Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Baroness Neville-Jones (Conservative) in the House of Lords on Monday, 28 February 2011. It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL) and Debate on bill on Public Bodies Bill [HL].


Public Bodies Bill [HL]

To take the noble Lord’s last point, I do not think that it follows that, because one decides not to make a change before a big event, there is no case for change at all. It does not follow at all. It is a sensible thing not to institute change immediately before a big event. However, it does not follow that no change is possible or desirable. On the noble Lord’s other point, I think that he is jumping to conclusions. It is not our impression that the attitude of the Scottish Government is as negative as he fears it may be. We are in consultation and I do not think that what I said indicated that we were suddenly leaping to entirely different regimes. We are going to have consultation; we believe that it will be possible to have a national regime. We may need, and it may be fitting, to have a certain amount of local variation. However, as I say, that is an area that is still being consulted about. We will work for a sensible outcome and we want one that fits the needs of all UK Administrations. Some noble Lords raised the issue of wheel clamping. I should mention it briefly. As was rightly mentioned, the Government are taking measures to regulate this area, which include the abolition of the right to clamp and tow away on private land. This legislation will be put into effect through the Protection of Freedoms Bill. The ban will end the abuse by devious firms and their employees who prey on motorists with signage, excessive fees and unscrupulous towing. That regime is going to come to an end, which obviously means that the power does not need to be included in the new regulatory regime. The noble Baroness asked whether we were also going to cover parking tickets. That is not an SIA issue. It is regulated by the Department for Transport and the DVLA, so it lies outside the scope of this piece of legislation. The SIA had already proposed the move to a more self-regulatory model before the Government took this issue on. It is in the spirit of building on that that we want to proceed. If the amendment were accepted, it would create an administrative anomaly that would deliver, in our view, no benefits to the public, even after the SIA had successfully implemented its plans to transition to the new regulatory regime. We are endeavouring to work in close co-operation with the existing authority on a transition to a regime that we hope the authority itself will feel fulfils the job, so I hope that, on that basis, the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
725 c915-6 
Session
2010-12
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Devolved matters Charities Closures Licensing Forestry Forestry Commission Northern Ireland Public sector Public bodies Public expenditure Non-departmental public bodies Public finance Scotland Security Small businesses Regulation Wales Security guards Regional development agencies Nesta North East Design Council Security Industry Authority Railway Heritage Committee Local enterprise partnerships
Legislation
Public Bodies Bill (HL) 2010-12
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk