Damages (Asbestos-related Conditions) Bill [HL]

My Lords, Amendment 5, which inserts the words, ""but may not recover legal costs"," provides that in any claim under the Act, no legal costs should be recovered. I was interested to see that the Government have already adopted this position with the limited extra-statutory scheme—or at least I think that they have. Perhaps that reflects the fact that they have learnt at least one of the lessons that I alluded to earlier from the coal- miners’ schemes. How much of the money that the Minister plans to make available to individual claimants will end up in the hands of lawyers? I hope that there will be no direct payment to lawyers by the scheme administrators: that would replicate the embarrassment of the earlier compensation scheme. However, I have no doubt that those who have presented claims did so with the benefit of lawyers, and that those lawyers will have run up costs under "no win no fee" agreements. Have the Government considered what will happen if money is paid to claimants under the scheme? Will that trigger a win so far as the lawyers are concerned? If so, will most of the money end up in their pockets rather than those of the claimants? I am sure that Ministers have thought through this before making the announcement, although we hear that they will make further announcements in due course. I am sure that they do not want to line the pockets of lawyers at the expense of the people suffering from pleural plaques. However, there is nothing about this in the Ministerial Statement, and I would welcome assurances from the Minister that the point has been carefully considered. Has he sought and obtained assurances from those representing claimants that the money will be retained by the claimants? I am afraid that Amendment 8, which is in the same group as Amendment 5, has a drafting error. The word in proposed subsection (1) of the new clause should be "costs" rather than "damages". It provides for the Secretary of State to fix the amount of legal costs paid, and for such regulations to ensure that the legal costs paid do not exceed a reasonable proportion of the compensation. As with the proposal to fix by regulation the amount of damages, I wish to see the affirmative resolution procedure applied. As with many other low-value personal injury claims, claims for pleural plaques have historically generated significant legal costs. Noble Lords will be aware of Lord Justice Jackson’s recent report on civil litigation costs, which was referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Quin, in which he concluded that costs were out of all proportion to damages and that the main culprit was the so-called "no win no fee" regime, which is now commonplace in personal injury and disease claims. Unless the Minister can assure us that there will be a positive prohibition on any payment under the scheme by claimants’ lawyers, I want to press him about ensuring that only a limited proportion of any scheme payment can end up in the hands of lawyers. I believe that the same principle should apply equally to claims farmers. I am assuming that it will be relatively easy for a claimant under the scheme to present a claim and that they will not need advice to do so, but that will not stop aggressive marketing in the media and the internet by claims farmers offering to process such claims for a proportion of the compensation. How will the Government act to plug that gap and ensure that the £5,000, or the vast bulk of it, ends up with individual claimants and not with the lawyers of claims farmers? I beg to move.