I apologise to the noble Lord for cutting him off in full flow. I understand that the level of independence of the scheme administrator is of some concern and clearly it is one of the things that have prompted the amendment. I can reassure the noble Lord that whoever the Secretary of State makes arrangements with to administer the scheme will be bound by agreements to comply with the scheme rules and departmental standards of implementation and administration. However, I am attracted to the idea of having some oversight of the scheme set out more formally. We could, for example, put something about reviewing and monitoring the scheme in the scheme rules and set this out in more detail in the arrangements for the scheme administration. I am minded to do more work on this to consider further whether we should bring forward an amendment on oversight of the scheme. I am not able to agree to the amendment today because I need to do the work first, but I would be grateful if I could consult the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, and get his wisdom on this. I shall then come back to noble Lords at a later stage. On that basis, I urge him to withdraw the amendment.
Mesothelioma Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Freud
(Conservative)
in the House of Lords on Monday, 10 June 2013.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee proceeding on Mesothelioma Bill [HL].
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
745 c301GC Session
2013-14Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand CommitteeLibrarians' tools
Timestamp
2015-03-26 19:29:25 +0000
URI
http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2013-06-10/13061044000030
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2013-06-10/13061044000030
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2013-06-10/13061044000030