| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, my noble friend has made clear his view that we should allow for pre-legislative scrutiny by a Joint Committee of both Houses and I have expressed a good deal of sympathy for that approach. I am extremely grateful to my noble friend for pressing us so hard on this issue.
I am delighted to be able to tell him that the Government are confident that time can be found, if Parliament wishes, for a Joint Committee to undertake this task. Nearer the time we shall invite Parliament to establish such a committee. I hope that on the basis of that assurance my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, as it is Report stage, perhaps I may speak next so that the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, is able to respond fully to the Minister.
I thank the noble Baroness for listening to the requests made in Committee from all sides of the House that the procedure of a Joint Committee on pre-legislative scrutiny should take place. I appreciate that the Government had to go through certain administrative procedures behind the scenes before they are able to give as near an assurance as any government are able to give on these matters. I welcome the noble Baroness's words today.
Lord McNally: My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, makes his final comment, perhaps I may say that the House should not underestimate the importance of the Minister's remarks. This is a real, positive step towards good governance. It is an immensely complicated Bill involving a wide range of outside interests. If we had tried to carry it through without the pre-legislative consultation, we should have been seeking in all manner of ways to get points of view across to the House.
We have a real opportunity to invite those outside interests to make their contribution transparently under the scrutiny of Members. It is a really good day
for Parliament when the Government concede such an approach on a major and complicated Bill. Let us hope that this example is followed in many more Bills to come.
Lord Lipsey: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her remarks which were more fulsome than many Members of this House might have expected. I thank, too, the many noble Lords who supported the cause, in particular the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, and the noble Lord, Lord McNally, who have put their names to the amendment.
It is right to say that this does not involve only Members of this House. We are talking about a Joint Committee. Both opposition parties in the Commons wrote to the Minister asking for such a committee; and the All-Party Media Group backed it. Nevertheless, governments have been known to resist such forces in the past. I hope that it will not be felt to be sycophantic if I welcome greatly the announcement that the Government have made.
As is evident, it is goods news for the communications industry and all the interests involved. It is the way to hammer things out. As the noble Lord, Lord McNally, said this is a very good day for Parliament. This is precisely the kind of Bill which deserves such examination in this forum—pre-scrutiny which can be truly effective because it seeks the best possible results rather than scoring any political points. The Government deserve great credit for agreeing to it. I had thought that we were knocking at a semi-open door. The Minister has opened it wide and we all cheerfully crowd through. I thank the Minister and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 [Winding up of OFCOM on abandonment etc. of proposals]:
Lord Brightman moved Amendment No. 20:
- Page 4, line 24, after "abandonment" insert "or modification"
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving the amendment, I speak also to Amendments Nos. 21 and 23.
Amendment No. 20 is a small drafting amendment. I believe that it is worth bringing it before the House because by adding two words to line 24 on page 4 of the Bill we can eliminate no fewer than three lines of the Bill.
- "If, in consequence of—
- (a) the abandonment of any relevant proposals about the regulation of communications, or
- (b) the modification of any such proposals,
- it appears to the Secretary of State that it is no longer necessary . . . he may by order provide for the winding up and dissolution of OFCOM".
Precisely the same result can be achieved both in legal effect and in clarity of expression by simply adding the words "or modification" after "abandonment" and removing subsection (1)(b). Subsection (1) would thus become four lines rather
than seven. We should not make a clause any longer than is necessary. Amendment No. 21 is consequential. My Amendment No. 23 is unnecessary if Amendment No. 22, which has been tabled by the Government, takes effect. I beg to move.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, for Amendments Nos. 20, 21 and 23. His expertise in these matters and his eye for detail are remarkable. We are happy to accept Amendments Nos. 20 and 21 as we agree that there is little need to separate the reference to "abandonment" or "modification" of relevant proposals, as the Bill currently does.
However, there is some difficulty in accepting consequential Amendment No. 23 to Clause 4, as this could leave some doubt as to what the Secretary of State would be under a duty to act in consequence of. In order to be entirely clear about what is being referred to, we propose Amendment No. 22 to replace the wording,
- "If, in consequence of anything mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection (1)"
- "If in consequence of the abandonment or modification of any relevant proposals about the regulation of communications".
I hope that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, is prepared to agree that we should accept Amendment No. 20 and Amendment No. 21, which I hope he will move, and that he should not move Amendment No. 23 but instead agree with our Amendments Nos. 22 and 24.
Amendment No. 84 is a technical, tidying-up amendment to remove superfluous wording that has no effect and should therefore be removed.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Brightman moved Amendment No. 21:
- Page 4, line 26, leave out paragraph (b).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Brougham and Vaux): My Lords, if Amendment No. 22 is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 23.
Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 22:
- Page 4, line 30, leave out from first "of" to first "it" in line 31 and insert "the abandonment or modification of any relevant proposals about the regulation of communications"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blackstone moved Amendments Nos. 24 and 25:
- Page 4, line 33, leave out "that subsection" and insert "subsection (1)"
- Page 5, line 21, leave out "or 2" and insert ", 2 or (Management of OFCOM)"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Gordon of Strathblane had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 27:
- Page 5, line 28, at end insert—
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 27 is not moved. It was referred to by myself and the Minister in the debate on Amendment No. 7. In the light of the Minister's reply, it would clearly waste the time of the House to move the amendment tonight. I invite the Minister to look at the clauses in the paving Bill that refer to the phrase "existing regulator". She will find that only one of them refers to a transfer of property. The idea that no property is involved is not a sufficient answer to my amendment. I do not intend to move the amendment.
Clause 6 [Short title, commencement and extent]:
Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 29:
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Gordon of Strathblane had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 30:
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in light of the Minister's helpful remarks in the debate on the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, I should like to study them in detail. I think, although I am not certain, that they meet my objections. I do not move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 30 not moved.]
"(e) the Board of Governors of the BBC;"
Page 6, line 3, leave out "and 2" and insert ", 2 and (Management of OFCOM)"
Page 6, line 5, at end insert—
"(2A) No order shall be made under subsection (2)—
(a) until a bill to give effect to the proposals referred to in section 2(3) has been introduced into either House of Parliament, and
(b) unless, before introduction, a draft of such a bill has been published and is available for scrutiny for at least eight sitting weeks of either House.
(2B) If the conditions specified in subsection (2A) above are not fulfilled, no order shall be made under subsection (2) until a bill to give effect to the proposals referred to in section 2(3) has received a Second Reading in either House."
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page