Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Lord Taylor of Holbeach Excerpts

Committee stage
Friday 6th February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I will briefly look at the actual amendment. As I said in my response, the workability concerns are about the specification of a list of illnesses or diseases. I have already outlined why that would be unworkable—because it is often a combination of illnesses, as well as the complications of those illnesses, that are interacting, rather than there being just one. I referred earlier to why it would be extremely difficult. I have been looking at the specifics of the amendment, but to do what it says would create more ambiguity than there is currently. In reality, my response is covering our concerns; where I do not make a comment, there are no workability concerns.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Con)]

As the Minister will know, I have made it clear that I am concerned about suffering in the last days of life. One of the key elements of that is palliative care. When one talks about treatment, one of the incentives for death is suffering. Does the Minister have anything to say to the Committee about the status of palliative care within the National Health Service? Are there any plans afoot, and when will this particular course of treatment be available to people? Otherwise, many people faced with terminal illness will be tempted to seek assisted suicide, which I think should be discouraged.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

We are discussing a group of amendments about the definition of terminal illness. I have already placed a letter in the Library of the House outlining all the work in respect of palliative care. I have also made reference to the modern service framework.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Lord Taylor of Holbeach Excerpts

Committee stage
Friday 30th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Carter of Haslemere (CB)]

My Lords, I added my name to Amendment 84 since I think the noble Lord, Lord Frost, has struck gold with this amendment. Requiring

“unbearable suffering … which cannot be relieved by treatment”,

raises four critical issues at the epicentre of the Bill. First, his amendment exposes the total unreliability of a six-month prognosis of a terminal illness, as we have heard from numerous noble Lords. Trying to predict life expectancy is a hopeless exercise, especially when medical advances are improving at such a phenomenal rate. As the noble and learned Lord, the sponsor, said in relation to a prediction of six months to live, we are not dealing with certainty. I am with him on that.

Let me give the Committee an illustration from a real case. I know of somebody who was given a 5% chance of living for 10 years because he was suffering from an advanced aggressive cancer. It is not exact, but a 5% chance of living for 10 years approximates broadly to a reasonable expectation of dying within six months. That was 21 years ago and, as far as I know, I am still here—noble Lords will correct me if I have got that wrong. It does sometimes feel slightly otherworldly, listening to these debates.

Secondly, the requirement in Amendment 84 for unbearable suffering that cannot be relieved by treatment would have the obvious merit of bringing the effectiveness of palliative care into play, which is not currently the case as the Bill stands. As we know, the experts say that palliative care relieves pain in most cases and can help people who want to die to want to live. That is why a full assessment by a palliative care specialist is so important, as earlier amendments sensibly proposed. But the noble and learned Lord has said he is

“incredibly opposed to unbearable suffering as the root”

of this Bill. His view is unsurprising since the effectiveness of palliative care would significantly reduce the Bill’s impact.

So the noble and learned Lord falls back on the personal autonomy argument, telling the Select Committee that the essence of the Bill is autonomy—you have a choice, it is autonomy—and it would give people the option of an assisted death if they have simply had enough of life. This is the third issue that would be resolved by Amendment 84. Should the National Health—health—Service really be assisting a person to kill themselves if they have simply had enough of life, whether or not they are in pain and whether or not their feelings relate to their terminal illness? Is that what a health service should be doing? That starts to look very much like assisted suicide.

Fourthly, I respectfully suggest that the noble and learned Lord gets on the Clapham omnibus and asks anyone who supports assisted dying the reasons why they do so. Overwhelmingly, they will say that people should not have to suffer unbearable suffering. Yet, astonishingly, you will not find the words “pain” or “suffering” anywhere in the Bill. I read it word for word last night at great length to check that point. I could not find those words. Without any reference to unbearable suffering, there will be a massive disconnect between the public’s expectation and the Bill’s contents.

