had not intended to speak in the debate on this amendment, but I shall raise a couple of points as a courtesy to the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope), as I think he may have misunderstood me earlier. When I said that I would be speaking later, I meant later in the debate as a whole.

It is flattering of the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) to describe me as the expert when I am surrounded by lawyers. It would be with some trepidation that I described myself as an expert in this subject.

I agree that retrospection is not always a good thing and that it should be avoided as much as possible, but the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) made the very good point that it can be appropriate in certain cases, such as the one he described. If the amendments proposed by the hon. Member for Christchurch were accepted, they would take the heart out of the Bill and although the decision is for my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore), whose Bill it is, I caution against support for the amendments.

Mr. Chope: Can the Minister explain what she meant by her comments on clause 3 in Committee and the different arrangements for limitation periods in Northern Ireland? She said she would have to revisit them at a later stage, but surely we should be considering them at this point rather than on Third Reading.

Bridget PrenticeSince I made that statement, the Northern Ireland Assembly has taken a view as to what it wants to do about the measure, which makes the matter slightly more complicated and is one of the reasons why, unfortunately, we are still looking at some of the detail. There are problems with different limitation periods and it is something we have to look at carefully, but we shall have to do that in co-ordination with the Assembly. On that basis—

Mr. Chope: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Bridget PrenticeI have said as much as I need to say on the clauses, but I shall give way.

Mr. Chope: I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for her indulgence. Am I right to interpret what she just said as meaning she is unhappy with clause 3?

Bridget PrenticeNo, I am not saying that I am unhappy with clause 3; I am saying that we need to reflect further on it. If we are to go down this road at all, we want to ensure that we do so properly. I am perfectly happy for my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon to continue to press the issues, and I hope that we can then move on with the debate.

Mr. Chope: At least we have what I think is the beginning of a debate. The Minister has promised that if we reach Third Reading, we will have a lengthier debate—when she will perhaps elucidate on the opaque comments that she just made. She says that retrospection must be avoided as much as possible, but we should go much further, because, when the Select Committee on the Constitution in the other place reported on retrospective aspects of the Banking Act 2009, it drew the House’s attention to the need for a

“compelling reason in the public interest for a departure from the general principle that retrospective legislation is undesirable. There is therefore a heavy onus on the Government to justify to the House why a retrospective provision”— it was referring to a provision in the then Banking Bill—

“of such breadth…is required in the particular context of this bill”.

The Minister did not discharge that heavy burden upon the Government to justify retrospective legislation, and I am very disappointed about that, because the retrospective element in the Bill before us tarnishes the whole thing.

My hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham), speaking from the Opposition Front Bench, said that clauses 1 and 2 re-established the old common law, but, with the greatest respect to my hon. Friend, I must say that once the highest court in the land has pronounced upon the common law and Parliament has overturned that pronouncement, Parliament replaces with statutory law that part of the common law by repealing it through an Act of Parliament. The courts can interpret that, but I do not think it possible jurisprudentially to go back to the old common law by passing a statute saying that the old common law shall apply. However, if my hon. Friend has a different view about that, because in that area of jurisprudence he may be a greater expert than other Members, I shall gladly give way to him and defer to his better judgment. My understanding, however, has always been that there is common law, and that once statute law has been introduced to replace the common law, there is nothing that one can do about it.

I do not think that my hon. Friend really shares my concerns, but what concerns me is that the Bill makes a retrospective change in the law of negligence, which is applied only to one aspect of damage or personal injury, by defining that personal injury in much wider terms than it could be defined elsewhere in the common law of tort. No justification has been put forward for doing so, other than the justification of expediency. In a sense, that was the point that my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) made—that there are circumstances in which it is expedient to make such a change. However, as soon as we start talking about what is expedient and abandon the rule of law, we get into what is now colloquially called the court of public opinion. From the press cuttings that I have read, I have no doubt that the court of public opinion thinks that people from the mining and shipbuilding industries who suffer from pleural plaques need not only sympathy but compensation. However, this court, which is not subject to the rule of law, can be volatile and there is a thin dividing line between the court of public opinion and mob rule.

10:45:00

The court of public opinion would probably have liked IRA bombers to be left to a lynch mob, but the rule of law prevented it, and I would defend the rule of law to the end. Once we abandon the principle of the rule of law, we are in grave jeopardy, because, as the Leader of the House said so cogently yesterday, its abandonment inevitably leads to arbitrariness. That means unpredictability; it means regimes such as Mugabe’s—that type of operative—can ultimately come into play; and that people live in fear about whether they will be dealt with, or punished, by the state without having any remedy or knowing in advance about whether they have offended the rules of the land.

As for the response given by the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) to my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) in respect of clause 4(2), I should say that, far from turning the law back to what everyone thought it was, the Bill will turn it back to what the hon. Gentleman thought it was and wanted it to be. However, he was wrong: as a lawyer, he must accept that, in the light of the House of Lords ruling, if he felt that the law was as his Bill sets out, he was wrong. He has been proved wrong and told that he is wrong by the highest court in the land, so now he is trying to get his own back on that court and its members by telling them that they were wrong. At all material times, however, we cannot say that they were wrong, because at all material times, as the hon. Gentleman has made clear, the House of Lords ruling is that the common law was and is as enunciated in that judgment.

All that can happen now is a change of law by statute—enacted by this House to implement the hon. Gentleman’s Bill. However, if this House—this Parliament—changes the law, the law should be changed prospectively rather than retrospectively; and, if that law introduces new rights, based on an interpretation of the hon. Gentleman’s legislation, people who currently suffer from pleural plaques or may do so in the future will be able to exercise those rights under the rule of law. They will have their right of action under the hon. Gentleman’s legislation.

I fear that the law of expediency and populism is being introduced to try to replace the rule of law. On the point that my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford made about his own case, having recently been in correspondence with the Government, I must note that when the criminal injuries compensation legislation was brought in, it gave compensation rights to those who were the victims of abuse—even at the hands of a relative—provided that they were under 18 years old.

I have a case of two siblings—one was under 18 and when the law was introduced and the other was over 18, but both had been subject to abuse. The younger of the two has been awarded compensation under the law, but the older has not because the law did not apply retrospectively. That is a hard case—there is no doubt about it, and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford agrees. Do we then say that that provision under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 1995 should have been retrospective? Various bodies, such as the Law Society or the Law Centres Federation or some such body, have suggested that, but the Government have resisted it because they say that the law was prospective, not retrospective. When it was passed, it was said that one had to be under 18 at the time to qualify for remedies under it.

Inevitably, any law passed in the House, unless it has general retrospective application, will create dividing lines, and there will be hard cases. However, should those hard cases cause us to usurp the principle of the rule of law? My argument is that that is wrong. Some people believe that it is right. However, as soon as we start saying, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford did, that we should look at things on a case-by-case basis, we effectively abandon the principle of the rule of law and lay ourselves open to arbitrariness. For example, someone might say, “This has got lots of headlines in the local paper; we must concede the point”, when we would not concede on another case. I think that that is a fundamental issue, and it is why I continue to be concerned about the Bill’s retrospective nature.

Philip DaviesI hope that my hon. Friend will not miss out the amendments he tabled to clause 3 in his speech, and that he will also comment on the Minister’s rather extraordinary point. When he pressed her, she said that the Government were still considering the detail. Is not it slightly alarming that we are considering whether to amend a specific clause, yet the Government have not even considered the detail?

Mr. Chope: My hon. Friend makes a cogent comment, as he so often does in the House. We were told that we would get a full response from the Government to the consultation paper, which extends to 50 or so pages, before Christmas last year. We never got it. We were told that we would get it before the House rose for the summer recess—we never got it. We were told that we would get it at the end of the recess, and we do not have it even today. We have no indication from the Minister of when—if ever—we will get it. The Government are treating the House with contempt. More important—they regularly treat the House with contempt—they are treating all the victims who are affected by pleural plaques with contempt. That is unforgivable.

The Government say that they are still considering the detail. How long will that last? What are the likely conclusions? How can that be consistent with the Government’s approach—as so far revealed—of being benevolently disposed towards the Bill? Perhaps they are not—perhaps they are playing a double game, and if there is a Division on the Bill, they will withdraw their troops and leave the hon. Member for Hendon isolated so that they do not have to account for what happens on Third Reading. I hope that I am wrong because I would like a Third Reading debate. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley is right that something odd is going on.

It is significant that the Minister did not respond to all my amendments. She did not respond to the amendment that would ensure that the Bill did not apply to the Crown. I tabled it to try to draw out some information about the extent to which the Government believed that the Crown would be affected by the change in the law that the Bill proposes. Her response on limitation of actions was simply to say that the change in law or what has been said in Northern Ireland made the matter even more complicated. Where does that leave us? It is the first time she has said that, but perhaps she can get some briefing about what she means by it. Does it mean that she thinks that the period that has elapsed since the end of the consultation—more than a year—justifies another year’s delay in reaching a consultation because of what has happened in Northern Ireland? Perhaps she is hoping for that.

The Government’s response has been wholly unsatisfactory. For the reasons that I have given, amendment 16 to remove clause 4 is the most important amendment. Without clause 4, the Bill would not have retrospective effect. We would respect that, at all material times, the common law is as enunciated by their lordships in the judgment that I mentioned, but that, from the time the measure got Royal Assent, the law in the narrow field of damages for pleural plaques would be different, as outlined in the Bill.

I would therefore like to withdraw amendment 14 and press amendment 16 to a Division. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 4

Commencement and retrospective effect Amendment proposed16, page 2, line 20, leave out clause 4.— (Mr. Chope.)

221|10:57|0|48| The House divided: | Question accordingly negatived. ||0|0

Third Reading

11:09:00

Mr. Dismore: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

I am very pleased that the Bill has been able to get this far. Perhaps it is more than a coincidence that today is the 175th anniversary of the great fire of Westminster. If there had been asbestos in the building, we might all be suffering from pleural plaques, but it might not have burned down.

The normal thing to do on Third Reading is thank those who have helped with the Bill. I thank Ian McFall and Tom Jones of Thompsons solicitors, who have done a lot of research and drafting for me; the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers; and all hon. Members who have turned up today and on previous occasions to support the Bill and who have maintained the Trappist vow of silence as I asked. Many would have liked to have got their names on the ticket by speaking in the debate, and I am grateful that they have not done so to give time to ensure that we had a chance to get the Bill through. I also thank the Chief Whip—he cannot speak in the House, but he has been extremely helpful with the Bill—and the Government. Whether they have been neutral or supportive, they have not sought to obstruct the Bill, to its great benefit.

The people who will benefit are the thousands who suffer from pleural plaques. Pleural plaques in themselves are not disabling, but they are a cause of great worry and they cause physiological changes. About 10 per cent. of people who have pleural plaques go on to develop something more serious.

The fact remains that cases brought in such circumstances are not only about compensation for pleural plaques but about establishing liability for possible future injury. Through the provisional damages system, liability can be established for pleural plaques, and if somebody went on to develop asbestosis or mesothelioma, they would already have the question of liability out of the way. That will shorten claims in future for those conditions, bearing in mind how rapidly they develop and how disabling they can be.

The Bill is modest. It seeks only to turn back the law to what we thought it was prior to the decisions in the courts. Any alternative scheme would cost taxpayers, but turning back the law to what we thought it was will mean that the insurers will have to pay out on the risk that they accepted through the premiums that they took, and that they will not get an unfair windfall.

The Bill is tightly drawn. It is not the thin end of the wedge and will not open the floodgates to any form of parallel litigation for other illnesses or injuries—it relates purely and simply to pleural plaques. It maintains the basic principles of negligence or breach of statutory duty as the tests for liability. The burden of proof that the claim exists and should be upheld will still be on the claimant.

As we have debated, the Bill provides for a suspension of the limitation period, not its disapplication, from the date of the House of Lords decision until the Bill comes into force. That is only fair, but it would not affect any cases that have already been settled or decided in the courts.

I commend the Bill to the House. I realise that there is little time left in this Session, but I hope that the House of Lords will look upon it favourably when it gets there and ensure that it can have a swift passage, so that it can become law and provide compensation for the many thousands of people who have been left in limbo as a consequence of the House of Lords judgment. It is a modest measure, but an extremely important one that will bring comfort and relief to many people up and down the country.

11:13:00

Mr. Chope: I congratulate the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) on having got his Bill this far and having exercised self-restraint in expressing the feelings of frustration that I know he has about the behaviour of the Government on this issue over the last 18 months. I also congratulate him on having found a sponsor for his Bill in the form of Thompsons solicitors, and I am sure that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) will also be pleased, as that firm would stand to benefit significantly—

Mr. Dismore: I would hate for it to be thought that Thompsons had somehow sponsored this Bill, as that is not the case. The firm has given me some expert advice in the drafting and helped with some of the research on the cases. It has not sponsored the Bill, and to say so would give entirely the wrong impression. It is concerned for the victims of pleural plaques, as am I and as is most of the House.

Mr. Chope: I am happy that the hon. Gentleman has put that on the record. Obviously, any firm of solicitors is welcome to provide advice to Members of Parliament, but sometimes solicitors are not as forthcoming in their pro bono activities on behalf of Members. Perhaps they find it easier when they think that they will get more litigation work out of it. I am not saying that that applies to Thompsons, but it is an important point to place on the record.

The hon. Gentleman also said that he is grateful to his hon. Friends for exercising self-restraint and passing up the opportunity to get their names on the ticket. I hope that in that spirit he is also grateful to me and to my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) for ensuring that we have had some Divisions, so that the public can see who was present and voting for the Bill, and who was absent. We have enabled hon. Members to put their names on the ticket in terms of accountability.

The hon. Gentleman commended his Bill and repeated his claim that it would turn back the law to the original position. I have concerns about the Bill—specifically that the questions that the Minister raised in Committee remain unanswered. I hope that when she winds up this Third Reading debate, she will explain some of the things that she said in Committee. For instance, she said:

“As my right hon. Friend the Justice Secretary indicated recently, we are committed to publishing our response before the summer recess.”

What happened? Later in July the Justice Secretary said that the response would be published after the summer recess. When will that response be forthcoming? There is an enormous amount of interest in it. The Minister and the Justice Secretary have no doubt been working diligently over the summer recess, earning their substantial ministerial pay, so why have they not been able to come up with a conclusion so far? We know that yesterday a report that had been available to the Government since before the recess was published only an hour before a major defence debate. On this occasion, we have not even had the Government’s response. I hope that the Minister will give us an unequivocal statement on when we may expect the response to be published.

I hope also that the Minister will explain what she meant by saying that there were complications connected with the Bill and that the Government were unsure about whether to support or oppose it. In Committee, she said:

“The Bill represents one approach to the issue, but a number of other approaches could be appropriate and we want to assess the best response. It is therefore not possible at this stage to give a firm indication of the Government’s position on the Bill, pending those conclusions being reached. For that reason it has not been possible for me to table any amendments for consideration at this stage.

On that basis, if the Committee decides that this clause—and the others—should stand part of the Bill, it may be necessary for the Government to oppose it, or table amendments to it, at a later stage.” –– [ Official Report, Damages (Asbestos-Related Conditions) Public Bill Committee, 1 July 2009; c. 8.]

I hope that she will expand on those clear statements so that we are wiser about the Government’s intentions.

I hope that the Minister will also assure us that whatever the Government decide to do in terms of the law they will not be influenced by the cost to the public purse of any particular course of action. Justice should come without a price. It would be unconscionable if the reason for the Government’s delay is that suggested in an article by Paul Routledge in the Daily Mirror : that the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills is concerned about the cost to the Exchequer. If the Government think that, as a matter of law, it is right for people with pleural plaques to receive compensation, the logical consequences should be allowed to follow. Let not the decision be determined by the cost to the public purse. I would like an assurance from the Minister that that is the thinking.

My reservations about the Bill are on matters of principle, not about the costs flowing from it. I side with neither the Treasury nor the insurance companies. However, I would like the law of tort or negligence to remain the same for all classes of action. There should be a standard definition of what we mean by damage, and we should not try to change the law in a piecemeal way, which would be the consequence of the Bill.

As has been said, pleural plaques are asymptomatic. The hon. Member for Hendon said in Committee that they carry a 5 to 10 per cent. risk of developing into a more serious asbestos-related condition, although I think that just now he put the risk slightly higher. It is important, however, to keep the risk in context. Those with pleural plaques will be understandably worried, but they must remember that they have a 90 to 95 per cent. chance of not developing a serious asbestos-related condition. I agree with the Government about the importance of sending out that message: people should be encouraged to live their lives to the full, notwithstanding the fact that they have pleural plaques. They should not regard it as a death sentence or a means of getting what are, even under the Bill and the law as it stands, quite modest damages. Countless numbers of people have conditions that can become much worse, but if they allow them to dominate their lives, they will be the poorer for it. I hope that the Minister will spell that out. I want people in areas where they might be afflicted by pleural plaques, and those already afflicted by them, to get that clear health message about the need to put in context the risk of developing a more serious condition.

I hope, too, that the Minister will explain what she meant when she responded, in Committee, to comments by the hon. Member for Cambridge (David Howarth) about clause 2. He said:

“Arguably, anyone who has been exposed to asbestos is in a similar position to someone with pleural plaques, asymptomatic pleural thickening or asymptomatic asbestosis, in that they are at risk of developing the serious diseases in the future.”

He made the point that the Bill does not deal with those who have been exposed to asbestos, perhaps over many years, but who do not have pleural plaques. He argued that they are in exactly the same position as those with the condition. He continued:

“I hope that the Government will bear that in mind when they come forward with their proposals”, because the class of people with whom we should be dealing is much larger than the cohort identified in the Bill.

The Minister responded:

“I take exactly what hon. Gentleman says. The clause extends the provisions in a way that was not included in our consultation exercise, so we would have to consider carefully, in light of our conclusions, whether that should be included in any legislation. I leave it at that, with the same caveat as I left at the end of clause 1, that we shall reflect further on whether we need to amend the clause at a later stage.” –– [ Official Report, Damages (Asbestos-Related Conditions) Public Bill Committee, 1 July 2009; c. 12.]

Having had the chance to reflect during the intervening period—it amounts to July, August, September and half of October—has she reached a conclusion on that point?

Obviously, if the Bill receives a Third Reading in this House, it will go to the other place. Little time remains in this Session, but I understand that the other place has an additional Friday sitting set for early November. I do not know whether that is to deal with Government business or private Members’ business, but there will be every opportunity for the other place to consider this Bill. If it is presented with a whole lot of Government amendments, the Bill is dead. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will say unequivocally when summing up whether she intends to table amendments when the Bill reaches the other place. Or will she give a guarantee not to do so? Does she support the Third Reading of the Bill in its current form, is she against it, or is she neutral? She owes it to those outside and inside this House who have been campaigning on this issue, to clarify, and to be open and transparent about, the Government’s intention.

A point came up earlier about complications arising through Northern Ireland. Will that be used as an excuse for further procrastination and delay, or do the Government, with their enormous army of civil servants, intend to sort it out pronto? I am a great believer in the concept, “Where there’s a will, there’s a way”, and the fact that the Government have been so slow to reach a conclusion, and have been seen to be leading people up the garden path, has done everyone a great disservice. That is why I think that, although I do not agree with the hon. Member for Hendon on all his legislative proposals, he has done this House and those who have been campaigning on this issue a great service in introducing the Bill. It is a good subject for a private Member’s Bill, and even if it does not get on the statute book, provided the Minister plays the game in the way that I have suggested, it should enable the Government to be held properly to account.

