Public Bodies Bill [HL]

Amendment 69 seems unexceptionable. I do not understand why the word ““may”” is included in Clause 11(1) and the word ““must”” is in Clause 11(2). I do not understand why there is a need for any discretion in that area. The clause refers to a situation in which, "““after consultation under section 10 the Minister considers it appropriate to proceed with the making of an order under sections 1 to 6””." If he is satisfied with all that, he or she should have the obligation to lay a draft order and explanatory document before Parliament. Unless the Minister has some special reason why he needs to retain a discretion, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, on that narrow amendment. My noble friend Lord Phillips of Sudbury’s Amendment 69AA is on proportionality. This is a bit complicated, but I hope that I have got it right. I like to think that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, and I are godparents to Clause 16 and, especially, to including proportionality. The principle of proportionality simply teaches that you must use necessary and proportionate means to accomplish a legitimate aim. The Minister is proposing to leave out from Clause 11(2) the words, "““including reasons relating to the objectives in section 8(1)””," so that it would just state, "““introduce and give reasons for the order””." Another amendment changes Clause 11(2) to include a reference to purpose in what will be Section 8(1). The Minister will explain all this, but the reason for leaving out the words, "““including reasons relating to the objectives””," in Clause 11(2) is presumably that they are unnecessary, because the reasons will be the reasons and, once the reasons are given in the Explanatory Memorandum and otherwise, one has in the Bill the point that my noble friend is making—the Minister will have to state the reasons for the order and then under Clause 16 he or she will have to comply with the principle of proportionality. It therefore seems to me that, subject to drafting points, the substance of what my noble friend Lord Phillips is seeking is already catered for. The principle of proportionality is fully embodied in the Bill because it requires the Minister to state the reasons. When the Minister legislates by order, he or she must do so in a way that is proportionate to achieving the legitimate aims in the reasons. I hope that that is more or less intelligible. I think that I know what I am saying, but others may not. Anyhow, that is the best I can do.