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]
Ministers suggested in meetings that this was all to do with the insurance industry, but in fact the industry funded none of the cases that went to the House of Lords under the Barker v. Corus umbrella: the Government funded two of the cases and one was funded privately. Those test cases were pursued because a lot of former Government employees, who worked in the Ministry of Defence and other Departments, were exposed to asbestos. This will be expensive for the Government in the long term, and I guess that they were attempting to ensure a smaller bill than they might otherwise have. There must have been a moment—I imagine that it occurred in the Department for Constitutional Affairs—when someone suddenly said, ““What have we done?”” It was at that point that the decision was made to reverse this, and to do so quickly. I welcome that.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 449 c51
- 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 10:07:17 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_337984
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_337984
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_337984