My Lords, I shall carry on with my reply to the noble Lord, Lord Henley, on payments under the extra-statutory scheme being made to lawyers. Further information relating to the scheme will be published in due course when it is fully established and ready for operation. I shall expand on what is being done to speed up the mesothelioma claims process. As I said in my response to the last group of amendments, we are setting up a working group and hope to be able to say more about it shortly.
The amendments relate to my noble friend’s Bill and refer to the amount of damages that would be achievable if her Bill became law. We are concerned to ensure that legal costs are properly controlled in civil proceedings generally and we are considering the very important recommendations made by Sir Rupert Jackson in his comprehensive review of litigation costs. The amendments raise interesting issues. They may well turn out to be probing, but I do not know yet. If not, we might consider their phrasing to be rather draconian.
Damages (Asbestos-related Conditions) Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Bach
(Labour)
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 c1709 
Session
2009-10
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 20:11:58 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_627121
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_627121
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_627121