For my part, I must put on the record my concern about retrospective change in the law. It goes too far to define as conditions constituting actionable damage, for the purposes of negligence and tort, those that have not caused any impairment of physical condition or personal injury, are not doing so, and will never do so. Such a provision is centred around the fear that something might happen. An enormous number of other conditions could result in fear and so on. If that fear results in a proper psychiatric condition, it can be compensated for, but in normal situations it cannot. To pick out an asbestos-related condition in preference to all those other conditions—we could think of those individuals who are exposed to danger and physical or mental damage in Afghanistan at this time—is the wrong thing to do. That is why I am against the Bill and why I am concerned about its retrospective aspects.

Whatever else happens, people need to know where they stand, but at the moment everybody is in the dark. People hope that the Government’s intentions will be to have retrospective legislation, which will enable them to get their compensation, although if the Government do not act in that way, they will have to face up to the fact that they will not get compensation and live their lives accordingly. But they cannot be expected to put their lives on hold, waiting for the Government.

Although it might be convenient for the Government to say, “Well, this is something that we can hand over to an incoming Conservative Government next year,” that would be very irresponsible, because it would mean further delay. Although my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) will probably argue strongly from the Front Bench that the issue should form a major part of any first Queen’s Speech of an incoming Conservative Government, that can never be guaranteed, because of the enormous legislative programme that will be necessary to put right the things that this Government have done wrong over many years.

I will not go down that route and set out the specifics. All I am saying is that to fail to act decisively on this Bill, at this stage in the Parliament, would be a gross dereliction of duty on the part of the Government. I hope that the Minister will be forthcoming in responding to those points.

11:31:00

Mr. Bellingham: I will be very brief. Let me once again congratulate the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) on bringing the Bill forward. My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) has scrutinised the Bill in his customary and inimitable way and has provoked a great deal of important debate.

We should not forget that we are talking about victims, albeit victims suffering mainly from a mental condition, although one that can obviously be pretty devastating. 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, Mr. Deputy Speaker. 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.

The previous common-law situation was based on the case of the Church v . the Ministry of Defence, which established the principle of aggregation—in other words, that the fact of pleural plaques could be aggregated with the anxiety and distress caused. It has struck me over the years that that was a satisfactory state of affairs. Compensation was awarded, but we should remember that it was modest, varying from between £4,000 and £7,000 per victim. It was not a life-changing sum of money, but for people who were probably out of work or perhaps from families that had no prospect of getting work, it could bring some relief and happiness at a time when the individual would be suffering from a great deal of anxiety. Also, as the hon. Member for Hendon rightly pointed out, once liability had been established, if the condition developed into full-blown mesothelioma or asbestosis, there did not have to be another court action. That was a perfectly satisfactory state of affairs, which did not cost the insurance industry a huge amount of money, but on the other hand, I can understand why the industry was determined to challenge it. We then had the case of Rothwell v . Chemical and Insulating Co. Ltd in the Court of Appeal, which was upheld by Johnston v . NEI International Combustion. That case in the House of Lords held that the pleural plaques per se were not compensatable. The result was extreme anger, and not just in those communities that were previously dependent on traditional heavy industries, mining or refining, but across the whole country.

It is interesting that when I first started to look into the issue in detail, I discovered that there were a number of victims in Norfolk, which is not exactly an area renowned for heavy industry. However, people come to Norfolk to retire and there are also people there who were exposed to asbestos in smaller companies and small and medium-sized enterprises. I would therefore not mind venturing to suggest that in every constituency in this land there will be a small number—and in many cases a significant number—of victims of pleural plaques.

There was huge anger after that House of Lords decision, and we then had a number of Adjournment debates. I spoke in a number of those debates, as did many hon. Members in the Chamber this morning. We kept hearing from the Government that they were concerned about the issue and were going to take action. Then Scotland introduced legislation. The Scottish Executive and Parliament are ahead of the game on this issue, having quickly introduced that legislation. One of the points made this morning, which was also made in those Adjournment debates, is that we will probably end up having one law for Scots and another for people south of the border. That would be an extremely unsatisfactory situation for victims of pleural plaques and could also give rise to many anomalies among people living in the border area of this kingdom.

The Secretary of State for Justice made a written statement—in July 2008, as I recall—in which the Ministry laid out various options for action. Since then, however, we have had procrastination and a lack of decisive leadership by the Government, as my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch said. I would like the Minister to address that point, because the time has now come for action to be taken. The Government need to make it clear: will they support the Bill, which is a modest measure, or will they take action of their own?

The Government must tell us what is happening, because in the meantime tens of thousands of people are waiting in trepidation. My hon. Friend suggests that they should get on with their lives and look to the future. Perhaps some people will have the willpower to do that, but many others will not be able to, because their condition will have caused them such psychological distress, resulting in their not being able to rebuild their lives.

