---

Child Maintenance and Other Payments Bill

I am pleased to support the new clause proposed by the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham). In the short time that I have been a Member in the House—he has been here a lot longer—I have noted his very honourable record in taking up issues surrounding asbestosis and industrial disease. Unlike the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire, North (Jim Sheridan), I actually believe that the Government have in the past and up to now been very good at listening to the concerns of people who have asbestos-related diseases. I represent Rochdale, which was the home of the world's largest asbestos factory. Literally hundreds of people in my constituency worked at TBA—Turner Brothers Asbestos—and had pleural plaques. Many of them went on to die of asbestos disease or mesothelioma. I know that last year, when the Law Lords overturned the compensation payments for mesothelioma, the Government listened to concerns. What we have in front of us in part 4 is a system of speedy payments that ensure that victims of mesothelioma get adequate recompense. That has done an awful lot to restore people's confidence—certainly that of people in my constituency—that the Government listen. The issue of pleural plaques is slightly different and I understand why the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone has drafted the new clause. It has not been mentioned so far in the debate, but the fact remains that people have been receiving compensation payments for pleural plaques for more than 20 years. It has not suddenly started happening: small amounts of compensation, not huge sums of money, have been paid regularly for the last 20 or so years. That is why it is wholly wrong of the Law Lords to take this decision. It is clearly indicative of the way in which the insurance industry is seeking to minimise its risks by stopping people who have industrial-related diseases from making claims. That cannot be denied. As the hon. Gentleman said, there is no way that people can get pleural plaques other than through exposure to asbestos. It is therefore an industrial-related disease. It does not qualify for compensation under the current arrangements, but in the past, under civil arrangements, it has qualified for small payments. When the Bill goes to the other place, this should be considered further. We are not asking for huge sums, or indeed for any action that has not been taken before. All we are seeking to do is overturn a wrong judgment by the Law Lords, which has already been done in the case of mesothelioma. People have received payments for more than 20 years, but the Law Lords' decision will end such payments. I hope that even if the Minister cannot accept new clause 4, he will discuss the issue further with Justice Ministers, and perhaps when the Bill reaches the other place we can have a speedy response, as we did last year in relation to the mesothelioma compensation scheme. As I have said, literally hundreds of people in my constituency have pleural plaques. Before the judgment I was helping two of them to process their claim, and obviously they are now extremely upset and disappointed that it cannot proceed. I look to the Minister and the Government to rectify the injustice. This is a disease that affects working people, and it is clearly wrong for lawyers and the insurance industry to try to deny people their entitlement.