Of course, it is possible that the Administration in Scotland will change. This Bill will become an Act which will perhaps last longer than the present regime in Scotland. Assuming one has an Administration who are favourable to participating in this system, the question then is why they should not be included, or at least mentioned, in the definition of appropriate authority. It is quite a serious issue, because appropriate authorities is referred to in many places in the Bill, as the noble Lord knows. If, as I think the noble Lord is indicating, this is simply a sort of penalty for not participating in the legislation, it seems unfortunate that that should be set in an Act which will last for, I imagine, many years into the future. Is it not worth rethinking this? Might it not be better to mention the Scottish Ministers and leave it to the future to see whether they actually exercise the power that has been given?
Procurement Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Hope of Craighead
(Crossbench)
in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 6 July 2022.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee proceeding on Procurement Bill [HL].
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
823 c259GC 
Session
2022-23
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand Committee
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2022-08-01 08:38:12 +0100
URI
http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2022-07-06/22070662000053
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2022-07-06/22070662000053
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2022-07-06/22070662000053