Let us be clear: the vast majority of the public are not on the edge of their seats watching our deliberations. Very few indeed will have read the Bill. They will therefore have a view of the Bill based on the common-sense assumption that people seeking an assisted death will be suffering unbearable pain. The compelling amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Frost, injects that common sense into the Bill by providing for that, and I heartily support him and Amendment 84.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Con)]

My Lords, I am reluctant to involve myself in this debate, but I see this whole legislative process as being about practicalities in the end. It is good that we have had an exposition of the articulation of the motivation of the people seeking success for this Bill, but I am very concerned as a citizen because I think this is about palliative care and relief from suffering.

The Bill should have been about those very matters. However, it is not. It is about all the incentives, from government to public authorities. For those people that the legislation actually motivates, it is about promoting the idea that assisting dying—or assisted suicide—is available; whereas the medical profession prefers, and what all the medical colleges have said they want to see, is proper palliative care. We do not want a competition for the funding of one against the other. I can see that in individual and family lives—and the social life we have together, governed by a Government—the pressures are not going to be towards relief of suffering through palliative care but for assisted suicide. I do not agree with that and that is why I oppose the Bill.

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

My Lords, I seek the indulgence of the Committee to say a word about my amendment. I am not speaking with my Front-Bench hat on, so to speak, because I understand that this group is going to carry on next Friday. I am in the middle of a trial and cannot attend then. I will speak to my amendment in this group now and will not summarise from the Front Bench but limit my comments to my amendment and the points which arise from that.

My Amendment 83B seeks to add

“despite any treatment they may be receiving”

It ties in with a point made by noble Lord, Lord Pannick, which I will come to in a moment because it is all tied together. The trigger for my amendment is in Clause 2(1), which reads:

“For the purposes of this Act, a person is terminally ill if”


and then there are two conditions, both of which have to be satisfied. The first is that

“the person has an inevitably progressive illness or disease which cannot be reversed by treatment”,

let us say—God forbid—one has pancreatic cancer, and it cannot be reversed by treatment. The second condition is that

“the person’s death in consequence of that illness or disease can reasonably be expected within six months”.

Two points arise out of that. First, there is the point which comes directly from my amendment, which would add

“despite any treatment the person may be receiving”.

Without this, it is unclear whether the six months is with treatment or without; in other words, you have pancreatic cancer and it cannot be reversed by treatment, so condition (a) is ticked. But when it comes to (b)—

“in consequence of that illness or disease”—

does it mean that illness or disease itself untreated or does it mean notwithstanding the treatment you have been given? I suspect it is the latter that the noble and learned Lord intends, but it is far from clear. It actually reads more like the former, although I suspect that it is the latter. That is why I tables my amendment, and I respectfully invite the noble and learned Lord to consider it. As I say, I apologise to him, the Minister and everybody if I am not here next week to hear the fulsome response.

The other point which arises from the “can reasonably be expected” wording is the question of whether that is the 50% point or not. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, is not here, but it seems to me as a matter of law that if I have a legitimate expectation in public law, I do not need to have a more than 50% expectation of it happening. There was authority at the highest level in the House of Lords that “legitimate expectation” means reasonable expectation. I am comforted—as always—by nods from the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss.

Therefore, as a matter of law, I can have a reasonable expectation of X, even if I do not think that X is more likely than not. That is an important point which perhaps the Committee will consider going forward. People are reading that as a 50:50 mean or median. However, I can have a reasonable expectation of it raining tomorrow, for example, even if I think there is only a 30% chance of it. That is a reasonable expectation: it is not more likely than not.

I do not want to stray too far from my own amendments so I will now sit down, but I am grateful to the Committee for its indulgence.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Lord Taylor of Holbeach Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 19th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter. We often debate and we do not necessarily agree; we do not on this occasion. I wish I were participating in the Second Reading of a government Bill, but we are where we are. Most of us will have found ourselves examining our prejudices and experiences of the issues underlying the Bill. I say at the outset that my views are conditioned by my convictions and experiences. At the bottom lies a belief that life is a precious gift from God. I think these views are widely shared, and not just on the episcopal Bench: we have heard them from my noble friends Lady May, Lord Deben and Lady Verma.

