Public Bodies Bill [HL]

I would never wish to do other than respond constructively to an amendment from the noble Baroness. I thank her for tabling these amendments and for giving us a chance to debate them. As she will know, the Government have indeed tabled their own amendments to Clause 8. They address the problem that her amendments seek to address. These amendments to Clauses 1 to 6 specifically require a Minister to, "““have regard to the aims, objectives or functions of the body where these are specified in legislation””," before making orders. I recognise the motivation behind the amendments, because they speak to the very considerations that form part of the decision-making process during a review of public bodies. In considering whether a public body is required, the Government must first consider whether its functions are needed, and then consider whether those functions should be exercised at arm’s length from government. This process lies at the heart of the public bodies review to which the Bill relates. However, I do not believe that these amendments would add any protection or clarity in practice. In this context, I note that your Lordships’ House has recognised that the Bill has moved on. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, commented on the way in which the Bill moved on a great deal at the Committee stage and since then in the amendments that the Government have tabled, particularly since amendments of this nature were first debated in late November. It seems a long time ago. For example, the removal of Schedule 7 and Clause 11 has greatly reduced the scope of the Bill and a number of important restrictions on ministerial powers have been introduced. In this new context, these amendments are not necessary. The Government envisage that the purpose of the Bill is to support the improvement of public functions by making changes to public bodies. This is captured in our new amendment to Clause 8, Amendment 60A. In deciding whether to make an order for this purpose, it is not conceivable that a Minister would not have considered the aims, objectives or functions of that body, including whether they remain necessary or whether any improvement could be made in their delivery. The requirement to lay an explanatory document setting out the rationale and justification for the order will require a Minister clearly to account for his reasoning in this regard, and the capacity of Parliament to select an enhanced scrutiny procedure for the order will give both Houses the opportunity fully to consider the Government’s assessment. Furthermore, the addition of Clause 16 places significant restrictions on the capacity of Ministers with regard to the independent exercise of some public functions. I hope that this provides significant reassurance to the noble Baroness in relation to some of the bodies to which she referred in Committee. The matters and purpose in the revised Clause 8—the requirement to justify in an explanatory document why an order is being brought forward—and the revised restrictions in Clause 16 represent an effective and comprehensive way to limit ministerial power and require a clear explanation of the reasoning for orders in relation to the existing functions and objectives of a body listed in the schedule. This is done in a way that also protects ministerial discretion on how functions are delivered. The amendments do not add to this. I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.