Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Asked by Lord Morris of Manchester
To ask Her Majesty's Government further to the comments by Lord McKenzie of Luton in Grand Committee on 28 April (Official Report, House of Lords, cols. GC44-5), what is the justification for the breadth of the exemption of the Armed Forces from the Disability Discrimination Act 1995; and whether they have now reconsidered it.[HL3308]
To ask Her Majesty's Government why they plan to maintain the exemption of Armed Forces personnel from the Disability Discrimination Act as a proportionate means of ensuring combat effectiveness.[HL3309]
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether it is their policy that Armed Forces personnel should be treated differently with regard to the Disability Discrimination Act from police and fire services personnel.[HL3310]
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will propose an amendment to the Equality Bill to remove the exemption from the Disability Discrimination Act of Armed Forces personnel.[HL3311]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Baroness Taylor of Bolton): The Armed Forces have an exemption from the employment provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (DDA) because all service personnel need to be combat effective in order to meet a worldwide liability to deploy. This means that everyone who joins the Armed Forces undergoes a rigorous selection and initial training process to ensure that they can withstand the hardship and challenges of military service.
The Armed Forces do not allow units to have a protected role or reduced commitment, which means that everyone is liable to deploy and to fight anywhere in the world, even if only in self-defence. Accordingly, the MoD has concluded that it is essential that exemptions from domestic and international disability legislation are retained. For this reason the Armed Forces' exemption from the DDA has been replicated in the Equality Bill. This is required to ensure the continued combat effectiveness of the Armed Forces, as decisions on operational effectiveness must be taken by MoD Ministers, accountable to Parliament and based on military advice, not by the courts. The Armed Forces must be able to determine and set their own standards, based on the tasks to be performed. The Government do not expect the rationale for the exemption from the DDA to change, hence there are no plans to remove this exemption.
The Armed Forces perform a role which is fundamentally different from those of other organisations, such as the police and the fire services. All service personnel are weapons-trained and need to be able to
12 May 2009 : Column WA180
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are considering whether to permit banks to raise the value of their assets above market conditions in order to increase their net worth. [HL2866]
The Financial Services Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Myners): The Government expect banks to value the assets on their balance sheet in accordance with industry and international best practice, the relevant accounting rules and financial regulations. The Chancellor of the Exchequer announced on 19 January that banks joining the asset protection scheme would have to implement the highest international standards of public disclosure in relation to their assets. Further detailed information about the assets in the scheme will be provided after the final contracts are signed.
To ask Her Majesty's Government further to the Written Answer by Lord Myners on 27 April (WA 1) concerning discussion with the government of the Republic of Ireland, when the practice was introduced not to provide details of all meetings of Treasury Ministers and officials; by whom; and why. [HL3245]
Lord Myners: It is a long-standing practice that the Government do not normally publish details of the meetings of UK Ministers and officials with their counterparts in other Governments, as to do so might prejudice free and frank discussions.
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will amend the paragraph on the UK Border Agency website page www.bia.homeoffice.gov.uk/britishcitizenship/eligibility/registration/britishmother headed Children of British mothersproposed changes, to explain the provisions of clause 46 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Bill affecting the child born abroad to a British mother before 7 February 1961, giving the persons concerned advance notice of their right to register as a British citizen when Part 2 of the Bill comes into effect. [HL3343]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord West of Spithead): An announcement anticipating this change has been on the UKBA website since 16 July 2008. We are in the process of updating this to reflect the current progress of the Bill.
Asked by Lord Lofthouse of Pontefract
To ask Her Majesty's Government further to the Written Answer by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath on 3 March (WA 150) concerning the payment of £40.5 million to Avalon Solicitors in the British Coal litigation, what assessment they have made of (a) the sentence of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal on 29 April striking-off from the Roll of Solicitors that firm's former senior partner, Andrew Nulty; (b) the tribunal's finding that Mr Nulty's conduct had been a disgrace to the profession; and (c) the tribunal's finding that Mr Nulty's written response to a Minister of the Crown in the British Coal litigation had been intended to deceive and was dishonest; and whether, having regard to such matters, the payment of £40.5 million to Avalon Solicitors is to be referred to the Serious Fraud Office and South Yorkshire Police in connection with their ongoing investigation into the British Coal Litigation. [HL3345]
The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change & Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): The department has not made any such assessment to date. The department will consider the matter further when the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal's written ruling in respect of the case against Avalon is published.
Asked by Lord Lofthouse of Pontefract
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is the current total amount of costs paid to solicitors representing claimants under the claims handling agreement, British Coal vibration white finger litigation. [HL3348]
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The total costs for claimants' solicitors handling claims under the vibration white finger scheme is £187.14 million (includes Solicitors Co-ordinating Group, UDM and Vendside Ltd) as at 31 March 2009.
Asked by Lord Lofthouse of Pontefract
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether closing dates for the schemes under the British Coal respiratory disease litigation and British Coal vibration white finger litigation have been extended; and, if so, what are the new closing dates proposed for each such scheme. [HL3349]
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD)The closing date to register claims under the COPD scheme was 31 March 2004.
The total number of claims received under the COPD scheme is 592,000. An aspirational scheme completion date was set for 16 February 2009 over four years ago. In agreement with the court overseeing the COPD scheme in March 2009 the target is now to reduce claims down to 2000 by 30 November 2009 with the aim to resolve the remaining claims by end 2010.
Vibration White Finger (VWF)Vibration white finger was closed to new application in October 2002 for live claims and January 2003 for posthumous claims.
The total number of claims received under the vibration white finger (VWF) scheme is 170,000. As at end of March 2009, over 169,000 claims have been settled. The VWF litigation concluded on 1 May 2009. The department expects to have settled the remaining 535 VWF claims by end 2009.
Asked by Lord Lofthouse of Pontefract
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many pro formas have been sent out by solicitors in the British Coal respiratory disease litigation and British Coal vibration white finger litigation to advise former clients of the position in respect of third party funding arrangements; and whether they have made any assessment of the accuracy of the information provided. [HL3429]
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I understand the Legal Complaints Service (LCS) has entered into agreement with some solicitor firms on the basis that the firms write to the clients they represented in the chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or vibration white finger schemes providing information on the issue of deductions and the right of the clients to request repayment of any inappropriate deduction(s). Therefore, this is a matter for the LCS and the solicitors involved.
I am keeping in touch with the LCS on the progress of this initiative.
To ask Her Majesty's Government which applications for restricted works on common land have been made under Section 38 of the Commons Act 2006; and what was the outcome in each case. [HL3324]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Andrews): Fifty-nine applications have been made under Section 38, of which 29 have been decided; details are given in the following table:
Name of common [and County] | Date application received | Decision |
To ask Her Majesty's Government which applications for deregistration of common land have been made under Section 16 of the Commons Act 2006 in relation to (1) commons, (2) village greens and (3) town greens; what was the outcome in each case; and in which cases replacement land was provided. [HL3325]
Baroness Andrews: Nine applications have been made under Section 16, of which six have been decided; details are given in the following table. Suitable replacement land was provided in every case where consent has been granted.
Name of common or green and county | Date application received | Decision |
Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |