The noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, makes a valid point, but if we remove Clause 4, it is not permissive. That is the point and why I am concerned. A future government might take this as a signal that this is not an appropriate responsibility for a public body and they might want to privatise it. As the Minister said earlier, computer schemes in the public sector have not been wild successes, but nor have schemes in the private sector—of course, it is often the same consultants giving advice on both with an equal lack of success. If a future government, perhaps of a different colour, decided that this was a suitable responsibility for a private organisation, I would be filled with horror. The commission is prepared to take on this responsibility; it has made clear how it would operate as CORE keeper and that it would be accountable and answerable to Parliament through the Speaker’s Committee. I simply ask what other organisation the noble Baroness has in mind.
Electoral Administration Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Tyler
(Liberal Democrat)
in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 28 February 2006.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee proceeding on Electoral Administration Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
679 c109-10GC Session
2005-06Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand CommitteeSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-22 02:36:33 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_303462
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_303462
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_303462