Damages (Asbestos-related Conditions) Bill [HL]

The noble Lord, Lord Henley, is rightly concerned about disproportionate costs. Part of what he said related back to one of his earlier amendments, where he sought to ensure that legal costs did not exceed a reasonable proportion of the damages to be paid. I sympathise with that, although it is my understanding that that is in law anyway—perhaps my noble friend can confirm that—and that the principle would apply to legislation such as this. The noble Lord raised referral fees, and my noble friend to referred to the outcome of the Jackson review. I hope the review will be able to deal with issues such as these, but I reiterate my earlier point that these issues go wider than the Bill and would need to relate to a number of other pieces of legislation and other instances where claims can be made. For that reason, they are better dealt with in that wider context than in a specific amendment to the Bill. I welcome the presence in the Chamber of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Carswell, who reminded us of the interest of Northern Ireland in these issues, which I know well myself. I have at least some knowledge of Harland and Wolff and the industries in the Belfast area. However, on costs and tariffs, it is again better to look at the civil procedure committee work rather than seek to be too prescriptive in the Bill, which is narrowly drawn around one particular issue.