---

Public Bodies Bill [HL]

I am very grateful for those contributions. If there were any doubt why we were wise not to keep Schedule 7 in the Bill, the answer lies in the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Rowlands. As like as not, nothing would have happened to those bodies. They would have been subject to a review in another three years under a periodic review of public bodies, which is an ongoing commitment of the Government. As the noble Baroness pointed out, it was very difficult for any representative of the Government to convince public bodies that that was the case. We may now have a much more satisfactory solution—from both a parliamentary and a practical point of view—to how the review of public bodies can be an ongoing process. I thank my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth. He and I have known each other longer, I guess, than any other people in this House. We were youngsters together. Indeed, my noble friend was the William Hague of his day at Conservative Party conferences, but he will probably not thank me very much for revealing that to the House. I thank him for his comments. We have taken the committee’s reports seriously and sought to address them, because I have taken the view that the guidance of this House has been positive rather than destructive. I turn specifically to a comment of the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, that there was a lack of discussion between the departments. I do not think there has been any Bill in which there has been so much discussion across government departments. It is one of the complexities of this Bill that it involves every department, so all departments have been involved in the preparation and structure of the Bill. As for the detailed question which the noble Baroness asked me about any movement of bodies into schedules during various stages of the Bill, I am not in a position to give an answer on that at this stage, but I will keep the House informed. We are determined that nothing should be introduced to the Bill that cannot be justified by a strong sense of purpose and suitability, and it is not a large number of bodies involved. Consultations are going on, but there will be a number of bodies where proposals exist to come into the Bill that will not be introduced into the Bill because we do not consider that they are in a suitable state of preparation. We feel that we have to justify the admission of any body that we bring into the Bill at this stage. I think that is a reasonable position, and I hope all Members of the Committee will agree with that. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and I have talked about the problem that she has. When she talked about the Government being deaf, I hope she was not referring to me. I hope she would acknowledge that I responded immediately to the point she made; I got a response and I showed it to her this evening before we came in here in the hope that we would not have to debate it. That is because it is not really a matter for this Bill; it is a matter of the relationship between public bodies—and particularly those in the legal sector—and Government. I will, of course, write to her on the situation as it is, and I note her interest in the matter. I hope that we can keep in touch. I should just say a few words on these parts of the Bill. As set out in the House on 28 February, these parts of the Bill were designed to facilitate the Government’s stated commitment to the regular review of all public bodies by creating a means by which changes to such bodies could be made following future reviews without recourse to further primary legislation. It was not, as some have suggested, intended to threaten the status of public bodies that the Government had decided needed to be retained. In particular, the Government recognise that some public functions need to be carried out independently of Ministers. Schedule 7 was never intended to hinder or threaten their independence. However, following representations from noble Lords across the House, including Members of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, the Government have acknowledged the significant concern within the House that these parts of the Bill represented a significant delegation of powers to Ministers and had the potential to constitute a threat to the necessary independence of some public functions. Accordingly, I have added my name to those of other noble Lords opposing the question that Clause 11 and Schedule 7 should stand part of the Bill. The consequences of removing these parts from the Bill will be that the powers in the Public Bodies Bill cannot apply to any body or office without the express approval of Parliament through primary legislation for that body or office to be listed in one of the Bill’s schedules. Accordingly, any changes to public bodies following the Government’s planned future reviews which necessitate legislation will require a primary legislative vehicle. I hope that this change provides a significant assurance to the Committee both as regards the status of bodies and the Government’s commitment to the appropriate parliamentary scrutiny of government policy. As I set out on 28 February, it will also be necessary, as a result of the removal of Schedule 7, to introduce a small number of amendments to move bodies currently in that schedule to one or more of the other schedules. These changes will ensure that all the reforms announced in last year’s review can be implemented. These amendments will be made at a later stage of the Bill. I thank noble Lords for their contributions to the debate and for their positive and helpful engagement on the question of the proper scope and mechanism of this Bill. Throughout its passage to date I hope that, in agreeing to oppose the question that Clause 11 and Schedule 7 should stand part, I have been able to demonstrate the Government’s commitment to engage with and respond to the concerns of noble Lords. Clause 11 agreed. Schedule 7 : Bodies and offices subject to power to add to other Schedules Schedule 7 : Bodies and offices subject to power to add to other Schedules Amendment 131 not moved. Amendments 131A to 133A had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List. Amendments 134 to 136ZA not moved. Amendments 136A to 137C had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List. Amendments 137D and 138 not moved. Amendments 139 and 139ZA had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List. Amendment 139A not moved. Amendment 139B had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List. Amendment 140 not moved. Amendment 140A had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List. Amendments 141 and 141A not moved. Amendments 142 and 142ZA had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List. Amendment 142A not moved. Amendments 143 and 143A had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List. Amendments 144 and 145 not moved. Amendment 145A had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List. Amendment 146 not moved. Amendments 146A to 148 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List. Amendment 148A not moved. Amendments 149 and 149A had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List. Amendments 150 to 153 not moved. Amendment 153A had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List. Amendment 154 not moved. Amendments 154YA to 154ZB had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List. Amendments 154A and 154B not moved. Amendment 154C had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List. Amendments 155 and 156 not moved. Amendments 157 and 157A had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List. Amendments 158 and 159 not moved. Amendments 159ZA to 160 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List. Amendment 160A not moved. Amendment 160B had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List. Amendment 161 not moved. Amendments 161A and 162 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List. Amendment 163 not moved. Amendments 163A to 163E had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List. Amendment 164 not moved. Amendments 164A and 165 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List. Amendment 165A not moved. Amendments 165AZA to 165B had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List. Amendment 166 not moved. Amendment 166ZA had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List. Schedule 7 disagreed. Clause 12 : Procedure for orders under section 11 Clause 12 : Procedure for orders under section 11 Debate on whether Clause 12 should stand part of the Bill.