Proceeding contribution from Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Conservative) in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 23 March 2011. It occurred during Debate on bill on Public Bodies Bill [HL].
Public Bodies Bill [HL]
When we are in a position to make an announcement about that, we shall. I am not in a position to do so at this point in the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Clark of Windermere, raised a number of interesting questions based not only on the experience of his work with the Forestry Commission but on his location in Cumbria. On the issue of competition with Scotland for inward investment, UKTI co-ordinates the work on this, and one of its main aims is to avoid wasteful competition between different parts of the UK for inward investment. The noble Lord, quite appropriately, asked specifically about the trees and their liabilities. At present, the Northwest Regional Development Agency is discussing plans for its assets and liabilities with the Government. I cannot give a response on the future of these assets until these discussions are completed. A number of noble Lords asked about the process of consultation. One of the lessons noble Lords will take from this Bill is that the Government are serious about consultation. The procedures laid down in the Bill require Ministers to come to Parliament with full details of the impacts of any policy change that they seek to bring in through statutory instruments. There will be full consultation. I shall be happy to keep the House informed on the nature of this consultation over the next few months while this process of change is going on. From a standing start in September 2010, partnerships now cover 80 per cent of active businesses in the UK and 87 per cent of the population. We are looking forward to reaching 100 per cent. We believe that we have unleashed a wave of enthusiasm for economic development at local level. In many places there is no appetite to go back to the old arrangements. It was clear from our earlier debate that many noble Lords retain their attachment to RDAs as they were. However, we do not believe that a return to the circumstances of a few years ago is either appropriate or possible. We are now in a new situation and we need to ensure that economic activity is taken forward across the right geography by fully committed partnerships. RDAs do not fit in with that new approach and I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 726 c828
- Session
- 2010-12
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords chamber
- Subjects
- Complaints Access Disability Consumers Agriculture Assets Closures Finance Environment protection Hazardous substances Ministerial powers Protection Pay Property transfer Minimum wage Public bodies Property Mergers Pesticides Non-departmental public bodies Scotland Tribunals Training Transport Regulation Safety Wales Valuation Rural areas Science Security guards Agricultural Wages Board Citizens Advice Advisory Committee on Pesticides Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee Plant Varieties and Seeds Tribunal Security Industry Authority Valuation Tribunal Service Citizens' advice bureaux Commission for Rural Communities East Midlands Development Agency Citizens Advice Scotland Consumer Focus Local enterprise partnerships Advisory Committee on Hazardous Substances Advisory Committee on Pesticides for Northern Ireland
- Legislation
- Public Bodies Bill (HL) 2010-12
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-09-05 11:36:00 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_730657
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_730657
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_730657