I am concerned about the prospect of parallel litigation and about what the Association of British Insurers has stated. In its briefing for hon. Members, it points out that the Bill would set a legal precedent with wide implications and that it

“would set a dangerous precedent that could lead to a flood of ‘exposure only’ claims”. Frankly, however, that did not happen before; indeed, the common law was precise on that point. I congratulate the hon. Member for Hendon on how tightly he has worded his Bill. The ABI’s concerns are therefore misplaced. I would like the Minister to comment on that.

On retrospection, which we have discussed, I am as concerned as anyone about any Bill containing retrospective measures. However, voting in favour of the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch would effectively have prevented the thousands of people with pleural plaques from taking any action because of the statute of limitations. In other words, they would have had to start their action within three years of physically discovering that they had pleural plaques, either through a scan or an X-ray. As we have discussed on many occasions, these symptoms often do not have a visible physical manifestation. I sympathise with what my hon. Friend said about retrospection, but his amendment would effectively have wrecked the entire Bill.

This is a modest measure, but we should bear in mind one further point. Health and safety standards have improved out of all recognition. I understand that the average age of pleural plaque victims is past retirement age. In other words, people of my age, and the age of the Minister and the hon. Member for Hendon—people in their 50s, approaching middle age—were not exposed to asbestos as people 10 or 15 years older were. Health and safety standards have improved immeasurably, which is very good news for business and industry. This problem is therefore not going to get worse. We are talking about a finite number of people in this country, and by definition the problem will eventually disappear.

In the meantime, however, there are very real victims in families up and down the country, and they expect action from their Government. We have now been waiting for nearly a year and a half since the Minister’s boss, the Secretary of State for Justice, made that written statement promising action, or at least a Government lead on this issue. So far, we have seen very little lead and absolutely no indication that the Government are prepared to grip the issue. There are perhaps seven months before the election, and I hope that the Government will now deal with this, so that all those people out there who are suffering because of this uncertainty will at least know where they stand.

Mr. Chope: My hon. Friend will know that in July the Secretary of State for Justice said:

“The Government will give further consideration to the issue of compensation for people diagnosed with pleural plaques before publishing a final response after the recess.” —[ Official Report , 21 July 2009; Vol. 496, c. 741.] Has he received any indication of when that response is likely to be published?

Mr. Bellingham: My hon. Friend assumes that I have a direct line to the Secretary of State and to his junior Minister, or that I have their mobile numbers and am on the telephone to them the whole time. Alas, although we have a good relationship, it is not that close. I have been pushing them, but I have to use written parliamentary questions to do so. However, we now have an ideal opportunity to hear from the Minister exactly what the position is and what action Her Majesty’s Government intend to take.

11:42:00

Paul Rowen (Rochdale) (LD)I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) on his Bill, and on the fact that it looks as though it will actually be given a Third Reading this morning. I hope that when the Minister responds to the debate we shall hear that the Government are to make some time available this Session for the Bill to complete its stages in the Lords.

It is a fact that people who have pleural plaques have been exposed to asbestos. When the Law Lords sought to clarify the law on 17 October 2007, it was made clear that people cannot get pleural plaques without such exposure. It is also true, as the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) said, that the victims have received small sums of money in recognition of that exposure. It is therefore disappointing that the Law Lords stopped that in November 2007, but I am afraid that it is not untypical of the way in which victims of asbestos—whether suffering from mesothelioma, asbestosis or another industry-related disease—have had to fight for their just rights and compensation.

In that context, I pay tribute to a lady who, sadly, died yesterday. Diane Willmore did not have pleural plaques; she suffered from mesothelioma. The day before yesterday, in the Court of Appeal, she finally heard that her compensation for exposure to asbestos while a school pupil had been agreed to by the Law Lords. She sadly died yesterday having just heard that news. Her fight and her courage are typical of the actions that victims of asbestos have had to take. I hope that the Bill will put an end to that situation in regard to pleural plaques.

I agree with the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk that, given that it is more than 12 months since the consultation closed and that the Secretary of State promised on 21 July that the response would be published early in the recess, it is disappointing that the Government have not yet published it. It is disgraceful that we should be here today discussing the Bill without having received any indication of the Government’s stance. I make a strong plea to the Minister to clarify the Government’s position today. Like most other hon. Members present, I hope that she will support the Bill and give us a guarantee that it will move forward in this Session and complete its stages in the House of Lords. If that does not happen, people with pleural plaques will face yet another year of not knowing what the situation is.

As the hon. Member for Hendon said, the Bill is simple, tight and clear in its purpose. It restores the law to what we all thought it was before the Law Lords’ ruling. In that sense, it will impose no additional costs on the insurance industry, as the industry had already budgeted for those costs. The costs had already been included when insurers were charging companies their premiums. There will obviously be small additional costs to the Government because of the retrospective element of the legislation, but they will only increase if the Government prevaricate further.

I have been asked to inquire, on behalf of representatives of the asbestos victims support groups, whether the Minister or the Secretary of State will meet them, following the deliberations on the Bill today, to discuss the situation and other asbestos-related issues.

