Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Bridget Prentice (Labour) in the House of Commons on Friday, 16 October 2009. It occurred during Debate on bill on Damages (Asbestos-Related Conditions) Bill.


Damages (Asbestos-Related Conditions) Bill

I had not intended to speak in the debate on this amendment, but I shall raise a couple of points as a courtesy to the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope), as I think he may have misunderstood me earlier. When I said that I would be speaking later, I meant later in the debate as a whole. It is flattering of the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) to describe me as the expert when I am surrounded by lawyers. It would be with some trepidation that I described myself as an expert in this subject. I agree that retrospection is not always a good thing and that it should be avoided as much as possible, but the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) made the very good point that it can be appropriate in certain cases, such as the one he described. If the amendments proposed by the hon. Member for Christchurch were accepted, they would take the heart out of the Bill and although the decision is for my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore), whose Bill it is, I caution against support for the amendments.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
497 c562-3 
Session
2008-09
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Compensation Asbestos Liability Health and safety Industrial diseases Industrial injuries Personal injury Limitation of actions Pleural plaques
Legislation
Damages (Asbestos-related Conditions) Bill 2008-09
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk