My Lords, I should like to begin by expressing my appreciation to the Minister for having brought forward the new clause on consultation, which flowed directly from the debate that we had at Second Reading, in which concern was expressed about it. The Minister told my noble friend Lord Lester earlier that there would be further discussion on this matter at later stages of the Bill. Amendment 114 goes a long way to meeting the general requirement of public consultation. It would be helpful, and would attract the consent of noble Lords on all sides of the House, if we were given somewhat more specific indications about the time involved, although there are further provisions on that in Amendment 118. However, there remains an issue about the nature of public consultation. That matter was addressed by my noble friend Lord Lester in his earlier remarks and I was glad to hear the Minister respond positively to it. I note that an amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Greaves, which has not yet been moved, contains specific proposals on how the Minister might indicate that he is seeking consultation and on the use of a government website. All these matters merit serious consideration. We should not regard provisions that are put forward as tokenism, and I do not for one minute imagine that that is the Government’s view.
Public Bodies Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Maclennan of Rogart
(Liberal Democrat)
in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 23 November 2010.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Public Bodies Bill [HL].
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
722 c1058 
Session
2010-12
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 19:05:06 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_686032
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_686032
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_686032