I notice that amendment 32 tabled by the hon. Gentleman's colleagues proposes to delete the reference to the Agricultural Wages Board from schedule 1. The reason that I proposed a compromise position in new clause 7 is that I agree with the principle underlying the Bill. It is important for Governments continually to review the justification for the existence of non-departmental public bodies and for us to reflect on the amount of public money expended by a wide variety of quangos.
Where we can amalgamate responsibilities or find ways in which protective regulations, such as those for agricultural workers, can be incorporated in another statutory body rather than abolishing the body altogether, as the Government propose, it is important that we explore that option. That is what I seek to do in new clause 7. The intention and the benefit of my proposal is that the regulations are kept and enforced, but the overhead cost of maintaining an organisation is reduced as a result of that amalgamation.
Public Bodies Bill [Lords] (Programme) (No. 2)
Proceeding contribution from
Andrew George
(Liberal Democrat)
in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 25 October 2011.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Public Bodies Bill [Lords] (Programme) (No. 2).
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
534 c197 
Session
2010-12
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 19:54:14 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_776809
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_776809
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_776809