My Lords, there are fundamental problems with this clause. As has been said, there is no appeal against directions; the recipient must comply, and promptly. There is no parliamentary scrutiny of directions, and for these reasons directions are usually confined to failures in administration, a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes. I think we all understand that the Treasury is very good at setting out directions about how you should write your accounts. There is not much point in arguing with the Treasury about that matter of administration, but in my view directions are not suitable to implement a change in policy of this type. That is exactly what this clause empowers the Executive to do—change policy. The point has already been made that there is therefore a point of principle here, and I would be grateful for the Minister’s response. Given everything that has gone on, the dissatisfactions or doubts that might emerge between central government and local government could and should perfectly well be settled in the normal course of business. As has been said, Clause 3 goes one step too far, and I could not support it.
Children and Families Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Viscount Eccles
(Conservative)
in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 9 October 2013.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee proceeding on Children and Families Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
748 c40GC Session
2013-14Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand CommitteeLibrarians' tools
Timestamp
2022-06-15 18:20:20 +0100
URI
http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2013-10-09/13100982000100
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2013-10-09/13100982000100
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2013-10-09/13100982000100