Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Mayhew of Twysden (Conservative) in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 9 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, too, am a member of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. I support everything that my noble friend Lady Thomas has said and much of what the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, has said. She will not expect me, as a loyal supporter of the coalition Government, to endorse every epithet that she used— certainly not the word ““reckless””, for which I might substitute the word ““courageous””— but I warmly endorse the grateful compliment that she paid to my noble friend Lord Taylor for the changes that he has been more than instrumental in securing. As somebody who contributed to a rather torrid debate at Second Reading, when tremendous dissatisfaction with the Bill was expressed, I am extremely grateful that the answers that my noble friend returned with have turned away wrath for the time being. However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, has just said, that wrath has not gone away. It may have been turned away but it has not gone away entirely. I am afraid there is still more to come, particularly on expressing in the Bill the purposes for which these powers are to be used. I take it to be a principle of the rule of law that an executive power may be exercised only for one of the purposes for which it was conferred. A ground that appears frequently in court judgments on judicial review proceedings is that a power has been purported to have been used in a way that was not authorised by the legislation giving rise to it. There is a good way to go yet, but I am heartened by the letter that my noble friend Lord Taylor sent to the committee—in appendix 2 to the report—in which he says that he is grateful to the committee for its report and goes on to say that the Government, "““continue to consider, in particular, the committee’s concern that the Bill should give greater clarity in clause 8 to the purpose for which the powers may be exercised””." I hope that his efforts in that regard will be just as successful as they have been in relation to the appalling Schedule 7 and the equally alarming provisions affecting forestry. I hope he will be able to tell us that there is work still to be done and that he is looking forward to doing it.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
725 c1653-4 
Session
2010-12
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Complaints Conditions of employment Codes of practice Devolved matters Consumers Accountability BBC Banks Competition British Waterways Competition Commission Fertility Freedom of information Human rights Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority Inland waterways Legislation IVF Forestry Commission Forests Ministerial powers Northern Ireland Navigation Public bodies Railways Mergers Parliamentary scrutiny Passengers Staff Office of Fair Trading Non-departmental public bodies Scotland Regulation Wales Welsh language Shipping Research Supermarkets Television Stem cells S4C Human Tissue Authority Passenger Focus Legal Services Board Care Quality Commission Independent Commission on Banking
Legislation
Public Bodies Bill (HL) 2010-12
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk