My Lords, on Amendment 69 and ““must”” instead of ““may””, it is a normal convention on the whole that Ministers, if they have the power to do something, are left with that, but it is not a major point one way or the other. However, as for the enhanced procedure and the super-affirmative procedure, that is primarily a matter for Parliament to consider generally, not just in relation to the Bill. The way in which I have seen this Bill develop suggests to me that everyone in the House is agreed that there should be a procedure for a review of public bodies from time to time. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has made that very clear in moving this amendment.
We have gone a long way to developing that kind of procedure for the future, because the Bill has in it the power to continue with amendments to the schedules. It now provides for certain entities in the schedules to drop out after a time—a type of sunset clause for the schedules. Therefore, you can always bring one in. If and when another review is required—who knows, it might not be until another Government come along—the procedure that has been laid down here would work perfectly well simply by introducing a public general statute to amend the schedules. It might be among the shortest statutes ever proposed, which of itself would be a good thing.
Here we have a situation whereby, before the procedures start, you have to get the body in question into a public general statute such as the one that we are considering now. Parliament has already used its power to allow that; what the procedure should be thereafter is a matter to work out in practice as the Bill goes forward. I am not in favour of enacting the super-affirmative procedure where Parliament has already decreed the particular subject matter of the Bill. I prefer that that is left. As the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Winchester, suggested, this whole subject needs to be considered in due course, but not as part of the present Bill. After all, we have done a fair amount on the Bill already and there is a limit to what is practically possible.
Public Bodies Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
(Conservative)
in the House of Lords on Monday, 4 April 2011.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Public Bodies Bill [HL].
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
726 c1570 
Session
2010-12
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 15:54:02 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_734190
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_734190
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_734190