Public Bodies Bill [HL] Debate
Full Debate: Read Full DebateDepartment: Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
Main Page: Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Conservative - Life peer)Department Debates - View all Lord Taylor of Holbeach's debates with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
Public Bodies Bill [HL]
Lord Taylor of Holbeach Excerpts(13 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
“(1) A Minister may make an order under sections 1 to 5 only if the Minister considers that the order serves the purpose of improving the exercise of public functions, having regard to—(a) efficiency,(b) effectiveness,(c) economy, and(d) securing appropriate accountability to Ministers.”
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, government Amendments 60A, 69A and 69B in this group are an important contribution to the Bill. They are designed to respond to the criticism of the Delegated Powers Committee that the Bill as drafted did not sufficiently define the purpose for which orders might be brought forward. In challenging the Government to provide such purpose, the committee sought a safeguard against the abuse of the powers that the Bill would grant to Ministers. I am happy to be able to respond to that challenge.
Amendment 60A establishes a purpose for the use of the main order-making powers of the Bill by amending Clause 8. If the amendment is accepted, Ministers will be able to make an order only if they consider that it,
“serves the purpose of improving the exercise of public functions”.
In making that assessment, a Minister would be required to have regard to the matters listed in paragraphs (a) to (d) of the amendment.
While I appreciate that the purpose as defined in Amendment 60A is relatively broad, I trust that noble Lords will appreciate why this is the case. During the numerous debates in Committee and on Report on the bodies listed in the Bill, the Government have demonstrated their intent to take forward a wide range of reforms. These include the cessation of unnecessary functions and bodies, the mergers of bodies to improve efficiency and the delivery of some functions outside the state sector, including through charities. What links these otherwise disparate reforms is the Government’s clear imperative to create a rationalised public bodies landscape in which necessary functions are delivered in an appropriate and effective manner. The purpose of Amendment 60A is to articulate this goal and to ensure that an order cannot be brought forward for a purpose outside the intended scope of the Bill as debated fully in Parliament.
Amendment 61ZA, tabled by my noble friend Lord Maclennan of Rogart, would require that Ministers could bring forward an order only if they were satisfied that it met one of the objectives in subsection (1). I am not able to support this amendment because, as I have described, there is a single overarching objective in that subsection. However, I can assure my noble friend that Ministers will be required to have regard to each of the matters listed in paragraphs (a) to (d) of the subsection when making an order.
Amendment 60B, tabled by my noble friend Lord Phillips of Sudbury, would remove efficiency from the list of matters to which a Minister must have regard when considering whether an order would meet the purpose specified in Amendment 60A. I understand the noble Lord’s argument that, in practice, efficiency and economy are closely linked. None the less, the Government envisage circumstances in which an order might increase efficiency in the exercise of functions while not producing a significant economy. For example, the merger of the Pensions Ombudsman and the ombudsman for the board of the Pension Protection Fund will not produce a significant cost saving, as the bodies already to all intents and purposes operate as a single entity. However, their formal merger in statute will support a more efficient public bodies landscape by streamlining the legislative basis for their retained functions.
Amendments 69A and 69B provide a mechanism through which the Government would be held accountable for meeting the requirement in Amendment 60A. They add a requirement to the procedure set out in Clause 11 that will require the Explanatory Note accompanying any order to explain why and how the Minister considers the order to meet the purpose described in Amendment 60A. I hope that these amendments will assist the committees of both Houses in considering whether the orders made under this Bill fit the criteria that the Bill now describes.
Amendment 60AB has been tabled by my noble friend Lord Newton of Braintree. I am afraid to say that my noble friend is not very well and cannot be with us today, but I hope that the House will excuse me if I address the issues that he raised because I am sure that he wants to know the Government’s reactions to his amendment. The amendment’s intentions are laudable and, as the noble Lord pointed out in Committee, at the heart of the coalition Government’s approach. The amendment would add fairness, openness, transparency and justice to the list of matters to be considered under Clause 8(1). I remain unable to support the amendment’s inclusion in the Bill simply because we believe that it would add an additional and, for the purpose of legislation, quite abstract evidential burden.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I did not want to object to my noble friend contributing to the debate but I felt like asking him whether he was going to be helpful. However, he has been helpful, and so have all noble Lords who have spoken. This debate has been illustrative of the discussions we have had on the Bill and gives me an opportunity, in winding up, to answer some of the questions that have been raised. I am pleased with the general welcome that has been given not only to changes made to the Bill, for which I am extremely grateful and modestly so, but also to the amendments that we are considering today.
