I am grateful to everyone who has thrown their various concerns into this ring. I started by saying that I wanted to understand the criteria for appointments. Simply saying that something has gone through proper processes in the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments does not answer the question about criteria. I was not for a moment challenging propriety. Indeed, there are a lot of stakeholders—that is a terrible term. It is perhaps almost impossible to have every interest represented. There is certainly an argument to be made that one wants not necessarily representation but the ability to understand work of which one has no direct experience or general wisdom, and so on. The main point is about understanding how the Government or the chair, who will make future appointments, are going to approach the task.
To answer some of the points that have been made, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, that I went for a percentage because there will be issues about the size of the board and we could have a variable number. I entirely take the point that there is no one right way of doing this. I did not table an amendment that included representation from the business world; I sometimes leap perhaps a little too fast to champion local authorities. I had assumed that the Conservative Front Bench would table amendments for the representation of business; perhaps that was wrong. I simply thought that business would have more champions.
There are distinct approaches from the local government world and the business world. Many noble Lords will be aware of London First, which is now a business organisation but which had, when it was originally formed, I think in the 1980s, a rather wider membership. It was a very different organisation. I was one of the local authority members. When someone made a proposition, there were two distinct reactions. From the business community, there was, ““That’s a good idea; let’s do it””. From the local government world, there was, ““That’s a good idea; let’s consult about it””. One needs to get the right mix of backgrounds in any organisation such as this one.
I was particularly taken by the point about local concerns, which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lyell of Markyate, made. This is not about a particular locality but about an understanding of what it feels like to have very local interests and to see things at a micro, but very important, level. I do not know whether there is any way of reflecting that in legislation, but the point was extremely well made.
This is Grand Committee and, with thanks to everyone, I have no alternative but to withdraw my amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Baroness Hamwee
(Liberal Democrat)
in the House of Lords on Monday, 21 January 2008.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee proceeding on Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Bill [HL].
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
698 c10-1GC 
Session
2007-08
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand Committee
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-16 02:31:32 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_436747
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_436747
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_436747