Proceeding contribution from Andrew Dismore (Labour) in the House of Commons on Thursday, 8 June 2006. It occurred during Debate on bill on Compensation Bill (HL).
Compensation Bill [Lords]
Does not what my hon. Friend said in response to the previous intervention defeat her own argument? If the purpose of clause 1 is simply to clarify existing law, which of course the Lord Chief Justice told the Constitutional Affairs Committee could not be done in a single sentence, why does she need a great long pamphlet explaining what the law is? Is it not better simply to set out in detail in that pamphlet what the law is for organisations without tinkering by means of clause 1, which will create a whole batch of new defences and litigation?
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 447 c423
- Session
- 2005-06
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Complaints Compensation Consumers Accountability Courts Companies Advisory services Fees and charges Liability Exemptions Legal opinion Marketing Negligence Voluntary organisations Regulation Trade unions Voluntary work Claims management services
- Legislation
- Compensation Bill (HL) 2005-06
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-04-21 13:57:16 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_328900
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_328900
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_328900