Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Whitty (Labour) in the House of Lords on Monday, 7 March 2011. It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL) and Debate on bill on Public Bodies Bill [HL].


Public Bodies Bill [HL]

My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister’s reply. Indeed, at one point he used the word ““agreeable””, which perhaps raised my expectations too much. This short debate has demonstrated a need for the Government to provide a clearer explanation of what they are doing in this area. I saw the noble Lord’s Amendment 118 and, like the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, I thought that that related to Explanatory Memoranda of the type that normally relate to content, rather than strategy and context. If the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, is saying that the content of the explanatory document will go somewhat wider, I accept that that goes some way towards what I am arguing for. In relation to the procedural points made by my noble friends Lord Borrie and Lady Hayter, when these amendments were drafted there was another amendment—we have now considered it—in addition to her Amendment 107, which would have strengthened Clause 8 and made more sense of it. I had hoped that that could have been sorted out later, if the Government had stated that in principle they were accepting these amendments. However, Clause 8 as it stands asks the Minister to take these matters into consideration but does not require him to explain them to Parliament in any form. I am concerned that Parliament should, at some stage in the process, hold a substantive debate on the total strategy that lies behind the reason for abolishing or changing the nature of a particular body. That remains an outstanding issue. When we reach Amendment 118, I hope that the Minister can expand further on how he sees this issue. However, the essential point is that Parliament by this Bill is giving up the right to revert to primary legislative procedure in relation to an organisation that was originally set up after full debate on primary legislation. We need a clear explanation if we are going to cut corners in that way. I still hope that we get there in the secondary, if not in the primary, legislation. If the Minister, before we consider Amendment 118 or at Report, can put a few bones on that, I should be extremely grateful. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment 65 withdrawn. Clause 2, as amended, agreed. Amendment 65A Moved by


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
725 c1411-2 
Session
2010-12
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Devolved matters Crime Assets Costs Arbitration ACAS Cultural heritage Church Commissioners British Film Institute Equality Industrial relations Flood control Licensing Exports Film Ofgem Equality and Human Rights Commission Land drainage Joint Nature Conservation Committee Discrimination Gambling Commission Drinking water Drinking Water Inspectorate Membership Public appointments Public bodies Public expenditure Property Nature conservation Mergers Non-departmental public bodies Light dues Lighthouses Ofcom National park authorities Public finance Young offenders Regulation Victims Wales Shipping Research Youth justice Victims' Commissioner Broads Authority Central Arbitration Committee Certification Officer Commissioners of Irish Lights Office of Rail Regulation National Lottery Commission Northern Lighthouse Board Youth Justice Board UK Film Council Trinity House Victims Advisory Panel Natural England Marine Management Organisation Internal drainage boards Sunset clauses Norfolk and Suffolk Broads
Legislation
Public Bodies Bill (HL) 2010-12
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk