UK Parliament / Open data

Localism Bill

My Lords, I shall comment briefly on the consultation amendments in my name, Amendments 16 and 17. The noble Baroness said that they would gold-plate the legislation. As I understand it, they would simply put this legislation on the same basis as the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act and the Public Bodies Bill, which was in this House only recently. I am tempted to ask why those pieces of legislation were gold-plated. I hope that this might be looked at again. The noble Baroness also said that adding a requirement for consultation with representatives of people who are likely to be affected could restrict the amount of consultation that took place, but as it would be an additional requirement—the requirements in the Bill would not be changed at all—and would include the words, "““such other persons that the Secretary of State considers appropriate””," it is difficult to see how it would restrict anything. It would simply extend the amount of thought that the Secretary of State would have to give to exactly who is being consulted and provide a bit of guidance to him. The two arguments that the Minister has put forward seem a bit weak. When Hansard comes out tomorrow, I will read exactly what was said, but I think that it would be no skin off anybody’s back to accept the amendments. Finally, I asked why the words ““if any”” had been added to the similar provisions in other legislation that this is based on. Perhaps the Minister will write to me and explain the significance of that.

About this proceeding contribution

Reference

728 c1098-9 

Session

2010-12

Chamber / Committee

House of Lords chamber

Legislation

Localism Bill 2010-12
Back to top