Proceeding contribution from Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (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, most things have already been said but perhaps I may say that, for the moment, I support the amendment moved by my noble friend Lady Thornton. I say ““for the moment”” because, like many other noble Lords, my principal concern relates to the independence of the commission. I believe that the commission fulfils a vital function in ensuring compliance with equality and human rights law. Clearly, the discussions that are taking place between the Government, the noble Lord, Lord Lester, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, are extremely important. When we get the revised Bill back before Report, we may find that many changes have been made, which will make me feel much more confident about the fact that the commission appears in certain schedules. Like other noble Lords, I am delighted that the commission will no longer feature in Schedule 7, and nor will any other body. However, like my noble friend Lady Thornton, I am constantly perplexed by the way in which consultations follow legislation at the moment. I hope that in future we will have consultations before legislation, because that is the right way forward. My noble friend asked the Minister about what future Ministers might be able to do in relation to the maintenance of the commission in the schedules. I reiterate a question asked earlier by my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath about sunsetting. At an earlier stage I said that on behalf of my Benches I was very much in favour of sunsetting the whole Bill. However, when we see the recast Bill on Report, perhaps rather than sunsetting the whole Bill I might be in favour of sunsetting the schedules, so that the bodies that appear in the schedules can have some confidence that, at the end of this process and whatever has happened to them in the mean time, they will be free to evolve. They need that security of knowing that they are not constantly going to feature in the schedules. I would be grateful for the views of the Minister on sunsetting the schedules.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 725 c1495-6
- 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 15:17:18 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_721766
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_721766
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_721766