Damages (Asbestos-related Conditions) Bill [HL]

My Lords, I shall also speak to Amendment 7. Amendment 6 builds on an earlier point and highlights the anomaly that the Bill seeks to reinstate liability without considering the effect on the quantum of claims. How are the courts to approach the valuation of a claim when there are no symptoms? The Court of Appeal suggested a bracket of £4,000 to £6,000 if the law was not overturned, but those figures seem high, given subsequent developments, and the courts would have to consider the matters afresh. Amendment 7 follows on from that and seeks to amend the Bill to provide that a tariff for damages can be set by regulations and that the tariff would be applied via the affirmative procedure. To my mind, any setting of the level of damages, and therefore of the control of the costs to the public purse, should be subject to careful and ongoing scrutiny by Parliament. As we have heard, the Secretary of State has already indicated that, in his extra-statutory scheme, the compensation would be £5,000. Again, this is a question for the noble Lord, Lord Bach, although the other matters might be for the noble Baroness. I am curious to know how the Government arrived at that figure. Paragraph 58 of the consultation paper notes that a fixed payment of £5,000 was used for the financial impact assessment, but goes on to say: ""However, as pleural plaques have been held not to be actionable damage, and in view of the minimisation of legal costs, a lower figure may be more appropriate"." There is a telling rider to that paragraph at the end: ""This is likely to be necessary to make a no fault scheme affordable, were it to be introduced"." What has changed since July 2008 to make £5,000 more affordable now? I have more questions about the workings of the scheme. Again, I hope the noble Lord will not mind responding to them. The Statement, as I think I made clear earlier, is silent on what is meant by, ""those individuals who had already begun",—[Official Report, Commons, 25/2/10; col. 80WS.]" a claim for compensation. How far back in time does that go? Presumably even if these people had an "understandable expectation" before 2007, they have rather got over that expectation in the past two and a half years. Again, what proof will the scheme require of the previous presentation of that claim? I hope the noble Lord will address those points and that the noble Baroness will think a little about the amendments and what figure the courts should come to should the Bill go ahead. I beg to move.