Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Newton of Braintree (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]

In that case, why does subsection (4) of Clause 27 need to be in the Bill? I do not expect an answer to that now but given that a large part of my noble friend’s argument was about whether or not things needed to be in the Bill, to put in the Bill something against a risk that does not exist—or is said not to exist—seems to me superfluous. My other point is more friendly. I rather agree: I cannot see much point in the annual reporting requirement. Beyond that I will not comment except on my own amendment. As I have already said, I could have predicted the ““don’t think it ought to be in the Bill”” stuff. I could have predicted the line of argument that all these values are so engraved on the hearts and minds—and no doubt other parts of the anatomy—of Ministers that there is no need to engrave them in the legislation, which gives them the powers to do what they can. However, given that they should be committed to the declarations in the coalition’s programme, they should be bound to observe those declarations in the legislation which the coalition passes. I cannot think that that is unreasonable. My next observation increases my puzzlement. As I said on Monday, when I raised somewhat comparable points with the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton of Upholland, in relation to the terms of reference of a justice council in the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Bill, she went away and produced an amendment which wrote in some of these values. I have not been able to consult the noble Baroness as she has rather different responsibilities on her plate in other climes, but my guess is—I hope that I do not upset my noble friend by saying this—that she took my amendment away from a Committee in the Moses Room and went back to the department and it said, ““We don’t think this needs to be in the Bill””, and then she said words to the effect of, ““Get stuffed. I think this is reasonable and I think Lord Newton is a decent bloke. Let’s put it in the Bill””. I hope that something similar will happen between now and Report. But for the moment, such is my docility and my dedication to the coalition that I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment 106A withdrawn. Amendment 107 not moved. Amendment 108 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List. Amendments 109 to 110 not moved. Amendments 111 and 112 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List. Amendment 113 not moved. Clause 8 agreed. Clause 9 : Devolution Amendment 113ZA Clause 9 : Devolution Amendment 113ZA Moved by


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
725 c1727 
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