Proceeding contribution from Bridget Prentice (Labour) in the House of Commons on Monday, 17 July 2006. It occurred during Debate on bill on Compensation Bill (HL).
Compensation Bill [Lords]
I can confirm to the hon. Gentleman that the court would be expected to take into account all the issues surrounding the activity. As I explained in notes that I sent to hon. Members, one of the reasons why we used the word ““may”” rather than the word ““shall”” is that all the different matters that the court must take into account should have equal status. Clause 2 will provide reassurance on how the law works and encourage the giving of apologies and offers of treatment and redress without reducing the protection which is currently available to claimants.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 449 c112
- 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 10:03:01 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_338091
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_338091
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_338091