Public Bodies Bill [HL]

Lord Taylor of Holbeach Excerpts

Monday 28th March 2011 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

35: Clause 4, page 2, line 39, leave out “Subject to section 16,”

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

42: Clause 5, page 3, line 2, leave out “Subject to section 16,”

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

51: Schedule 5, page 18, line 17, at end insert—
“Keeper of Public Records.”

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

53: Schedule 5, page 18, line 18, leave out “National Park authorities in England.”

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

55: Schedule 5, page 18, line 20, at end insert—
“Public Records Office.”

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

57: Clause 6, leave out Clause 6

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

58: Schedule 6, leave out Schedule 6

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

59: Clause 7, page 3, line 43, leave out subsection (4)

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

60: Clause 7, page 4, line 4, at end insert—
“( ) An order under sections 1 to 5 may include provision repealing the entry in the Schedule by virtue of which the order was made.”

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, even at this late hour, it gives me great pleasure to introduce this group of amendments, each of which introduces important changes to the schedules. I hope that they will be welcomed on all sides of the House.

Amendment 60 would create a power for a Minister, when making an order under Clauses 1 to 5, to include a provision to remove the body or office subject to the order from the schedule or schedules in which the body was listed. The amendment ensures that, where a Minister has been able to implement the proposed reforms by virtue of an order under the Bill, that body can be removed from the relevant schedule and therefore be assured of its ongoing status.

Amendment 69C represents a solution—which, I am happy to state, has the support of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath—to the question of so-called omnibus orders relating to more than one body and whether they should be permissible under the Bill. I made a commitment in Committee to consider the matter further and have done so. During our debates in Committee, I expressed my concern that any restriction on omnibus orders should not prevent Ministers from the sensible and reasonable combination of related changes in a single order. For example, I am sure that the House will understand that there is little to be gained from a separate consideration of 160 orders making identical changes to internal drainage boards.

On that basis, the Government propose instead to amend Clause 11 to require that, should Ministers consider it appropriate to bring forward an omnibus order under Clauses 1 to 5, they must explain in the Explanatory Memorandum their justification for the decision. It will therefore be for Parliament to judge whether the Minister’s decision was appropriate. I consider that to be a sensible and proper solution.

I am delighted to have added my name to Amendment 72, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, the noble Baroness, Lady Royall of Blaisdon, and my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth. That amendment, much like the amendment in Committee which now forms Clause 16, represents the outcome of genuine engagement and compromise on all sides of the House. I pay tribute to noble Lords who have assisted in presenting it to the House this evening. Amendment 72 effectively sunsets the entries in the schedules by ensuring that an entry in the schedule automatically lapses five years after its commencement. The amendment therefore clarifies that the listing of a body in one of the schedules will not involve endless changes to that body's status but will be a vehicle for specific reforms which the Government expect to be carried out in a timely fashion. As I described the Government's thinking in Committee, the amendment will ensure that the powers in the Bill will remain on the statute book. That ensures that, following future reviews of public bodies, the Government will have the option of using primary legislation to repopulate the schedules as a means of making further reforms, subject to Parliament's consent.

For that reason, I am unable to support Amendment 72A in the name of my noble friend Lord Goodhart. That amendment would sunset the entire Bill, as well as the entries in the corresponding schedules, following the dissolution of this Parliament. To do so would be a mistake. It would leave the Government without a mechanism to take forward the outcomes of what I believe all sides of the House hope will be regular, systematic reviews of public bodies. Particularly given the work that this House has undertaken to craft a mechanism in the Bill which can command the confidence of Parliament and the public, it would be a retrograde step to ask future Parliaments to begin that process from scratch.

The Government's amendments in this group and Amendment 72 each significantly improve the mechanisms of the Bill and are the product of a process of engagement and deliberation that characterises this House at its best. It is a pity that we have had to introduce them at this late a stage, in front of a small House, but none the less their significance to the Bill is considerable. I commend them to the House and beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Eccles]

My Lords, the first three amendments in this group are very welcome. Going right the way back to Second Reading, I remember the suggestion that Schedule 7 be dropped from the Bill being made right at that time. The dropping of Schedule 7 makes the arrangements for sunsetting a great deal easier to agree than they would have been if that schedule had stayed in. These two amendments are rather a subtle way of agreeing to a sunseting procedure, but they are none the less very welcome. I also remember that at Second Reading there was a suggestion that if this was the way that we were going and Schedule 7 were dropped, perhaps we would need Public Bodies Bill (No. 2). I am sure that my noble friends on the Front Bench and, particularly, my noble friend Lord Taylor are very pleased that he has found a way of avoiding Public Bodies Bill (No. 2), and I think we should all be very grateful for that. Finally, we have made a long journey and a lot of progress, which is extremely welcome.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I thank noble Lords for the general welcome given to these amendments. I thank those on the opposition Benches for their positive engagement on finding these solutions. For that, I am extremely grateful. I thank my noble friend Lord Goodhart for the gracious way in which he bowed to the consensus building on Amendment 72 and my noble friend Lord Eccles for the recognition he gave to the difficulties this Bill faced and for his part in overcoming those difficulties.

Amendment 60 agreed.