My immediate response to the noble Lord is that those Acts may not be talking about advisory bodies—that is, the status of the body in front of us today. As he will know, a number of different bodies—statutory bodies, advisory bodies and others—do not fall within either of those definitions. I am very happy to write to the noble Lord and expand on that but at present we are confident that, as it stands, the schedule provides for enough instances for the Secretary of State to feel able to remove someone who is unfit or unwilling to discharge his responsibilities.
The noble Lord, Lord Freud, asked what kind of behaviour would constitute a firing offence. We would consider a commission member to be in breach of their appointment if, for example, they became unwilling to serve on the body or failed to be present for a series of commission meetings. Detailed terms of employment should be set out in a commission member’s contract. Much of this information will be in the contract that the commission member agrees on appointment, not as we see it in the Bill. With that, I hope the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Child Poverty Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Baroness Crawley
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Monday, 25 January 2010.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee proceeding on Child Poverty Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
716 c239GC 
Session
2009-10
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand Committee
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-22 02:28:43 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_614039
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_614039
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_614039