Mr. Bellingham: I should like to probe the hon. Gentleman a little further on his point about public expenditure. It is my understanding that the only possible trigger for extra public expenditure would be in relation to those victims who had been exposed to asbestos while employed by Government Departments or agencies—the Ministry of Defence, or a related agency, for example. It is my understanding that the Bill will not lead directly to any public expenditure on the part of the Ministry of Justice. Will the hon. Gentleman clarify his point?

Paul RowenYes, I am happy to do that. Perhaps I did not make my point very well. There will be expenditure involved, but it will be directly associated with Departments such as the Ministry of Defence.

I hope that the Minister or the Secretary of State will agree to meet representatives of the asbestos victims support groups, following today’s debate, to discuss what is going to happen. It would be helpful if the Minister were able to give us a categorical assurance today that the Bill will become law before the end of this Session. She could use Government offices to do that. I see that the Chief Whip is here; perhaps he will be able to tell her that that can happen, and that the Bill will be able to complete its passage through the House of Lords. That will right a wrong and restore rights that people enjoyed prior to the Law Lords’ ruling. We have now waited more than two years for this to happen, and I hope that we will today receive a clear, unequivocal yes from the Government that this wrong will be righted and that we can move forward.

11:48:00

Bridget PrenticeI begin by offering my condolences—and, I am sure, those of the whole House—to the family of the constituent of the hon. Member for Rochdale (Paul Rowen) who sadly died of mesothelioma yesterday. Later in my speech, I hope to say something that might be of some comfort—if not to that family at least to other victims of mesothelioma, which is a dreadful, horrendously painful and nasty disease.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) not just on pursuing this issue, but on getting this first Bill of its kind on the agenda today. He has been assiduous in pursuing the matter, as have many other hon. Friends who have supported him today and raised similar issues in the many Adjournment debates over the past year and a half or so to which I have replied. I take only a little advice from Opposition Members in respect of my own frustration that we have not yet reached a conclusion. I completely understand the frustration of my hon. Friends and other honourable colleagues who have campaigned on this issue on behalf of their constituents for a very long time.

I confirm for the hon. Member for Rochdale that I will, of course, meet representatives of the asbestos victims support groups. I have met many such groups, trade unions and others who have campaigned on this issue, just as I have met those, including the Association of British Insurers, who are opposed to our doing anything at all about it.

I shall not go through the history of the Bill or the legal position resulting from the House of Lords judgment, as I believe the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) has already outlined that fairly comprehensively. We said that there would be consultation on action to improve the understanding of pleural plaques and provide support and reassurance to those diagnosed with it in order to alleviate their concerns. I accept the point made by the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) that there is still a big job to be done on giving further support to people diagnosed with pleural plaques and on explaining the consequences that are or are not likely to result from having them. That is part of the reason why we have not yet given our full response to the consultation.

It is only right at this point that I should apologise to my hon. Friends, to all hon. Members who have campaigned on this issue for some time and, indeed, to the House as a whole for the fact that the Government have not yet responded. That is very frustrating for everyone concerned. I apologise absolutely for that, but it is not through want of trying. We have consulted different groups and only yesterday met a number of medical experts who argued both sides of the case—so there is still further consideration to be taken. I cannot therefore give a categorical date for when the Government response will be made, although I can give my personal commitment to continue to go back to my colleagues in order to reach a conclusion as quickly as possible. As a number of hon. Members have said, time is moving on—not only in a parliamentary sense, but in respect of the lives of the individuals affected.

Philip DaviesI am sure that the whole House will accept the Minister’s apology in the spirit in which it was given, but we are being invited today to support the Third Reading of a Bill, so will she explain how on earth we can possibly do so when there has been no Government response to the consultation? The Minister admitted in response to an intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) that the Government were still looking at some aspects of the Bill’s detail. How can the Government ask us to support the Third Reading of a Bill whose details they have not thought through themselves?

Bridget PrenticeThe hon. Gentleman will know that many a Bill goes through this House or the other place whose details have yet to be hammered out. Our bicameral system provides an opportunity for amendments to be proposed at a later stage, so I am quite relaxed about the Bill going through today, as I expect it will, because if further amendments are necessary, they can be tabled elsewhere.

We have made it clear throughout that it is important to ensure that any decisions are taken on the basis of the best available medical evidence on pleural plaques. That is why we commissioned and have already published the reviews of the medical evidence that were carried out by the chief medical officer and by the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council. They will help to inform our consideration.

Mr. Chope: I am very interested in what the Minister has had to say so far. She has indicated that there is a possibility that amendments will be introduced in the other place. Of course we accept that, but obviously it would be necessary for this place to consider those Lords amendments. Is the Minister guaranteeing that the Government will provide the necessary time if such circumstances arise during the remains of the current Session?

Bridget PrenticeIn the course of my life in Parliament I have been in the Whips Office, and I know better than to make a claim about parliamentary time while the Chief Whip is sitting to my right. However, I think that he has heard what the hon. Gentleman has said, and I am sure that he will take it into account when the business managers consider future business.