On my direct experience, a number of noble Lords will know that, for 18 years before coming here, I was chairman of Holbeach and East Elloe Hospital Trust, a community charity. In 1988, I headed up a group of concerned individuals from my hometown who were shaken by the health authority’s decision to close Holbeach Hospital, leaving us with a district general hospital 14 miles away, with no direct bus route between the people of Holbeach and East Elloe, the rural district in which it was situated.

With the support of the local community, we formed a charitable trust and bought and took over the hospital as a community hospital, providing many facilities, including nursing care, with 30 beds, including six doctors’ beds. With further local support, we now have 47 beds. Increasingly, the need for palliative and end-of-life care has become more acute, and it is very much valued by the local community. Some 25 years ago, my own father died there, and I was able to be with him and knew the care that he had been given. It was a hugely emotional experience, as many people have had and described while giving their views on the Bill.

Listening to the contributions to the debate, I conclude that the principal concern is the unavailability and lack of NHS funding for end-of-life care. The role and funding of palliative care cannot be overestimated, as the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and many other noble Lords have explained. It is self-evident that it is a key element that the NHS has not been able to fund properly. As the noble Lord, Lord Stevens of Birmingham, indicated, thank God for the hospice movement. We should listen to it and recognise that it is not supportive of the Bill.

The noble Baroness, Lady Watkins, described how getting old can be a messy business. As it stands, we do not have enough information, and the Bill runs the risk of too much legal controversy, too little medicine and a total absence of a funding commitment from the Government for what is needed to implement the Bill. That is why it should have been a government Bill: the Bill needs commitment from the Government for it to be safely passed.

We need time to build a greater consensus not just in this House but in the other place. I will support the noble Baroness, Lady Berger, in her proposal to set up a Select Committee to report back to this House, so that it can examine the Bill thoroughly before we set out to amend it. We need time to make it fit for purpose in the ways that almost every speaker has suggested, and we will use parliamentary processes to do so.

Social Care Funding (EAC Report)

Lord Taylor of Holbeach Excerpts

Thursday 28th January 2021 Grand Committee

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I refer to my interests as set out in the register. However, I have a personal interest in the subject of the report, as, way back in 1987, an announcement was made by the then South Lincolnshire Health Authority that it was to close Holbeach Hospital. I was active in the local community and the area generally and perceived this to be a considerable threat. The hospital provided general bed care; there were consulting rooms for out-patient clinics and a physiotherapy department. It worked with local GPs and hospital doctors to provide the substantial rural community with health and social care. To cut a long story short, with local support, we negotiated a takeover of the premises by forming a local charitable trust, which then raised the money needed to improve the building up to registration standard at nursing home level and entered into a contract with Lincolnshire County Council for the funding of 22 beds. An agreement was reached with the health authority to continue with six doctors’ beds, the out-patient clinics and the physiotherapy department. We reopened in 1989.

I chaired the Holbeach and East Elloe Hospital Trust for 18 years. When I came to your Lordships’ House, I became its patron. The trust has thrived and maintains support locally. As a result of income generated and bequests, we soon purchased the freehold and doubled the number of beds to 47, including 12 re-enablement beds under the doctors’ supervision.

I congratulate my noble friend Lord Forsyth of Drumlean on chairing the committee and producing such a full report. Reforming the sector will be one of the most challenging undertakings for our Government. With such a complex system, it is important to look at all the options on the table. Notwithstanding the challenges, putting social care on a sustainable footing, where everybody is treated with dignity and respect, is imperative.

It is not as though we need a reminder, for the past year has shown just how vital this sector is for people who rely on social care. I welcome the Government’s recognition of the challenge that this sector faces during the pandemic by providing £1.1 billion of ring-fenced funding, which is vital to help put measures in place to improve infection prevention. How much funding have the Government made available for the costs associated with increased testing in care homes?

I want also to focus on the quality of care received by those who rely on adult social care. Despite increasing challenges, it is important that we recognise that the sector continues to provide high-quality care and support. I was encouraged to read that 85% of adult social care providers are currently rated good or outstanding by the Care Quality Commission. I think that the Committee will welcome this figure and want to pay tribute to the care givers, who are doing such a fine job, as many noble Lords have said, during such difficult circumstances.

