Public Bodies Bill [HL]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 60B. I cannot resist following up the compliments of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and the noble Lord, Lord Soley, but when I recall that my noble friend Lord Taylor comes from Holbeach, he is now known for ever in my mind as the ““Lincolnshire poacher”” because he is the man who took the wretched Schedule 7 right out of the Bill. I thank him for that. My amendment is designed to try to make the addition to the Bill proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, a little more manageable for the user, if I can put it that way—and I am not thinking of the judges. My noble friend anticipated what I might say by giving the example of two pensions bodies for which he felt the proposal might be efficient but not economical. He studiously avoided referring to the other epithet to be found in his amendment: ““effectiveness””. My claim is that ““effectiveness”” covers precisely the point that he is seeking to maintain. I am concerned about the duplication created by the words ““efficiency”” and ““economy””. Indeed, I looked up all three words in the dictionary, and ““efficiency”” is part of the meaning of ““effectiveness””. Given that the law of the land is that Parliament does nothing in vain, I wonder whether we are not creating a problem in the repetitive nature of ““efficiency, effectiveness and economy””. Instead of eliminating ““efficiency””, I suppose I could have eliminated ““economy””, but I feel strongly that this is a bit like saying of the Minister that he is strong and powerful and effective. Someone reading those attributes might say, ““Well, it is the sheer muscle power that must rule the roost in that description of his virtues””. What concerns me a little is that the same sort of approach may be taken not by a court but by a Minister himself or herself: namely, that efficiency and economy are the overriding requirements. In fact, I believe that effectiveness is always the most important virtue of the three. Effectiveness surely goes to the achievement of the purposes to which the effectiveness relates. You can be as economical and efficient as you like, but effectiveness is key. I shall not labour the point, but I would like the Minister to consider what I have said about the example that he gave and, if he can—here I challenge him—to come up with an instance in which the elimination at Third Reading of the word ““efficiency”” or, if he prefers, ““economy””, would in any way encumber a Minister in what he or she has to do under this very important clause. I beg to move.