UK Parliament / Open data

Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill

We all understand the complexity of some of this, or at least we understand that it is complex; that may be as far as our understanding goes. I am very grateful to the Minister for agreeing to write. This throws into sharp relief the concerns that we have about how far this legislation has been thought through before it reaches us. When I was gathering together my papers this morning for today’s proceedings, I thought that this was, to borrow the noble Baroness’s word, a rather dodgy amendment, but I am extremely glad that I decided to move it, even though I was not entirely convinced by it myself, because it has thrown up some very important issues. Quite apart from the, as it were, philosophical points raised, some of the practical issues of how these things may work lead me to suggest that whoever makes the relevant regulations—I got a bit lost in that—might like to include a flow chart to assist standards committees. I end with a point of principle on new Section 57D, headed, ““Power to suspend standards committee’s functions””, which is that it seems to have left the council out of this entirely. It is just the standards committee, which I know has a very specific status and a different status from that of a transport committee, for example, but I do not think that there is a way, as it is written here, that the matter is ever brought to the attention of the council, which is part parent of this. I am very grateful to other noble Lords for the points that they have made, because they will help our debate in the long run. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 186 agreed to. Clause 187 [Information to be provided to Standards Board by relevant authority]:

About this proceeding contribution

Reference

694 c437 

Session

2006-07

Chamber / Committee

House of Lords chamber
Back to top