The Bill team has been much exercised about the changes to Clause 8; it has not been an easy thing to get together. There is always a gap between precision on the one hand and abstract concepts on the other. We do not want the clause to be a prison which makes it difficult for the Bill to be used to reform public bodies, which I think is desired across the House, nor do we want it to be open to challenge. I have a slight interest in music. I always like triplets; they add something to things. This triplet of alliterative words can be seen as being a duplication of meaning or as being an extension of meaning across a range of measurable indicators to which Ministers will have to have regard. That cannot be said of the amendment of my noble friend Lord Newton of Braintree, in which he introduced his more abstract concepts. There is a difficulty in that sense in that the definitions would be harder to pin down and more open to challenge than would be the case with those enshrined in Amendment 60A. It is true to say that even these are broadly defined precisely because the Government are proposing a wide range of reforms. However, the important point to note is that Ministers will be required explicitly to set out in an explanatory document accompanying any order why they believe the order will improve the exercise of public functions. I think the House agrees that that is very important and a great step forward.
I know that the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, was disappointed that we were not seeking to adopt my noble friend’s amendment but the breadth of the definitions involved would complicate the exercise of functions under the Bill. The most important thing is to ensure that, in exercising functions, we have the right checks so that Parliament can judge the issue using more measurable indicators. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Soley, that the measure does indeed impose an abstract evidential burden. However, there is a discipline on Ministers, and that is very important. The key here is the explanatory document in which a Minister must justify why he considers that the order meets the objective in Clause 8.
I hope that I have explained to my noble friend Lord Phillips why I would like to keep in all three words. They merge and blur into each other. The English language lacks precision in relation to things such as economy, efficiency and effectiveness but, like most things, we know them when we see them. They can be defined by an observer who is skilled at looking at them. Therefore, I hope that my noble friend will accept that I am not able to accept his amendment.
I would say to my noble friend Lord Maclennan that we do understand that he believes that any one of these things is sufficient. However, the fact that the three together have to be accounted for to Parliament in any order is the key to why we believe that Amendment 60A is sufficiently highly defined to assist Parliament in judging the orders when they come along.
I think the most interesting amendment to debate is the one tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter. Indeed, I, too, received the briefing from the World Wildlife Fund. I have been on its mailing list ever since I challenged the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, on the Marine and Coastal Access Bill and, before that, on the Climate Change Bill. He and I know all about the Marine Management Organisation. It was something very close to my heart. Were the Marine Management Organisation to make an unreasonable decision that was not consistent with its aims and objectives—for example, if it showed bias—like any public body it would be subject to judicial review. My noble friend Lord Henley is here with me. I know that Defra does not propose to make sufficient changes to the basis of the MMO’s funding. Any changes made would be subject to the processes that the Bill sets in place. This would include, for example, any changes to the MMO’s funding.
The noble Baroness asked about functions in connection with Consumer Focus. Public functions are defined in Clause 25 as the statutory functions or functions under a royal charter. The order on Consumer Focus under Clause 1 will relate to its functions, including its statutory functions. Therefore, the purpose set out in Amendment 60A will apply. The Minister must consider,
“that the order serves the purpose of improving the exercise of public functions”.
I hope that I have managed to reassure noble Lords on the matters that have been raised. I beg to move Amendment 60A.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Brabazon of Tara)
The amendment before the House at the moment is Amendment 60AA in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, this has been an interesting debate that has built on the progress that we have made since the Government started tabling amendments in Committee, way back in November when consultation was first discussed. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, for moving Amendment 65 to set up the debate and the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, for his amendment on local government.
In speaking to Amendment 65, I will also try to deal with the other amendments in this group, Amendments 66 to 68. Amendment 65 would insert a requirement that the public are consulted on all proposals before an order is brought forward under the powers in the Bill. The Government support the principle behind this amendment, which is to ensure that the public are given an opportunity to make their views heard on the reform of public bodies. In many instances it will be entirely appropriate and desirable for the public to be consulted on the reforms that we are delivering using the powers in the Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, will know from first-hand experience, the Government publish guidance for departments on best practice in consultation, the current code having been issued under the previous Administration, of which he was a part.
