Andrew Dismore (Hendon, Labour)

Thank you, Mr. Bayley. I do not think that the remainder of the clauses will take up a great deal of time as they are pretty technical. Clause 2 gives effect to the general principles in clause 1, which I have discussed, about the asymptomatic nature of pleural plaques. It restates that the burden of proof remains with the claimant, which is an old principle of personal injury law.

David Howarth (Cambridge, Liberal Democrat)

My only point on the clause has already been referred to by the Minister in what she said on clause 1. 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. The clause does not deal with such people and I hope that the Government will bear that in mind when they come forward with their proposals. We are dealing with a much broader class of people who are in a similar situation.

Bridget Prentice (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Ministry of Justice; Lewisham East, Labour)

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.

Andrew Dismore (Hendon, Labour)

I do not think that the hon. Member for Cambridge is right about that point. It is not just exposure to the hazard that counts; there is physiological change, albeit asymptomatic, which is revealed in an X-ray or CT scan, so there is an additional element beyond mere exposure. Although any change may be asymptomatic, the claimant will know that they have something inside their body detectable in that way, even if it is not causing them any problems. It goes slightly beyond mere exposure.

David Howarth (Cambridge, Liberal Democrat)

The point is that the physiological change is extra evidence of exposure, but lots of people are in the position of knowing that they were exposed. In terms of risk, they are not that differently situated from the victims that he is talking about.

Andrew Dismore (Hendon, Labour)

I am not sure that that is right, but there is not much point in prolonging this aspect of the discussion.