I met medical experts yesterday in response to representations from asbestos campaigners and, in particular, to a request from my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham). My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Justice had said that he would facilitate a meeting. I had a very helpful and informative discussion with those experts, and as a result further issues were identified. We must consider those issues and the views that are expressed before we finally publish our response.

Mr. Chope: Will the Minister give way?

Bridget PrenticeI will give way one more time.

Mr. Chope: The Minister is being very generous. Can we take it from what she has said that the last word from the Justice Secretary about a final response after the recess is redundant, and that we are now talking about a final response in the next Session of Parliament rather than before the Queen's Speech?

Bridget PrenticeThe hon. Gentleman has mentioned “a final response after the recess” a number of times, but we are only four or five days into “after the recess”. I think, to be fair, that the Justice Secretary is still capable of ensuring that we give a response as soon as we possibly can.

What I can say in response to the hon. Member for Rochdale and, indeed, the hon. Member for Christchurch is that it is important for us to consider how much more support we can give to people who have been exposed to asbestos. We have been absolutely consistent in our commitment to giving people who are suffering from mesothelioma and other serious asbestos-related diseases the help that they deserve.

I was a Minister at the time when we introduced in another Bill compensation for mesothelioma victims, and I think that those people recognise that the changed arrangements are thanks to a Labour Government who took speedy action. We will continue to consider how we can speed up compensation so that others, such as the constituent of the hon. Member for Rochdale, can receive it at a more appropriate time.

We are actively considering measures to make the United Kingdom the global leader in research on the alleviation, prevention and cure of asbestos-related diseases and, as I said, to help to speed up the meeting of compensation claims. That will include examination of the process of tracing employment and insurance records, some of which are very difficult to track down, as well as considering what support we can give individuals who are unable to trace such records. As I said during my meeting with the medical experts, nine times out of 10 exposure to asbestos is due to the negligence of employers. If an employer has been negligent in that respect, he may well also have been negligent in the keeping of records. We will publish our plans shortly.

Paul RowenI am very pleased to hear the Minister’s announcement. Does that mean that the Queen’s Speech will provide for the establishment of a compulsory employers’ liability insurance bureau to deal with the problems to which she has referred?

Bridget PrenticeOpposition Members are again asking me to go down a road that it would not be appropriate to go down. It is not for me to say what will be in the Queen’s Speech; we must leave that for later.

Mr. Dismore: My hon. Friend need not wait for the Queen’s Speech. There could be an alternative Queen’s Speech with my 12 Bills. Bill No. 39 on today’s Order Paper provides for such a bureau, so perhaps she will support it and give it a fair wind later today.

Bridget PrenticeIf we reach Bill No. 39 today that will be something of a record, and my hon. Friend will deserve to get his Bill through on that basis alone.

The Bill before us has to be considered in the context that I have outlined. It represents a possible approach to the issue of pleural plaques—there may be others, too—as well as to the wider issues to do with asbestos-related diseases. We want to ensure that these are considered fully and the best response is identified.

As we are still in the process of assessing that response, it is not possible for me to give a firm indication today of what our ultimate position on the Bill will be. However, I can confirm that I am content for it to proceed today, and I congratulate my hon. Friend on promoting it.

12:01:00

Mr. Dismore: I do not want to detain the House for long, but I wish to thank every Member who has spoken in this debate.

The Bill had no priority whatever. It was a presentation Bill, the product of my spending an uncomfortable night on the floor of the Public Bill Office to make sure I had the first place in the queue—made a little more uncomfortable by the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) turning up at midnight and waking me by turning the lights on in order to make sure I was there.

Today’s speeches from all the Front Benches have been good, and I am grateful for the support that has been given from them. The Northern Ireland point can be dealt with easily: ultimately, that would be a matter for the Northern Ireland Assembly to legislate on, instead of it being incorporated into the Bill.

My hon. Friend the Minister has laid out the position in relation to the consultation and I accept her apology of course, but we could get bogged down in medical issues. This is ultimately a legal issue not a medical question, so it has to be dealt with in terms of legal results. The context of the medical experts may affect how much a claim is worth or the causation question, but we know beyond a shadow of a doubt that pleural plaques are caused by asbestos, so ultimately this has to be a legal issue, as addressed by the Bill.

On how the Bill proceeds, the commencement date is in the gift of the Secretary of State, although he cannot prevaricate for too long because it is a “shall” rather than a “may” requirement. If, as I hope, the Bill is passed and moves to another place today, I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East and Wallsend (Mr. Brown), the Chief Whip, will use his good offices to ensure that it gets a fair reading in the Lords, and that if amendments are made there Government time can be found at the end of the Session to deal with them. I say that as he has been very helpful throughout, and if he wants something done he always gets it done.

The question of the employers’ liability insurance bureau is another issue, of course. It is, however, a very important issue, and offers yet another example of how this House should deal with matters relating to asbestos.

I commend the Bill to the House. Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

222|12:03|51|0| The House divided: | Question accordingly agreed to. ||0|0

Bill read the Third time and passed.