The one-size-fits-all approach in Amendment 65 would not result in a better deal for the public. Where a full public consultation is appropriate, the Government will undertake one. Clause 10 does not preclude public consultation, which will be undertaken where the Government consider it appropriate, followed of course by the extensive parliamentary scrutiny required under new Clause 11. The evidence on whether the Government will act in a responsible and proportionate way is already there for your Lordships’ House to see. Take, for example, the consultation document on reforming the Equality and Human Rights Commission. This has been published in full on the Government Equalities Office website, has been laid in Parliament and will stay open for responses for three months. This is very clearly a reform that affects the public at large, which is why the Minister for Equalities and the Home Secretary decided to run a full public consultation.
However, the noble Lord cannot in all seriousness claim that it would be appropriate or proportionate for a full public consultation to be undertaken on the announcement and detailed implementation of the proposal to abolish Food From Britain, with all the associated costs of ensuring that such a consultation was accessible, widely distributed and adequately publicised, in line with best practice. That is why the Government believe that there should be adequate discretion in Clause 10 for the Minister to be able to carry out a consultation that is proportionate for a particular reform. I am not advocating complete discretion, and the Government have made it clear repeatedly in Committee and on Report that the powers of the Bill should be offset by clear and meaningful standards. Clause 10 plainly sets out these safeguards by defining a statutory minimum that the body or office-holder, and where appropriate the devolved Administrations, and the Lord Chief Justice must all be consulted.
My noble friend Lord Maclennan of Rogart rightly emphasised the importance of this consultative process. The Minister must comply with the Clause 10 requirements, and the details of the consultation must be included in the explanatory document that accompanies the draft order and proposal for Parliament to scrutinise. This is the point that my noble friend Lord Eccles made when he acknowledged his debt to the late Viscount Colville in the scrutiny of statutory instruments in the Merits Committee. It is not absolute discretion but, importantly, it builds in sufficient flexibility to ensure that on defunct bodies the Government are not compelled to run meaningless public consultations that incur unnecessary costs when we can least afford it.
Amendment 66, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, runs into two similar issues in that it would put into statute something that in many cases is unnecessary. First, there are cases in which consulting staff would not be appropriate, such as where the proposal is a change to constitutional arrangements that would alter the name or method of appointment of the chair. In this case, Amendment 66 would add an additional burden without producing a meaningful improvement in the consultation process.
Secondly, the noble Baroness’s amendment cuts across existing requirements to consult and inform in specific circumstances. This includes TUPE and redundancy—the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, referred to the discussions that we have had on these—where there is already a requirement to consult trade unions, which was designed to build in a statutory guarantee for the situations in which such a requirement is appropriate. The problem with the amendment is that it would go beyond already well established requirements and codes of practice without considering whether such an additional burden was appropriate. I seek to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, that the Government are mindful of our obligation to consult trade unions where it fits the requirements of the Bill and to account for that in the explanatory document that we produce with the statutory instrument.
It is a similar story with Amendment 67 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy. There would be clear cases in which the groups and organisations captured by his amendment should and would be consulted. However, that does not mean that putting such a provision into the Bill would change the instances in which such groups or organisations are consulted in practice.
Amendment 68 in the name of the noble Lords, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Lord Judd, and my noble friend Lord Greaves—neither the noble Lord, Lord Judd, nor my noble friend are here, and I continue to wish my noble friend a speedy recovery—would require a Minister to publish the proposed reform on their department’s website, in the event that a full public consultation was not required.
I do not believe that such a requirement is necessary in the Bill. There are a number of ways of seeking input from interested parties that may or not include publication on a departmental website. It would obviously be a very effective way in a major consultation, but it would be likely to vary over time. It is therefore not possible or appropriate to place these as a statutory duty in the Bill. The code of practice—the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, is very familiar with it—encourages departments instead to,
“be clear about the reasons why the methods being used have been chosen”,
and further guidance supporting the code provides useful information on alternative forms of engagement that extend beyond simple publication on a website and that may be seen as a soft option when active engagement with stakeholders is preferable.
Consultation is an important issue and one about which the Government feel strongly. We believe that the amendments tabled and adopted in Committee, and which now make up Clause 10, represent a sensible and proportionate way to manage the diverse array of reforms that are being facilitated by the Bill. The amendments in this group, each in their own way, reduce the flexibility of the way in which consultations can be run, in many cases without substantively improving the quality or breadth of consultations.
Amendment 65 specifically requires that all consultations are full public consultations, regardless of whether such a consultation is necessary. It would therefore guarantee that all consultations incurred substantial costs without providing any meaningful improvement to the legislative scrutiny process. Clause 10, as drafted, provides a proportionate obligation to consult on the proposals to reform public bodies. I hope I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, that it also provides that Ministers are accountable for that consultation process in the Explanatory Memorandum that they lay with any statutory instrument. Unless the noble Lord feels that the public need to be consulted, for example on the abolition of the already defunct Food From Britain, I urge him to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, and all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. My noble friend Lord Whitty made some very important points about staff and trade unions, as did my noble friend Lord Kennedy about local government.
The noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, referred to the Merits Committee. As the first chairman of the Merits Committee I echo his remarks and the tribute he paid to the late Viscount. I recall that looking at the consultative process undertaken by departments was a very important part of that scrutiny. I certainly take his point that any order that a Minister wished to make under this Bill, when it becomes law, would go through scrutiny by committees of your Lordships’ House. His argument would have more power were the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, to intimate that he is prepared to accept my later amendment on the use of the super-affirmative procedure, but, alas, I do not see the noble Lord quite ready to intervene on that point.
The noble Viscount is certainly right about Clause 10(1)(g). It allows a Minister to consult “such other persons”, but should that be left to ministerial discretion? As the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said, the powers contained in the Bill are considerable. As a result, there need to be safeguards. I believe that automatic public consultation is one of those safeguards.
The Minister said that he supported the principle behind my amendment and that in many instances it is entirely appropriate and consistent with best practice, but he also said that there may be circumstances in which public consultation is not appropriate, and he instanced an organisation that may have been in abeyance. Surely the response to that comes from the Minister’s friend, the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, who say that consultation in those circumstances can be proportionate. Therefore, there could be a very modest public consultation in those circumstances.
Lord Pannick
I support the noble Lord’s observation. The Minister, in his response to the previous amendment, agreed that a full public consultation would be highly desirable in many, if not most, circumstances, but in some cases it would not be appropriate to have a full public consultation, and it seems to me that Amendment 68 deals precisely with that point.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, I am under instructions to resist—I think that is usually the phrase that is used. However, I understand the arguments that have been put forward by noble Lords to have a requirement, where public consultation does not take place, that at least the proposal is put on the website. I think that the Government are in a position to consider this and, if necessary, will bring forward an amendment at a later stage.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, that is very handsome of the Minister and we look forward to coming back to this on Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, this has been an important debate and probably gets to the nub of how this particular Bill can be handled by Parliament and how the secondary legislation which it empowers can be properly scrutinised. I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in it.
In particular, I hope I can reassure noble Lords that the bespoke scrutiny process that the Bill provides for is the proper one for Parliament, giving Parliament proper input into the shape of the secondary legislation. As noble Lords will know, it has been specifically designed for the Bill and included in government amendments. I am grateful for the support of my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern, who has been prepared to give advice on the Bill and the particular constitutional challenge that it has presented, and for the support of my noble friends Lord Blackwell and Lord Eccles for the way in which they have recognised that the process that now exists in the Bill provides for a proper scrutiny process.
I start with Amendment 69, which was first debated in Committee on 9 March. I do not apologise for in effect repeating my remarks from that debate as this amendment is quite technical in nature. It would make it explicit that a Minister wishing to make an order following a period of consultation “must” lay before Parliament a draft order and explanatory document. While Clause 11 states that a Minister “may” lay a draft order and explanatory document, it would in practice not be possible to make an order without following this procedure. Our current drafting reflects the fact that, following a period of consultation, the Minister is not obliged to proceed with the proposal. To my mind, this appears right and proper. I think my noble friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill indicated that this was his interpretation of the current wording.
On Amendment 69AA, tabled—
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister and sorry to interrupt. I was trying to grasp why one needed a discretion, and the Minister has indicated that one needs one because not every order will be required to go through this procedure. That is why it says “may” and not “must”. If that is the position, then I understand it.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, I can confirm that every statutory instrument will have to be accompanied by an Explanatory Memorandum. That is very important if a statutory instrument is proceeding under this Bill.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, I am sorry, too, but would like this to be clarified. At the moment, the clause says:
“If after consultation under section 10 the Minister considers it appropriate to proceed with the making of an order under sections 1 to 6”.
The Minister has already decided, in the light of consultation, that he is going to proceed with the order. That is not now in doubt because he,
“considers it appropriate to proceed”.
Surely it should then say that the Minister “must” lay that before Parliament. I do not understand why it is not “must”.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I make my point quite simply: if he does not lay an order, he will not get it approved. It is as simple as that; that is the nub of the issue. In order to get the change he requires, he has to lay an order and “may” is the correct word to use, in parliamentary terms, as the noble Lord will know.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
The next subsection uses “must”. I know that this is a very familiar argument, but it is quite clear that “must” is often used in legislation and I do not see why it is not used in this case.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
As it is Report and we are not supposed to be arguing in this way on these matters, I hope the House will accept what I said. This is the advice that I have received and, indeed, the House has received from a number of noble and learned Lords—well, one noble and learned Lord and other noble Lords who might also be learned, but not in the parliamentary sense.
