My Lords, I spoke in Committee and I have not had the benefit of any discussions between Committee and Report. Like everyone else, I await with great interest the reply from my Front Bench. However, I am reminded that there are two amendments in this group and I think it has been notable that only the noble Lords, Lord Warner and Lord Ramsbotham, have actually referred to Amendment 21B in any depth or detail. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, did not put his name to Amendment 21B, so I assume he does not support it.
I suppose the question that we are facing is how much independence should be provided to those who think through and monitor youth justice. There is a very widespread feeling in the House, which I share, that a fairly high degree of independence is desirable. In the discussion, it seems to me that the Youth Justice Board is the good boy and NOMS is the bad boy. That does not seem to be an inevitable outcome of running the Prison Service, but is what has come across. What has also come across to me as I have listened to the debate is that the Youth Justice Board is not quite the clear distinction between policy and operations which the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, put across to us. Many other people have been involved in improvements, which have been referred to, alongside the efforts of the Youth Justice Board.
This is an enabling Bill; nothing happens as a result of this Bill becoming an Act until a Minister lays an order in front of Parliament. Parliament, at that time, as we shall see later in the Bill, can reject that order. Some people feel that the secondary legislation procedures are such that it is not likely that Parliament will reject an order, but I do not agree. The power is there, so when an order is laid we should not give up the idea that we vote it down. As this is an enabling Bill, nothing happens until an order is laid. The question then becomes: do we believe, as in tennis, in sudden death? Amendment 20A is a form of sudden death, Amendment 21B is a form of giving a degree of independence to an executive agency, and neither of these sections in the Bill, if that is what they become, commits Ministers to lay an order at all. There is therefore still a great deal of time before the Government come to an irrevocable decision. I very much hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will deal with that matter in some detail.
Public Bodies Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Viscount Eccles
(Conservative)
in the House of Lords on Monday, 28 March 2011.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Public Bodies Bill [HL].
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
726 c971 
Session
2010-12
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 15:48:28 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_731503
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_731503
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_731503