My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response, and other noble Lords who have participated in this brief debate. During it, reference was made to difficulties in obtaining the kind of information sought under the terms of the amendment. Yet that is presumably information that the Government have already, or how were decisions made on which bodies it would be advantageous to place in Schedules 1 to 6 if some decisions had not already been made as to whether their functions needed to be continued in future, or whether their functions could be placed better elsewhere and what the costs would be? There is some difficulty in accepting that the Government do not already have the information sought in the amendment.
One argument that the Minister just put forward was that there would be delay to the programme, but surely that should not be the primary consideration. The primary consideration should be providing the information necessary for this House to make decisions on what the Government intend to do, to scrutinise those actions and to query them. In the light of what the Minister said, it is clear that his motive is not to provide this House with sufficient information in good time to make reasoned judgments; his only consideration appears to be to get through his programme as quickly as possible. An open, transparent and accountable Government need to declare their hand, thinking and reasoning before the Bill comes into force, to ensure proper time for debate based on considered statements by the Government setting out which functions of which bodies will go, which functions will be transferred and to whom, how they will be carried out in future and the costs involved.
I am sorry that the Minister has not been prepared to go further. As I said, I believe that the Government already have much of this information, and the concern is that when the information is provided it will not be in sufficient time for proper debate and consideration before the Government seek to push the order through Parliament. I am disappointed with the Minister’s reply. He could have gone further; he has been urged to. I hope that he will reflect on the matter; I certainly will. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment 4 withdrawn.
Public Bodies Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Rosser
(Labour)
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 c1104-6 
Session
2010-12
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 19:45:18 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_686102
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_686102
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_686102