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.
Compensation Bill [Lords]
Proceeding contribution from
Oliver Heald
(Conservative)
in the House of Commons on Monday, 17 July 2006.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Compensation Bill (HL).
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
449 c51 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
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