I congratulate my hon. Friend Mr. Clapham on his success in securing this important debate. I echo the tribute paid by my right hon. Friend John Battle to the work that he has done in bringing the matter to the House's attention and ensuring, along with others, that workers are given better protection from asbestosis and mesothelioma. I represent the area of a former shipyard in Chatham which is one of the hot spots in the south-east of England, and my constituents owe my hon. Friend a debt of thanks.

I thank the Union of Construction, Allied Trades and Technicians, for which I have enormous respect and with which I have worked in the past, for commissioning the report to which my hon. Friend referred. I also thank Dr. Linda Waldman and Heather Williams for their work, which will contribute to improving the current controls that are in place to protect their members and the wider work force from exposure to asbestos.

In terms of fatal disease, asbestos is the most serious occupational ill-health problem that the country faces. The Government are concerned about the human suffering and misery behind the annual death toll, estimated at over 4,000 a year. Sadly, while there is nothing that we can do about those previously exposed, we can certainly do much to prevent further exposures. First, I will outline the legislation covering some of the issues raised in the report, and then I will comment on each of the report's main recommendations.

Legislation in the mid-1980s banned the importation of the most dangerous types of asbestos. As the carcinogenic effects of asbestos became known, legislation was introduced in the 1990s leading to the total ban on the importation of all types of asbestos and prohibiting the use and sale of products containing asbestos. Research by Professor Julian Peto and Health and Safety Executive epidemiologists in 1995 showed that the largest group of workers at risk from asbestos-related disease were those in the maintenance and building-related trades such as carpenters, plumbers and electricians who disturbed building fabric.

Consequently, we introduced for the first time in the Control of Asbestos at Work Regulations 2002 a duty to manage asbestos in non-domestic premises. That duty places a legal obligation on individuals who have responsibility for the repair and maintenance of non-domestic buildings to manage the risks from exposure to asbestos that may be in their buildings. Duty holders are required to identify the location and condition of any materials containing asbestos in their buildings. They must then assess the level of risk and put in place a management plan to manage those risks. Asbestos that is in good condition should be left undisturbed. Damaged asbestos must be encapsulated or removed by licensed contractors if necessary. The duty holder must ensure that the management plan and other pertinent information are readily available when maintenance or renovation work is planned or undertaken. They should ensure that the information on the location and condition of the materials is given to anyone likely to disturb it.

In considering the recommendation to extend the duty to manage to domestic buildings, we have to look at the scale of the risks that may arise. For those whose activities are liable to disturb asbestos frequently, the risk is cumulative through repeated exposures. In the context of this debate, we need to understand what the risk is from asbestos in all homes. A recent study, commissioned by the HSE, found no evidence of an increased risk of mesothelioma from carrying out DIY activities or living in certain types of buildings more likely to contain asbestos, such as high-rise flats, prefab houses, and council or ex-council houses.

While the analyses of non-occupational exposures in this study were based on relatively small numbers of cases and controls, and therefore have limited ability to detect small increases in risk, it is clear that such exposures do not represent major sources of mesothelioma risk. The only association between increased mesothelioma risk and exposure in a domestic setting was for people living with workers in jobs classified as medium or high risk before the age of 30. While anecdotal evidence provides examples of distress in specific situations, our policies have to take into account the whole context.