Parliamentary Debates House of Commons Official Report General Committees

PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES HOUSE OF COMMONS OFFICIAL REPORT GENERAL COMMITTEES Public Bill Committee PUBLIC BODIES BILL [LORDS] Fifth Sitting Thursday 15 September 2011 (Morning) CONTENTS Written evidence reported to the House. SCHEDULE 1 agreed to, with amendments. CLAUSE 2 agreed to. SCHEDULE 2 agreed to, with an amendment. CLAUSE 3 under consideration when the Committee adjourned till this day at One o’clock. PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS LONDON – THE STATIONERY OFFICE LIMITED £4·00 PBC (Bill 188) 2010 - 2012 Members who wish to have copies of the Official Report of Proceedings in General Committees sent to them are requested to give notice to that effect at the Vote Office. No proofs can be supplied. Corrigenda slips may be published with Bound Volume editions. Corrigenda that Members suggest should be clearly marked in a copy of the report—not telephoned—and must be received in the Editor’s Room, House of Commons, not later than Monday 19 September 2011 STRICT ADHERENCE TO THIS ARRANGEMENT WILL GREATLY FACILITATE THE PROMPT PUBLICATION OF THE BOUND VOLUMES OF PROCEEDINGS IN GENERAL COMMITTEES © Parliamentary Copyright House of Commons 2011 This publication may be reproduced under the terms of the Parliamentary Click-Use Licence, available online through The National Archives website at www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/information-management/our-services/parliamentary-licence-information.htm Enquiries to The National Archives, Kew, Richmond, Surrey TW9 4DU; e-mail: [email protected] 149 Public Bill Committee15 SEPTEMBER 2011 Public Bodies Bill [Lords] 150 The Committee consisted of the following Members: Chairs: †MR DAVID AMESS,JOHN ROBERTSON † Ashworth, Jonathan (Leicester South) (Lab) † Jones, Susan Elan (Clwyd South) (Lab) † Blackman-Woods, Roberta (City of Durham) (Lab) † Mosley, Stephen (City of Chester) (Con) † Bray, Angie (Ealing Central and Acton) (Con) † Nandy, Lisa (Wigan) (Lab) † Crabb, Stephen (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con) † Raab, Mr Dominic (Esher and Walton) (Con) † Davies, Glyn (Montgomeryshire) (Con) † Trickett, Jon (Hemsworth) (Lab) † Elphicke, Charlie (Dover) (Con) † Vaz, Valerie (Walsall South) (Lab) † Williams, Hywel (Arfon) (PC) † Gyimah, Mr Sam (East Surrey) (Con) † Williams, Mr Mark (Ceredigion) (LD) † Harrington, Richard (Watford) (Con) † Wright, David (Telford) (Lab) † Heath, Mr David (Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons) Mr James Rhys, Committee Clerk † Hurd, Mr Nick (Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office) † attended the Committee 151 Public Bill CommitteeHOUSE OF COMMONS Public Bodies Bill [Lords] 152 to the most detailed scrutiny, and there is careful engagement Public Bill Committee with the wider public. Although I cannot say that such legislation is, as a result, always perfect—no one would Thursday 15 September 2011 imagine that that is so—the parliamentary process is robust and searching. Ministers who come to the House and into Committee know they have to be sharp and (Morning) clear in their arguments, and that the legislation needs to be at least reasonably robust. [MR DAVID AMESS in the Chair] The Bill’s first five clauses allow the Minister or the Executive to abolish or amend all the bodies named in Public Bodies Bill [Lords] the various schedules by order—by secondary legislation. The problem with secondary legislation is that, even in the form in which it has emerged from the other place, it Written evidence to be reported to the is not as rigorous or as searching, and does not hold the House Executive to account as robustly, as the process of PB 10 Equality and Human Rights Commission primary legislation. One has to worry that what the Minister might present as mere administrative changes PB 11 David Frank DeVere to save money—perhaps by merging personnel functions, as I mentioned the other day—are in fact giving the 9am Executive far more powers. In some cases we are talking The Chair: Good morning everyone. As I understand about institutions that deal with our liberty. We talked from my colleague who was chairing the proceedings the other day about the Youth Justice Board, and there earlier this week, there has been a full debate on are other examples. For instance, today we will discuss schedule 1. under schedule 2 the certification officer dealing with Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to. trade unions. One has to worry that the process of secondary legislation is simply weighted slightly in favour of the Executive and, I would argue, substantially less Clause 2 in favour of the legislature. We know there always has to be a balance between the two. When we talk about POWER TO MERGE institutions such as those that guarantee human rights Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the to individual citizens—as we shall do in some detail—almost Bill. all experts agree that it is not right for such measures to be made through secondary legislation. Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab): Thank you, Mr Amess. When we tested the arguments regarding the bodies I welcome you here on this beautiful, sunny morning. It being included the schedules, the two Ministers, who is very good of you to join us again; we always look are decent people, frequently said that they were not yet forward to your being in the Chair. Your presence in a position to give the Committee the details. I imagine makes us all feel more secure and safe, and that we will that will be the case with clause 2 and schedule 2, and I not blunder into areas where we ought not to go. I have understand that, because the process of government is to say that the porridge was slightly stodgy in the complex and obviously, life moves on. The details cannot Members’ Tea Room this morning, but I know you will be finally resolved because the legislation is not yet in rule me out of order if we discuss porridge. From time place. The problem is, therefore, that the detail of what to time the Bill feels slightly stodgy, too, but it does raise will happen to the various institutions in schedule 2 and matters of profound importance. the other schedules will not be properly scrutinised by the legislature until the orders are laid. Mr Amess, you said that there should not be a stand part debate on clause 1, no doubt because I ranged The Bill is better now: the orders referred to in quite widely across the piece during my contribution to clause 2 are better than the Government originally that discussion. However, I want to use this opportunity envisaged, and to be fair to them, they acknowledged to mention our worries about the first five clauses, that in the debates in the other place. However, given which are not exclusive to the Opposition: they have that we are talking about constitutional arrangements been expressed in another place, and outside the Houses rather than administrative functions, surely it would be of Parliament by constitutional experts and others. better not to deal with this issue through the process Constitutional experts and others are not necessarily envisaged in the orders in the schedules and clause 2. always the people one ought to listen to on such matters, As I said, I do not want to delay the Committee as but they have raised grave concerns about the Bill. I will there is a lot of business to deal with and we want to see try to address them as briefly as possible and to ensure the Bill complete its passage in Committee. However, it that they are on the record. would be wholly wrong to allow the Committee to The Bill proposes to change the character of a series proceed without raising these questions. I put it to the of institutions and, in some cases, abolish them. In Minister that some of the institutions we are empowering many other cases, it gives the Minister wide-ranging him to deal with in the way he envisages are central to powers in relation to their future. I imagine—I do not the way the British constitution works, others less so. know if this is a fact—that every single one of those We have not sought to oppose the detail of these institutions has been created by primary legislation. measures; we have accepted those, but asked questions. Certainly, all the most important ones have been created Can it be right that some of those major institutions, by primary legislation, and no doubt we will talk about created after months of detailed debate of highly contested one or two of them today. Primary legislation is subject issues, in Committee in both Houses, should be subjected 153 Public Bill Committee15 SEPTEMBER 2011 Public Bodies Bill [Lords] 154 to the secondary legislation process? As we know, that well attended by members of the public who take a process is simply not as rigorous as the one we are great concern in that matter. I do not think the Government currently undertaking. are hiding anywhere in terms of our need to debate With those thoughts, which I hope will cause us all to these reforms and to respond to some of the understandable reflect, I wait to hear what Ministers have to say. We will concerns raised by the Opposition. reflect on the orders when we reach the precise details As the hon. Gentleman suggested, the Bill triggers a later in the Bill. process whereby Ministers are required, once they are clear about what they want to do, to consult properly The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr Nick on their proposals. He did not mention, and he should Hurd): Good morning, Mr Amess. The hon. Member have done, that in that process the parliamentary Select for Hemsworth was listening when you said previously Committees are entirely free and encouraged to scrutinise that you were susceptible to flattery.

Load more