My Lords, I am interested in the Minister’s response that the Government in this House remain neutral about the Bill. The Minister somewhat ticked me off for treating the Bill as if it were a government Bill—that was the implication—when it is a Private Member’s Bill. I fully accept that it is a Private Member’s Bill, but the Government have a major interest, as they will be paying out considerable sums of money. They also have an interest because they have the resources to answer a lot of the questions that we need to ask about the Bill, many of which have not yet been answered.
I am grateful that the noble Baroness was not for too long worried about the intention behind my amendments. They went down when we saw the Government’s response. The response inspired them, which is why I put them down and why we will be coming to other amendments on which it behoves the Government to provide an answer. They have an interest as an employer, as the ones who are handing out this money, as they have announced, and as they have the resources to be able to do something.
I shall ask one or two questions about what is going on. The Government have had considerable time to examine this. The original House of Lords decision was made in October 2007. For once, the Government acted very quickly and within about a week, they said that they did not think that decision should be overturned. They announced consultation, which started, as I remember it, in the summer of 2008. In that consultation document, they quoted figures showing an extraordinary range in the total cost to Government, the insurance industry and employers as whole of between £4 billion and £28 billion. For the third time of asking, will the Government confirm that that was the figure they quoted on that occasion? Will they, in due course, confirm that they still accept that as the sort of figure that could land on employers, the insurance industry and government should a Bill such as this get on to the statute book? That is the third time of asking; I asked at Second Reading and in introducing this amendment and now I ask it again. I will, no doubt, ask it again later on in the course of these amendments. The Minister might then confirm that those figures were correct.
Damages (Asbestos-related Conditions) Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Henley
(Conservative)
in the House of Lords on Friday, 5 March 2010.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Damages (Asbestos-related Conditions) Bill [HL].
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
717 c1705 
Session
2009-10
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 20:11:59 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_627110
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_627110
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_627110