---

Public Bodies Bill [HL]

I, too, am delighted that the Minister has added his name to the Clause 11 and Schedule 7 stand part debate, and pay tribute to him for listening so attentively to everyone around the Chamber. I feel sure that I know exactly how it will have happened. He will have been in the Cabinet Office, or wherever, and the Secretary of State will be saying, ““Don’t be silly. Of course you can get it through the Lords””. He will be saying, ““No, I’m listening. I can't. It’s too difficult””. Eventually, the noble Lord’s arguments will have prevailed, and I am delighted about that. In moving that the Bill be read a second time, the noble Lord said: "““The fact that a body is named in Schedule 7 to the Bill should not be misconstrued as constituting an intent to abolish or otherwise reform””.—[Official Report, 9/11/10; col. 67.]" He said that in good faith, but it is understandable that any body mentioned in Schedule 7 was immediately worried. Its current operations and future prospects were thrown into doubt and confusion. I recognise that that cannot have been the Government’s intent—that simply does not make economic sense or for good governance—but it was the reality. Each organisation believed itself to be just two orders away from modification, merger or, even worse, abolition. The chilling factor already mentioned was mighty. If the Minister had not indicated that the Government were minded to delete Clause 11 and Schedule 7, I can assure him that Committee stage would have lasted for even longer, because it would have been our duty to table an amendment on each of the bodies to tease out from the Government their intentions for the body in question. Thankfully, such scrutiny was not needed but, more importantly, the clause and schedule are being deleted, so the axe has been lifted and the bodies mentioned can get on with their work. I do not want to detain noble Lords at this hour, but I must say that Clause 11 and Schedule 7 were very unwise. They are a testament to rushed drafting and a woeful lack of consultation between the Cabinet Office and other departments. The Government have seen sense; and I am glad. I have a question for the Minister. I presume that some of the bodies mentioned in the schedule might be moved at some stage in the legislative process. Can he say which or how many bodies will be moved, where they will be moved to and when that will be? I would naturally also be grateful for confirmation that the necessary consultation is taking place at this moment with any bodies likely to be moved from Schedule 7 into another schedule. I have great sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, when he says that there should be a Public Bodies Bill at the beginning of each Parliament but, in essence, if we are all content with the framework of this Bill and the schedules are sunsetted, that is what we will have.