I am grateful to my noble friend and to the Minister for their responses. I take the point that my noble friend Lord Eatwell made: if Amendment 41A were accepted, the necessity for Amendment 42 would perhaps not be as great. I also take his point—it was one reason that prompted me to draft this amendment—that the Bill simply says that, "““the person must consult such person as may be … specified””."
I hope the Minister will go back and look further at that, because there is some merit in specifying who will actually look at these matters; indeed, in 2008 the Public Accounts Commission recommended that it should be the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments. The advisory committee was formerly chaired by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, and is presently chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Lang of Monkton, so it has a distinguished chairman and a distinguished membership. The committee’s website says: "““The Advisory Committee on Business Appointments is an independent body which provides advice to the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary, or other Ministers if requested, on applications from the most senior Crown servants who wish to take up outside appointments within 2 years of leaving Crown service””."
I rather think that it will not be abolished in a hurry, because we will always need such a body to give advice to Prime Ministers and to others on these matters.
I am certainly encouraged that the Minister says that he will perhaps go back and further reflect on this. He mentioned his concern that Amendment 42 might have an impact on age discrimination. As someone who celebrated his 63rd birthday on Sunday—I am still flattered, as a new Member of your Lordships’ House, when colleagues come up to me and ask, ““Are you settling in, young man?””—I take the Minister’s point as a fair one. Having said that, I await the Minister’s further reflection and coming back to us, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment 41A withdrawn.
Amendment 42 not moved.
Clause 15 agreed.
Clauses 16 to 20 agreed.
Amendment 43 not moved.
Schedule 2 agreed.
Remaining clauses and schedules agreed.
Bill reported without amendment.
Budget Responsibility and National Audit Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Touhig
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Thursday, 9 December 2010.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee proceeding on Budget Responsibility and National Audit Bill [HL].
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
723 c79-80GC Session
2010-12Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand CommitteeSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 21:12:05 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_692239
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_692239
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_692239