Damages (Asbestos-related Conditions) Bill [HL]

So the second part of the response will be just a full summary of the submissions received during the consultation, and it will be published shortly. It will not deal with the large array of questions that I put to the noble Lord about how the Government got their figure of between £50 million and £200 million, and how they estimated the number of those who would be affected. Who were the people who had already put in their claims, and how was that defined? Did they, by that stage, have to have issued a writ, or just have got as far as a solicitor or claims farmer or whoever? All those questions must be answered. When she talked about the wording of the Bill, the noble Baroness said it was identical to the number two Bill. I would be grateful for confirmation that it is absolutely identical, or that one or two words have been changed. She claimed that the Bill was tightly worded. It is very important to accept that it is not quite as tightly worded as it might be, because there is still considerable doubt, certainly on the part of the Government, about how many people will be affected. There is also doubt on the part of the Government about how many people will be affected by their own announcement. The noble Lord announced that it was the policy of the Official Opposition to object to the payments. I did not say that. I am questioning them, questioning why it is necessary to offer payments to people who are suffering something that is asymptomatic, and also asking—again, this something that the noble Lord did not answer, and to which I will perhaps have to come back on Report or later—where in his department the money is coming from. I presume that it is coming from his departmental budget. A number of other issues were raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Quin, that I will want to come on to when we debate later amendments. The question of costs and the review of civil litigation by Lord Justice Jackson are matters that we need to address, and I will do that. I will also, when we debate Clause 4 stand part, ask the noble Lord to expand on the speeding up of the handling of mesothelioma claims. That is a crucial question. The disease can move very quickly, and claims must be dealt with quickly. I welcome what the Minister said about the proposed employers’ liability tracing office, and about consultations starting with the industry on an employers’ liability insurance bureau. However, he must accept that the way in which that operates must be very different from that of the Motor Insurers’ Bureau, which has been in existence since the late 1940s or early 1950s, because we are dealing not with a car crash, but something that may have happened a long time ago, and over an extended period. I note what he said about consultations on that starting with the industry in February 2010. I hope that, given the timescale of their other consultations and their glib use of the words "soon" and "shortly"—I never understand what they mean—the Government will make sure that the consultation goes at a reasonable pace, so that they can come forward with conclusions in due course. I suspect that I will get no further responses at this stage to questions on amendments in this group. I will come back to a number of them on Report, and to other points that need to be made when we debate later amendments. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment 1 withdrawn. Amendments 2 to 4 not moved. Amendment 5 Moved by