All social policy areas have been put under pressure as a result of the pandemic, for they are interrelated. Social care, healthcare, pensions policy, the benefits system and even education all play a part in a civilised approach to need, even in the best of times. We need a consensus—

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I remind the noble Lord that there is a four-minute speaking limit for this debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Con) [V]]

I hope that the report and the purpose of our debate on it will give the Government confidence that they can take Parliament with them in tackling this great issue.

Education (Student Fees, Awards and Support)(Amendment) Regulations 2017

Lord Taylor of Holbeach Excerpts

Thursday 27th April 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Con)]

My Lords, I think it best if we adjourn during pleasure until 5.15 pm, to enable the Chamber to be adjusted for the ceremony that now follows.

Sitting suspended.

Abortion (Disability Equality) Bill [HL]

Lord Taylor of Holbeach Excerpts

Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords
Friday 24th February 2017 Lords Chamber

Amendment 1 withdrawn.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Con)]

My Lords, it is the custom of the House on Fridays to finish at 3 pm and we are very nearly at that time. I do not think that we will do any debate justice by starting another amendment at this stage. I hope that noble Lords will understand if I now move that the House do now adjourn.

Consideration on Report adjourned.

Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Mitochondrial Donation) Regulations 2015

Lord Taylor of Holbeach Excerpts

Tuesday 24th February 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB)]

My Lords—

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Con)]

My Lords, it is a rule of this House that only one person speaks at one time. I ask noble Lords to be seated, please. We are in some difficulty. A number of noble Lords still want to speak. I understand that; this is a serious matter. Perhaps I might suggest to them that they will attract the approval of the House if they keep their remarks brief. Most noble Lords have come here with contributions to make, and they are speaking from extensive notes. It would help us all if we could move this debate to a conclusion; many noble Lords have indicated that to me. Therefore, while I do not for a moment suggest that we move to that stage now, I ask noble Lords to be orderly in allowing others to speak and to be brief.

Tobacco: Packaging

Lord Taylor of Holbeach Excerpts

Thursday 3rd April 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, I note that we are about to have a Statement but we do not have a Minister. May I encourage the noble Lord to move that the House do adjourn during pleasure for five minutes for the Front Bench to get itself a Minister?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Taylor of Holbeach) (Con)]

This is a just-in-time delivery, if I may say so.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe) (Con)]

My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall now repeat a Statement made earlier today by my honourable friend the Minister for Public Health in another place on standardised packaging of tobacco products. The Statement is as follows:

“With permission, Mr Speaker, I wish to make a Statement about the publication of Sir Cyril Chantler’s report on the standardised packaging of tobacco products.

Smoking kills nearly 80,000 people each year in England alone. One out of two long-term smokers will die of a smoking-related disease and our cancer outcomes stubbornly lag behind much of Europe. Quite apart from the enormous pressure this creates on the NHS it is a cruel waste of human potential. Yet we all know that the vast majority of smokers want to quit and, even more tragically, we also know that two-thirds of smokers become addicted before they are 18. As a nation, therefore, we should consider every effective measure we can to stop children taking up smoking in the first place.

That is why, in November last year, I asked Sir Cyril Chantler to undertake an independent review as to whether or not the introduction of standardised packaging of tobacco is likely to have an effect on public health, in particular in relation to children. Sir Cyril has presented his report to me and to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, and we had the benefit of a personal briefing from Sir Cyril yesterday, in which he highlighted the key conclusions of his review.

Having reviewed Sir Cyril’s findings, I was keen to share this important report with the House without delay, as I recognise the significant interest that many Members have shown in this issue. I will of course place copies in both House Libraries. The evidence has been examined, the arguments for and against have been thoroughly explored and their merit assessed by Sir Cyril, who also visited Australia in the course of his review. I asked in particular that the report focus on the potential for standardised packaging to have an impact on the health of children.

