Proceeding contribution from Lord Maclennan of Rogart (Liberal Democrat) in the House of Lords on Monday, 4 April 2011. It occurred during Debate on bill on Public Bodies Bill [HL].
Public Bodies Bill [HL]
I rise briefly to say that I agree with my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern. The issue raised by Amendment 71 is of great importance and ought to be considered in the wider space of the practices of the House as a whole. It does seem anomalous that we cannot amend secondary, subordinate legislation, and therefore it would be attractive if proposals could be referred to committees for consideration because it could be a time-saving approach. It would allow committees to consider in detail matters that cannot effectively be considered in a debate on a statutory instrument that lasts one and a half hours. However, we have some of that process in the House already. The wide-ranging effects of Amendment 71 would delegate too much power to committees. I take the view that a case still has to be made that committees should have binding authority to prevent legislation being considered on the Floor of the House. That, as I understand it, is what this amendment could result in. It is also not entirely clear if the committee considering whether or not a draft order should be approved under proposed subsection (9) would be an existing committee that took it upon itself to do so. I think that more than one committee has that power, or a power to consider draft orders. It might be the intention of the noble Lord who has moved the amendment that this should be for a special ad hoc committee and not for the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform. That is not made clear. However, if an ad hoc committee had to be set up, that would be another stage in the process of deciding whether the measure was of sufficient importance to require that to be done. This is not a matter to be decided on Report, however important it may be—I am quite clear that it is immensely important. It should be referred for wider consultation in the House, perhaps by the Procedure Committee. This is also a matter that should be considered in conjunction with another place because both Houses have an interest in it. It might make more sense to do that in a Joint Committee.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 726 c1572
- Session
- 2010-12
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords chamber
- Subjects
- Devolved matters Consumers Agriculture Conservation Closures Coastal areas Devolution Finance Flood control Environment Legislative competence Forestry Forestry Commission Environment Agency Drinking water Ministerial powers Northern Ireland Protection Public bodies Public consultation National Assembly for Wales Parliamentary scrutiny Non-departmental public bodies Trade unions Wales Welsh Government Citizens Advice Marine Management Organisation Consumer Council for Northern Ireland Regional flood defence committees Consumer Focus Statutory instruments
- Legislation
- Public Bodies Bill (HL) 2010-12
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-15 15:53:50 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_734195
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_734195
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_734195