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, this is genuinely a probing amendment, and I shall not spend a lot of time on it. I suppose the probe could be distilled to the question: why? The Central Arbitration Committee and the Certification Officer vaguely operate in the same area of life and are indeed serviced by the staff of ACAS, but they do very different jobs. One of them is effectively an arbitrator and the other is a regulator. It is not normal to confuse the two roles. Indeed, confusing the two roles in other fields is generally frowned upon, particularly in the area of regulation where the role of the regulator as against the role of the ombudsman is kept very distinct. They are slightly different in that the CAC acts as an arbitrator between trade unions and employers, in the main, and in some specified statutory functions, whereas the certification officer effectively regulates the internal affairs of trade unions, employers’ associations and other friendly societies. The fact that they are drawn from two bits of the secretariat of ACAS does not mean that the two secretariats can be merged without causing some difficulties. The cost saving seems to me to be negligible, if it is positive at all. Inside information tells me that it might save one photocopier and possibly a fax machine as well, but that is likely to be offset by the increased cost of having two headings on the notepaper for the new organisation, the name of which has presumably yet to be devised. My more serious point is that there is a potential conflict of interest here unless the two secretariats remain seriously Chinese-walled. Somebody who is dealing with a dispute between a trade union and an employer should not be the same person who is dealing with an issue between a trade union and one of its members. Unless those two duties are kept separate, there is a potential or apparent conflict of interest. This has worked perfectly well hitherto, and there have been no great hiccups. The two organisations perform different roles, and I do not see the point. Perhaps the Minister can explain. I beg to move.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 725 c1448-9
- 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
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-15 15:16:21 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_721705
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_721705
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_721705