Proceeding contribution from Lord Deben (Conservative) in the House of Commons on Monday, 17 July 2006. It occurred during Debate on bill on Compensation Bill (HL).
Compensation Bill [Lords]
Does my hon. Friend take the point made by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann), which is a good one? If one substituted something else for the words ““trade union””, what light would that throw on the legislation? If one put in the word ““solicitors”” or the names of particular trade unions, such as the NUM or the UDM, the whole sense becomes clear: a particular group is being exempted from even cursory coverage by the law when there is no reason or rationale for that. It is not because they are subject to some other regulation; it is simply because the Government do not want to upset them. That worries me, and many other people, a great deal.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 449 c75-6
- Session
- 2005-06
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Complaints Compensation Codes of practice Courts Damages Advertising Coal Asbestos Legal profession Employment Liability Exemptions Functions Mining Negligence Mesothelioma Standards Regulation Trade unions Victims Industrial injuries disablement benefit Claims management services Mesothelioma Compensation Board
- Legislation
- Compensation Bill (HL) 2005-06
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-04-21 10:02:45 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_338029
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_338029
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_338029