Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Baroness Henig (Labour) in the House of Lords on Monday, 29 November 2010. It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL) and Debate on bill on Public Bodies Bill [HL].


Public Bodies Bill [HL]

This is a probing amendment arising from the fact that Schedule 1 includes a collection of very different bodies in terms of the Government’s intentions as to their functions, powers and duties. It is a very miscellaneous group and I think we can discern four or five categories. For example, there are some bodies that are for straight abolition, and British Shipbuilders would fall into that category. There is then a second category where the powers, functions and duties will revert back to Ministers or to departmental civil servants. Then there is a third category where the powers, functions and duties are being transferred in whole or in part to another public body. And there is yet a further category where powers, functions and duties are being transferred in whole or in part to a private body, for example Consumer Focus to Citizens Advice. Then there are some like the Security Industry Authority—I declare an interest as chairman of that body—where the powers, functions and duties are going eventually, via phased transition, to a private body but with a residual public function. When my noble friend Lord Whitty and I were looking to try to devise an amendment, we could not allocate these different bodies to the different categories without naming each one of them, which we found impossible to do. That is why, as I say, this is a probing amendment. Does the Minster recognise that there are different consequences, not least for Parliament, of the different intentions for bodies in Schedule 1? I am asking for these to be spelt out in the Bill because they materially affect what is going to happen to these different bodies. On Amendment 11, my noble friend Lord Whitty was looking to delete ““other incorporated body”” as an eligible body to transfer into on the grounds that he found it too wide and too unaccountable in terms of its range. So the gist of these amendments is to try to get some coherence and recognise that different bodies should be dealt with in different ways. I beg to move.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
722 c1303-4 
Session
2010-12
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Devolved matters Accountability Administration of justice Assets Business Closures Environment Hazardous substances Food Standards Agency Local government Ministerial powers Property transfer Public bodies Pesticides Ombudsman Non-departmental public bodies National parks Scotland Tribunals Sustainable development Wales Regional development agencies Advisory Committee on Pesticides Administrative Justice and Tribunals Council Local enterprise partnerships Advisory Committee on Hazardous Substances
Legislation
Public Bodies Bill (HL) 2010-12
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk