Proceeding contribution from Oliver Heald (Conservative) in the House of Commons on Monday, 17 July 2006. It occurred during Debate on bill on Compensation Bill (HL).
Compensation Bill [Lords]
Of course we welcome the new clause and amendments. However, how would the Minister respond to a letter that I have received from the solicitor who acted for the Department of Trade and Industry when it instigated the litigation that resulted in the House of Lords decision in Barker v. Corus? The solicitor writes:"ββIt appears that the same government for which I was acting in what was then considered to be in the public interest has now apparently decided, following a clamour of protest, to legislate to reverse the decision which it itself sought.ββ" Will the hon. Lady explain which Minister decided to take the case of Barker v. Corus forward? How much did it cost, and why have the Government got into this mess?
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 449 c41
- Session
- 2005-06
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Complaints Compensation Codes of practice Courts Damages Advertising Coal Asbestos Legal profession Employment Liability Exemptions Functions Mining Negligence Mesothelioma Standards Regulation Trade unions Victims Industrial injuries disablement benefit Claims management services Mesothelioma Compensation Board
- Legislation
- Compensation Bill (HL) 2005-06
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-04-21 10:07:27 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_337953
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_337953
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_337953