I do not know whether the Minister had intended to finish, but can I back up what my noble friend Lord Wigley said? I find his support in no way embarrassing, by the way. It is indicative of the fact that Members here, and outside, did not seem to be aware of the implications in relation to the separate matters affecting Scotland or of the consultation that has taken place. Reading the debate in the Scottish Parliament yesterday, it seems that Members of the Scottish Parliament were also not happy about the way in which consultation was taking place. Voluntary bodies did not seem to feel that some of the differences that affect Scotland—and no doubt that applies to Wales as well—were being taken account of. Therefore, would it not be better to have a specific duty for Ministers to consult? After all, this Government will not be there forever. Maybe it might like to put some responsibility on to the next Labour Government to make sure that this consultation is undertaken. It would seem to me that the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, has a very good suggestion. If the Minister is keen to do it anyway, why would it create any problems if it was specifically included?
Welfare Reform Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Thursday, 6 October 2011.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee proceeding on Welfare Reform Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
730 c367GC 
Session
2010-12
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand Committee
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 21:19:34 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_770573
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_770573
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_770573