UK Parliament / Open data

Compensation Bill [Lords]

Proceeding contribution from Oliver Heald (Conservative) in the House of Commons on Thursday, 8 June 2006. It occurred during Debate on bills on Compensation Bill (HL).
It may be that there are cases that have been decided and have received a good deal of public attention, which should have been appealed and were not. APIL has made that very point. I am interested to see the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) nodding. Having accepted the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) makes—we will all be keen to hear what he has to say because he has led the campaign in the House for a clear statement of the law in statute, and I congratulate him on that—we, like the Government want to see the balance struck correctly. That should ensure that people are properly compensated in genuine cases of negligence. However, we need to discourage a culture in which people are encouraged to pursue trivial or spurious claims in the belief that that will make them a great deal of money, either through awards by the courts or under out-of-court settlements. We believe some parts of the Bill could benefit from greater clarity. I will be tabling amendments to clause 1. I hope that we can proceed on a basis of consensus to try to produce a Bill that has overwhelming support in the House.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
447 c435 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Back to top