moved Amendment No. 334:"Page 30, line 14, after ““time”” insert ““subject to a period of notice in writing of not less than six months””"
The noble Duke said: In moving the amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 335. The list of designated bodies in Schedule 7 consists of 21 names representing a wide variety of activities. It is more than likely that there is not one of these whose activities are supported by less than £1.5 million a year; and some of them could be many times that. None the less, I do not see one which I would classify as being so wealthy that it could suffer without damage the loss without notice of a contract from Defra.
I have heard from a colleague the sorry saga of a small national body which had such a contract. When the contract came up for renewal there were months of talks. Clearly, the two sides had very different interpretations of the meaning of their discussions. Defra’s decision to end the contract was an unwelcome and unexpected surprise that has had far-reaching consequences.
Reorganisations aside, government departments can rely on a steady stream of finance. Many other types of organisation can do no such thing and are constantly having to cut their coat according to their cloth. The acquisition of a Defra contract would be an occasion for celebration; the consequences of its loss potentially far reaching.
It is quite possible that people will have been employed to carry out work on the contract. Offices will have been cleared for them and equipment installed. Gone are the days when a council employee needed only a piece of hardboard with a spring clip, some sheets of paper, and a pencil behind his ear to do his job. It will normally take some months to find alternative employment for the staff and this breathing space should be allowed for on the face of the Bill.
On Amendment No. 335, we believe that agreements between designated bodies should be terminated with a degree of formality and sufficient official notice to allow the transfer of the function to occur smoothly and without detriment to the body which is relinquishing it. I beg to move.
Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Duke of Montrose
(Conservative)
in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 28 February 2006.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
679 c217-8 Session
2005-06Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-22 00:56:19 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_303584
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_303584
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_303584