My Lords, like the noble Baroness, Lady Quin, I come from the Borders and so fully understand her point about the Tyneside and Clydeside connection. Like her, I think that it is unfortunate that Scotland has gone ahead with legislation—admittedly, being challenged in the courts at the moment—for separate provisions which would have a dramatic effect on England and on the Government here, particularly for the Government as an employer. The Government obviously have an interest in the Bill, and no doubt the Minister will be able to assure us that his colleagues have had discussions with their colleagues in the Scottish Executive on these matters over the years since that House of Lords judgment.
The Minister said that further information on the working of the scheme will be set before us in due course. Again, this leads me to further confusion about their announcement last week saying: ""This Ministerial Statement sets out the Government's decision on the question of compensation","
and so on. All it says later on is: ""A full summary of the submissions we received during that consultation will be published shortly".—[Official Report, Commons, 25/2/10; col. 79WS.]"
However, we are now told that we will get further statements on how this works, on how the Government will identify the individual people, and on what safeguards there will be. We really need those statements now, while we discuss the Bill, so that we know what to make of it. That is one reason why it is right and proper to continue to put amendments to the House which I expect the Minister to answer.
I assure the noble Lord, Lord Bach, that not all my amendments this afternoon will be directed at him; I hope the noble Baroness will answer some of them. I am sure that, with her great ministerial experience, she will be more than up to it, even on her own. Many of us know from the past that the noble Lord has a panoply of advisers behind him who will assist him and the House by providing us with the answers that we need so that we can discuss these amendments. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment 5 withdrawn.
Amendment 6
Moved by
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 c1710-1 
Session
2009-10
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 20:11:57 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_627123
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_627123
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_627123