I move on—I will be on safer ground, perhaps—to look at Amendment 69AA, tabled in the name of my noble friend Lord Phillips of Sudbury. It would require an explanation of why a Minister considers the order to be compatible with Clause 16(3), which refers to the need for an order to be proportionate to the reasons for it. We have not included such a provision within the Bill on the grounds that the explanatory document accompanying an order will set out the reasons for that order as a requirement of Clause 11. It will then be for Parliament to decide whether to approve an order and, if necessary, for the courts to assess subsequently whether an order is proportionate in relation to the reasons given.
As we know, my noble friend Lord Newton is not here, but I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, spoke to my noble friend’s amendment, because Amendment 69D would require a Minister, when bringing forward an order under Clause 1, to set out whether any of the functions of a body to be abolished would continue and if so, where they would be exercised in future. I consider this amendment to be unnecessary as such information would as a matter of course form part of the consultation on the proposal required under Clause 10 and the reasons for the order required by Clause 11(2)(a), so we are back to the process of consultation and the explanatory document providing for that.
In connection with Consumer Focus, I remind the noble Lord that Clause 1 allows for the transfer of functions. We will be consulting on our proposals specifically in respect of Consumer Focus, as I have explained, later this year.
The effect of Amendment 96 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, would be to clarify the date at which an order made under the Bill, if amended by Parliament, would come into force. I remind the noble Lord that there is currently no facility in the Bill for orders to be amended by Parliament, and I do not propose that such a facility should exist. However, I remind him that, under the enhanced affirmative procedure contained in the Bill, a Minister is at liberty to lay a revised order following the 60-day period. The Minister can take account of representations from Parliament and elsewhere in considering the form of the order as it proceeds.
The wording of Amendment 96 appears to be drawn from the Civil Contingencies Act—that was well spotted by someone, but not me—which was designed to create a framework for dealing with emergency regulations that necessarily circumvent the usual channels of parliamentary scrutiny. In such a specific circumstance, the argument for the amendability of orders is of a different order, but I do not believe that the Public Bodies Bill is of a comparable nature.
I turn to the question of the mechanism by which Parliament will scrutinise these orders, and specifically to whether the very unusual form of super-affirmative procedure proposed by Amendment 71 in the name of the noble Lords, Lord Hunt and Lord Rosser, and the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, is an appropriate mechanism for the Bill. When we last debated this matter in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, noted that I had been “forthright” in rejecting this proposal. I would not take issue with that assessment; I have told him privately of the red line that I see on this issue.
I am sure that by now the noble Lord is fully aware of the reasons why the Government will not accept this amendment. Accordingly, I ask the noble Lord to reflect on how far the Bill has come since we first debated this issue during the first Committee session. Since that time, a combination of the expert scrutiny of the committees of this House and a genuine willingness on the part of the Government to engage have led to a series of changes that have significantly restricted the scope of the powers that the Bill gives to Ministers. Government amendments on consultation and procedure have been accepted and now form part of the Bill, ensuring a robust and thorough scrutiny process. Clause 16 now firmly and objectively protects the necessary independence of some public functions—precisely those functions that had caused this House such concern during the early debates on the Bill. Schedule 7 and Clause 11, as was, have of course been removed, dramatically reducing at a stroke the scope of the Bill. The entries in the Bill’s schedules will now be sunset after five years, ensuring that bodies do not remain subject to the Bill’s powers in perpetuity. Lastly, and I take this to be most crucial, this House has thoroughly debated, in primary legislation, whether it is appropriate for each of the bodies in the schedules to be subject to the powers in the clauses to which those schedules apply. In some cases, this House has exercised its right to remove bodies from the schedules.
“(i) the order serves the purpose in section 8(1), and”
“(b) the Welsh devolved functions of the Environment Agency,(c) the Welsh devolved functions of the Forestry Commissioners, or(d) the functions of a Welsh Flood and Coastal Committee.”
“Powers relating to other bodies
(1) The Welsh Ministers may by order abolish any of the following—
(a) an agricultural dwelling-house advisory committee for an area in, or consisting of, Wales;(b) an agricultural wages committee for an area in, or consisting of, Wales;(c) the Environment Protection Advisory Committee established pursuant to section 12(6) of the Environment Act 1995 (Wales);(d) the regional and local fisheries advisory committee established pursuant to section 13(5) of that Act (Wales);(e) a regional advisory committee maintained under section 37(1)(b) of the Forestry Act 1967 for a conservancy in, or consisting of, Wales.(2) An order under subsection (1) may include provision transferring functions from the body being abolished to—
(a) the Welsh Ministers, or(b) any other person exercising Welsh devolved functions.(3) The Welsh Ministers may by order modify the funding arrangements of inspectors appointed by the Welsh Ministers under section 86 of the Water Industry Act 1991 (assessors for the enforcement of water quality).
(4) In subsection (3),the reference to modifying funding arrangements has effect as if the reference in section 4(2)(a) to a Minister were to the Welsh Ministers.
(5) The Welsh Ministers may by order do any of the following in relation to an internal drainage board for an area wholly or mainly in Wales—
(a) modify its constitutional arrangements;(b) modify its functions;(c) transfer any of its functions to—(i) the Welsh Ministers;(ii) any other person exercising Welsh devolved functions;(iii) a company limited by guarantee;(iv) a community interest company;(v) a body of trustees or other unincorporated body of persons.”(6) The Welsh Ministers must consult the Secretary of State before making an order under subsection (5) relating to an internal drainage board not wholly in Wales.”
“(1) A person to whom this section applies may make arrangements with another such person for—
(a) a Welsh devolved function relating to the environment exercised by one to be exercised by the other;(b) co-operation in relation to the exercise of their respective Welsh devolved functions relating to the environment;(c) the provision of administrative, professional or technical services by one to the other for purposes relating to the exercise of functions in or as regards Wales.(2) This section applies to—
(a) the Environment Agency;(b) the Forestry Commissioners;(c) any other person exercising Welsh devolved functions relating to the environment.”
“Purpose and conditions for orders made by Welsh Ministers
(1) The Welsh Ministers may make an order under section 12 or (Powers relating to other bodies) only if they consider that the order serves the purpose of improving the exercise of public functions having regard to—
(a) efficiency,(b) effectiveness,(c) economy, and(d) securing appropriate accountability to Welsh Ministers.(2) The Welsh Ministers may make an order under either of those sections only if they consider that—
(a) the order does not remove any necessary protection, and(b) the order does not prevent any person from continuing to exercise any right or freedom which that person might reasonably expect to continue to exercise.”
“Consent of UK Ministers
(1) The Secretary of State’s consent is required for an order under section 12 or (Powers relating to other bodies) which transfers a function to, or confers a function on—
(a) the Environment Agency,(b) the Forestry Commissioners, or(c) any other cross-border operator.(2) The Secretary of State’s consent is required for an order under section 12 or (Powers relating to other bodies) made by virtue of section 13 which in any other way modifies the functions, other than Welsh devolved functions, of a person referred to in subsection (1).
(3) A Minister’s consent is required for an order under section 12 or (Powers relating to other bodies) which transfers a function to, or modifies the functions of, the Minister.”
“Consultation by Welsh Ministers
(1) Where the Welsh Ministers propose to make an order under sections 12 to 14 they must consult—
(a) any body or person exercising public functions to which the proposal relates,(b) such other persons as appear to them to be representative of interests substantially affected by the proposal, and(c) such other persons as they consider appropriate. (2) If, as a result of consultation under subsection (1), it appears to the Welsh Ministers appropriate to change the whole or part of the proposal, they must carry out such further consultation with respect to the changes as seems appropriate.
(3) It is immaterial for the purposes of this section whether consultation is carried out before or after the commencement of this section.”
“(1) An order under the preceding provisions of this Act may not transfer any function to—
(a) a charity, or(b) a person not otherwise exercising public functions who is not a charity,unless the charity or person has consented.”
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to introduce this final group of amendments of what has been an excellent Report stage. In moving Amendment 91 I shall speak to the remaining amendments.
Noble Lords will know that considerable concern has been expressed in debate about the relationship between the Bill—and the proposals arising from it—and charities. I am pleased to be able to confirm that the amendments mean that the consent of charities to receive functions as a result of activities under the Bill will have to be sought under the legislation. The amendments are designed to effect that change and I hope that the House will be prepared to accept them.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
I thank the Minister for responding to the concerns that we have expressed throughout the Bill about charities. We think that these amendments fit the bill.
““charity” has the meaning given in section 1(1) of the Charities Act 2006;”