Damages (Asbestos-related Conditions) Bill [HL]

My Lords, I have spent a great deal of the past 50 years trying to obtain damages for plaintiffs, prevent plaintiffs from obtaining damages, awarding or refusing to award damages to plaintiffs, and sitting on appeals on the amount of damages awarded. A significant part of that work has been concerned with diseases of the chest related to asbestos. I do not for a moment claim the depth of knowledge of the noble Baroness, Lady Quin—I have a mere acquaintance with it—but I can recollect vividly coming across those who had real fears and worries. Every time people who had worked in the Belfast shipyard and places like it developed a cough, they were afraid that it might be the harbinger of something much worse. I admit to a few reservations about the principle of awarding damages for something that is not in fact a matter that should be a cause for concern; that is, the physical manifestation of a serious disease of the chest. It is a difficult principle. I was not a member of the House of Lords Appellate Committee which decided the case to which reference has been made, and I have not ever formed a standpoint either in litigation or otherwise on the matter, but I want to put in a word to say that awarding damages for a worry that should be resolved—one that people should be able to dispel to a large extent by reassurance—is a difficult principle. But if the Committee considers that this Bill should go through and that damages should be awarded, so be it. I say only this in relation to the amendment about the tariff proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Henley. One thing which has shone through clearly in all my experience of dealing with damages is that no two cases are the same, and tariffs lead almost inevitably to anomalies and injustices. Their advantages are speed, certainty and the costs are kept down. If the Bill remains as drafted, I am concerned that an awful lot of small claims will be exploited by those persons whose business it is to gather in claims on behalf of claimants and plaintiffs in order to obtain disproportionate amounts. If it is better that the tariff should be designed in such a way as to avoid that, it may be of benefit. So, on balance, I will support the noble Lord’s amendment. However, it will need to be carefully drafted so that questions such as age and the type of concern are ironed out. You cannot legislate for everything but, if the Government take this further, I hope that they will think carefully about the way in which the tariff is prepared. The question the Minister referred to about successive employers is real and difficult. I had many occasions of great concern where a claimant had been exposed to asbestos as, say, a pipe coverer with a whole collection of companies, most of them very well known. However, a lot of them had gone out of business and some of their insurers had either transformed themselves into other groups or even, occasionally, gone out of business. The question was how the claimant, if he had a proper case, was going to enforce his claim. Did he land one unfortunate company or insurer with everything or were they able to come to agreement? On the whole, insurers were able to come to agreements because they could see the concerns raised and the difficulties that would ensue if they did not do so. However, if the Government are considering a way round this difficulty, I would commend it.