Damages (Asbestos-related Conditions) Bill [HL]

My Lords, I am anxious that we make some progress. I appreciate that all the amendments have been in my name, but I assure the Committee that I am not trying to waste the time of the Committee; I am just trying to get answers from the Government, as is right and proper. Amendments 13 and 14, which are alternatives, are a putative suggestion that claimants who are worried about the risk of future disease ought perhaps to be contributing to the cost of the research that we know is going to be mounted. Noble Lords might prefer the second suggestion, Amendment 14, which would take the contribution from the legal fees. As I have outlined, there is concern in some quarters. Lawyers are pushing for pleural plaque claims to be reinstated because they are used to generate significant costs, usually well in excess of the damages awarded. The costs would include an uplift of an additional percentage for winning cases under no-win, no-fee cases. The lawyers should be encouraged to put a percentage of their revenue from such cases into research for the benefit of their clients—part of their corporate social responsibility, if you like. I raise this purely in a spirit of helpfulness, not in a spirit of knocking lawyers. Noble Lords might like to consider the proposal or possibly suggest some alternative. It might also offer the Minister a chance to say a little more about the research that the Government want to commission in this area. I beg to move.