Damages (Asbestos-related Conditions) Bill [HL]

I understand the noble Lord’s point. Without having a clear idea of the potential number of cases, it is very difficult to estimate the costs. However, if the ruling had been different, the situation which had existed for 20 years previously would have continued and, therefore, those costs would have had to be met. As I said in my opening speech, there are ways of trying to limit the profits that companies try to make out of bringing forward claims of this kind. The Minister reminded us of what I also should have mentioned when I introduced the Bill earlier; namely, that the Bill is being presented in pretty well identical form in the other place today. I pay tribute once again to my honourable colleague, Andrew Dismore, for his persistence in bringing the issue forward. Many of the issues that have been raised could very fruitfully be explored in Committee. This issue will not go away, because many elected representatives as well as Members of your Lordships' House feel very strongly about the situation of people with pleural plaques and the discrimination that we feel has been created by the ruling in 2007. I remind noble Lords that the legal situation in Scotland is now very similar to that which existed in England and Wales for so long. My Bill merely tries to return us to the status quo ante. That is much more a matter of political will than of insurmountable, detailed issues of principle or legal ramifications. For all those reasons, I hope that the Bill will be able to proceed. I ask the House to give it a Second Reading. Bill read a second time and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.