Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Viscount Eccles (Conservative) in the House of Lords on Monday, 16 January 2006. It occurred during Debate on bill and Committee proceeding on Compensation Bill [HL].


Compensation Bill [HL]

I, too, support the general direction of the amendment. I notice that in the memorandum from the department there is a considerable overlap in the four categories listed in the reply to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee with my noble friend Lord Hunt’s list. As regards new paragraph (e)(vi), I have a preference for being able to do something else later—perhaps towards the end of the Bill. If another category of claims were to be brought in by statutory instrument, there would need to be a considerable period of time for consultation, representations and all the normal processes. It is not just a question of having a list and being free to add to it at any time without due care and attention. It might have been better if my noble friend Lord Hunt had placed that provision later in the Bill. Otherwise, I support the amendment because it gives focus and direction to the Bill.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
677 c164GC 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand Committee
Subjects
Complaints Contracts Compensation Codes of practice Consumers Courts Companies Advertising Accidents Advisory services Cross border cooperation Housing Fees and charges EU law Financial services Legal representation Personal injury Protection Negligence Rehabilitation Standards Regulation Tenants Telephone services Unsolicited goods and services Claims management services
Legislation
Compensation Bill (HL) 2005-06
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk