Proceeding contribution from Lord Taylor of Holbeach (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]
I thank the noble Baroness for her intervention, because it reflects outside conversations and my discussions with the chairman of the Delegated Powers Committee on this matter. I should emphasise that we have found it possible—and I hope noble Lords will agree that it has been helpful—to produce the A4 briefing sheets that more or less provide a background for the changes we have been discussing. Those briefings have been explicit in describing the framework of the changes—not the detail, only the framework. To include such details in the legislation, given the large number of bodies involved, would lead to an extremely large Bill and would not necessarily be the way to deal with this matter. We are discussing these bodies in principle in primary legislation because of the way that the debates and this Committee have taken the Bill. We know, because of the exclusion of Schedule 7, that there can no longer be the ““stroke of the pen”” that the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, eloquently described when she expressed her anxiety about these issues. We know that that cannot happen and we know what the nature of the changes that will occur under the Bill will be. It is important to emphasise that no Minister can act under the Bill without a period of consultation or without explaining in detail the reasons for the change, its nature and consequences, in the explanatory document that will be provided alongside the statutory instrument that will effect change under any of these schedules. That is an effective way to ensure that Ministers do not act precipitately. If we are to try to meet the concerns of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, we need to focus less on that than on the wording of Clause 8. However, I make no promises—and I do not want to make promises—on this matter because it may be that I have stretched my run of good luck too far already. However, I believe that an explanatory document is a much more effective way of answering the Committee’s concerns and those of the noble Baroness.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 725 c1658
- 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
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-15 15:31:06 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_723227
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_723227
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_723227