It is clear that smoking is a disease of adolescence and we know that, across the UK, more than 200,000 children aged between 11 and 15 start smoking every year. In other words, around 600 children start smoking in the UK every day. Many of these children will grow up with a nicotine addiction that they will find extremely difficult to break. That is a tragedy for these young people, their families and for the public health of our nation. Sir Cyril points out that if this rate of smoking by children were reduced even by 2%, for example, it would mean that 4,000 fewer children take up smoking each year.

Sir Cyril’s report makes a compelling case that, if standardised packaging were introduced, it would be very likely to have a positive impact on public health and that these health benefits would include health benefits for children. The Chief Medical Officer, Dame Sally Davies, has read Sir Cyril’s report and sent me a letter with her initial views. Dame Sally said:

‘The Chantler review only reinforces my beliefs of the public health gains to be achieved from standardised packaging’.

I have placed copies of Dame Sally’s letter in the House Libraries. Importantly, the report highlights that any such policy must be seen in the round, as part of a comprehensive policy of tobacco control measures. That is exactly how I see the potential for standardised packaging to work in this country.

In the light of this report and the responses to the previous consultation in 2012, I am therefore currently minded to proceed with introducing regulations to provide for standardised packaging. However, in order to ensure that that decision is properly and fully informed, I intend to publish the draft regulations, so that it is crystal clear what is intended, alongside a final, short consultation, in which I will ask, in particular, for views on anything new since the last full public consultation that is relevant to the final decision on this policy. I will announce the details about the content and timing of that very shortly but would invite those with an interest to start considering any responses they might wish to make now. The House will understand that I want to move forward as swiftly as possible, and Parliament gave us the regulation-making powers in the Act.

Finally, I should like to pay tribute to the excellent job that Sir Cyril and his team have done in preparing such a thorough analysis of the available evidence on standardised packaging of tobacco products. I believe the report will be widely acknowledged both for its forensic approach and its authoritative conclusions. We want our nation’s children to grow up happy and healthy and free from the heavy burden of disease that tobacco brings. I commend this Statement and Sir Cyril’s report to the House”.

That concludes the Statement.

Public Bodies Bill [HL]

Lord Taylor of Holbeach Excerpts

Monday 9th May 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Pannick]

My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 1. As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, said, at Report your Lordships rejected an amendment in the name of the noble Lord which would have required public consultation in all cases covered by Clause 10. Your Lordships rejected the amendment because the Minister argued that it cannot be appropriate and proportionate for a full public consultation to be undertaken on the implementation of all exercises of power under the Bill, however limited they may be. However, he also said:

“The Government support the principle behind this amendment, which is to ensure that the public are given an opportunity to make their views heard on the reform of public bodies.—[Official Report, 4/4/11; col. 1555.]

Amendment 1 would achieve that objective. It would ensure that the public were able to inform themselves of all proposals for change and were able to contribute to the debate if they wished. The amendment would therefore promote accountability, and it would do so at no cost or inconvenience to the Government.

The Minister may say that the amendment is unnecessary as this is so obviously sensible as a practice that the Government would do it in any event. However, a ministerial assurance given, I accept, in good faith cannot bind Ministers in this or any future Government. Even after the very welcome amendments that have been made to the legislation in this House, the Bill will still confer very extensive powers on Ministers over public bodies, and it is therefore important to make clear in the Bill the essential obligation contained in this amendment.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Lord Pannick, for bringing back these issues because it gives me the opportunity to clarify the Government’s position. As they say, Amendments 1 and 6 revisit the issue of consultation and so I shall respond to them together.

Amendment 1, to which the noble Lords, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Lord Pannick, have spoken, would require Ministers to publish the proposed reform on their department’s website or to otherwise make it publicly available in the event that a full public consultation was not to be undertaken. This is a helpful amendment and one that speaks to an important principle, so I thank noble Lords for bringing it back at Third Reading.

I said on Report that I thought that this was something that the Government could consider, and I can assure your Lordships’ House that we have done so. Supportive as we are of the objective behind this amendment, on balance, we do not believe that such a requirement is appropriate on the face of the Bill. We are debating ostensibly an issue of guidance and best practice, not imposing a legal requirement. For that reason I am able to support the purpose of the amendment but not its inclusion in the Bill. Given that I believe that this is an issue of guidance, I am happy to give a very specific assurance that the guidance for use by officials on making orders under the Public Bodies Bill, to be published by the Cabinet Office, will include a specific reference that departments ought to consider the most appropriate way of making a proposal publicly available.

The Government are committed to increasing transparency and accountability across the public sector. I do not believe that I can honestly stand here and say that I oppose the purpose of the amendment and still be true to that overall objective. I fear that our only point of divergence is on how to ensure that this purpose is reflected in the best way possible when Ministers are developing proposals and drafting orders. It is the Government’s clear judgment that a more practical and proportionate way of achieving the noble Lord’s objective is to capture this issue in the guidance which will be used by departments when bringing forward orders. On Report, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, described my pledge to take this back to my colleagues in government as “handsome”. I hope that he will not now consider this an ugly conclusion by the Government. I can assure him that the principle of making proposals publicly available is one on which all sides of the House agree.

I should like to make one further observation on the noble Lord’s amendment. I agree that, in 2011, a website represents a very sensible vehicle for making proposals publicly available; indeed, I should expect departments seriously to consider whether website publication is not appropriate for publicising their proposals. However, my crystal ball will not tell me whether this will be the case for ever. Technology moves on. The statutory framework for consultation on this legislation is set out in Clause 10, and it is intended to be a stable and firm statutory requirement for reforms long into the future. It is guidance, not the statue book, that can be readily updated to reflect whatever is most appropriate at given times. That provides further weight to the argument that, however sensible this amendment might seem, it is not an appropriate addition to the Bill.

I am disappointed that I cannot be more supportive of the noble Lord’s amendment. I know that it is a sincere attempt to improve the Bill and to help the Government deliver a comprehensive and watertight piece of legislation. However, the vote on Report made it clear that consultation must not always be full public consultation and that a Minister must ultimately be responsible and indeed accountable to Parliament for deciding how to undertake proportionate and meaningful consultation. It is therefore not appropriate to seek to alter this legal framework through the noble Lord’s amendment.

I shall now turn to Amendment 6 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath. This proposed amendment to Schedule 1 in practice concerns the issues of consultation and subsequent procedure, set out in Clauses 10 and 11, and how they might apply to the closure of the regional development agencies. I shall start by once again taking the opportunity to pay tribute to the work of the RDAs. I also acknowledge that the noble Lords have a strong regard for the work that the RDAs did and would prefer them to continue.

We have had very thorough debates in the House, in Committee and on Report, on the RDAs. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, referred to these debates. I have explained that the Government's strong preference is to abolish the RDAs, and I have set out the reasons behind this, including why the current arrangements are no longer sustainable. The coalition agreement, the June 2010 Budget Statement and the local growth White Paper are equally clear about the Government's proposal to abolish the RDAs. The Government continue actively to engage with RDAs and interested parties on how closure is to be achieved. Individual RDAs have been in touch with their stakeholders, for example about their asset plans. The consultation and engagement are taking place irrespective of the requirements in the Bill.

I have listened to the arguments for the reform of public bodies to be an open process. Clauses 10 and 11 underline the Government’s desire for this to be the case. Clause 10 requires a Minister to consult on a proposal to which an order made using the Bill would give effect. The amendment proposes that in the case of RDAs, the explanatory document that accompanies an order should include, first, the question that was asked about the principle of abolishing RDAs and, secondly, a summary of the representations received on that question.

