Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Henley (Conservative) in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 1 December 2010. It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL) and Debate on bill on Public Bodies Bill [HL].


Public Bodies Bill [HL]

My Lords, as I made clear, I do not think that it is necessary in this case to carry out an impact assessment. If it was necessary, we would do so. What I am saying is that, after the abolition of the wages board, it is open to the industry to look at its own arrangements. That is why I was grateful for the intervention from the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, who said that the NFU could do this, but I do not see why the NFU cannot do it along with Unite and all the other representatives of the industry. I appreciate that we have now spent an hour and a half discussing these matters. We will no doubt come back to this in due course. My noble friend Lord Maclennan said that there was still much time to discuss these matters. There certainly will be time, because noble Lords opposite wish to make sure that there is. We will discuss these matters further, therefore, but I have not heard anything yet this afternoon that would encourage me to say that there was a case for preserving the agricultural wages board or the agricultural wages committees. I hope, therefore, that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
722 c1535 
Session
2010-12
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Devolved matters Audit Agriculture Broadcasting Costs Closures Audit Commission Legislation Horticulture Pay Minimum wage Public sector Public bodies Redundancy Non-departmental public bodies Migrant workers Wales Tenants Rented housing Tenants' rights Agricultural Wages Board Tied housing BBC Trust
Legislation
Public Bodies Bill (HL) 2010-12
Rent (Agriculture) Act 1976
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk