UK Parliament / Open data

Public Bodies Bill [HL]

I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Elton for making that clear. There is a difference; in fact, there are at least two differences which may be of some significance, between government Amendment 60A and my Amendment 61AZ. The first is that in my proposal the Minister should be permitted to make an order only if he considered that, "““the order will achieve one or more of the objectives in subsection (1)””." That embodies two points; first, that there should be an expectation on the part of the Minister that the power, ““will achieve”” one of the purposes; and, secondly, it does not require all the purposes to be achieved by the use of the power. The Minister referred to my amendment as being in some ways less than his, in that it refers to, "““one or more of the objectives””," whereas, in his amendment, the Minister has to consider, "““that the order serves the purpose of improving the exercise of public functions, having regard to—””." It appears to me that the listing of, "““efficiency … effectiveness … economy, and … securing appropriate accountability to Ministers””," is a collective, not a single test, or even one to be applied to two of these criteria. Therefore, I felt that the amendment that I had tabled was, in some ways, more realistic because it is quite often the case that effectiveness and economy are not necessarily the same and not necessarily both achievable by a measure of government. That is, it is desirable that they should all be achieved, but it cannot be certain and if there is a choice, it ought to be possible for the Minister to make that choice. This is not a form of words, as I understand it, which just bows in favour of motherhood and apple pie; it is, as I see it, an opportunity for the Government to indicate, in the report that they will produce before Parliament considers the legislation, what it is that is moving the Government. I think it reasonable that, if they could demonstrate greater efficiency, greater effectiveness or greater economy, they should be able to say so and not necessarily have to tick all four boxes. However, this is probably a matter for construction by greater legal brains than mine and consequently, I hope that the matter might be reconsidered at a later date. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, for the changes he has proffered to the House, which are a substantial improvement on what went before.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
726 c1536-7 
Session
2010-12
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Back to top