The requirements of Clause 10 on a Minister to consult when making an order covered by the Bill are clear. The requirements applied to the RDAs would oblige the Government to ask about the principle of abolition. Similarly, Clause 11(2)(d) requires that any explanatory document should include a summary of representations received in consultation. Therefore, I do not believe that the amendments in this group would provide any additional information for Parliament. Instead, they would unnecessarily complicate the drafting of the Bill. I hope that, in the light of the clarification that I have given with regard to the existing requirements—

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, does the Minister recall that on Report, I asked about the consultation process for RDAs in the light of a letter that the Minister had written to my noble friend Lady Royall, in which he stated that consultation effectively would take place after the passage of the legislation? I asked on that occasion whether in those circumstances the consultation that took place with individual RDAs would be on the basis that each case would be considered on its merits, or whether in effect it was all or nothing in terms of abolition. Will there be an individual consultation in respect of each RDA, with the possibility of a different conclusion in respect of one RDA as opposed to another, or is it to be abolition tout court?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

The consultation will be based on the statutory instruments that will be tabled in connection with each RDA. Therefore, there will indeed be consultation, and an opportunity for each regional development agency to have input on its future. The regions of the country, if they feel particularly motivated, will be able to discuss the reasons why they believe no change should be made to their status.

[Lord Beecham]

Will the Government be open to persuasion?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

It is the nature of consultation that the Government are open to persuasion: that is the purpose of a consultative exercise. The policy decision has been made. It is the resolve of the Government to implement the policy. None the less, there will be a consultative process, at which there will be an opportunity to argue the opposite case.

I hope that, in the light of the clarification that I have given on the requirements of Clauses 10 and 11, the noble Baroness and the noble Lord will not press their amendments. I also hope that, given my assurances on guidance and the problems with adding Amendment 1 to the Bill, the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 2, which will put a time limit on the bodies mentioned in Schedules 1 to 5, I will not rehearse the well honed arguments which have been put forward many times about the importance of sunsetting. Suffice it to say that the sunsetting of the schedules is one of the fundamental and welcome changes which have been made to this Bill. I am very grateful to the Minister for putting his name to this amendment, which appears for a second time because, I have to confess, I failed to move it on Report. I beg to move.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, I am delighted to have added my name to Amendment 2, which is also tabled in the names of the noble Baroness, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, and my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth. As the noble Baroness has said, perhaps she failed to move the amendment on Report, but then so did I. I think we were all caught up in the heat of the moment after a Division, so I am pleased that we have an opportunity to bring it back again. It is the outcome of a constructive engagement across the House and I thank noble Lords for their input into the process and for retabling the amendment to ensure that it becomes part of the Bill.

Grouped with Amendment 2 are three government amendments to clauses relating Welsh Ministers. They are essentially minor and technical in nature and have been requested by the Welsh Assembly Government. Amendment 3 clarifies that Clause 13(6) refers to internal drainage boards which have responsibility for geographic areas partially but not wholly within Wales. National boundaries do not necessarily follow catchment areas. Amendment 4 is a drafting amendment to ensure that the procedure for transfer schemes made by Welsh Ministers under Clause 23 applies to transfer schemes set up in connection with orders made under Clause 13. Amendment 10 alters the Long Title to reflect the fact that the Bill as amended on Report grants powers to Welsh Ministers in Clause 13 in relation to a number of other bodies and offices in addition to those powers that already exist in relation to environmental bodies specified in, and by virtue of, Clause 12. These amendments rightly clarify the Government’s intentions for the use of powers in the Bill and I trust that they will be welcomed by the House.

Amendment 2 agreed.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

3: Clause 13, page 8, line 27, after “board” insert “for an area”

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

4: Clause 24, page 14, line 35, after “12” insert “or 13”

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Turner of Camden]

My Lords, I rise to support my noble friend on this amendment and thank him very much for introducing it. As he rightly says, there is a great deal of uncertainty among public sector workers at the moment. Of course, there is a bit of a campaign about the public sector, as far as I can see, on the part of certain sections of the press, designed to give the impression that public sector workers are so much better off than people in the private sector. If you look at it very carefully, that really is not the case. On the other hand, it all adds to the sense of insecurity that many public sector workers feel. Therefore, it is essential that there should be something in this Bill that makes it clear that when people are transferred they have the protection afforded by the TUPE regulations.

Not to give that sort of protection would be to give the public sector workers, who provide the services that we all rely on, the sense that they are disposable. Our workers are not disposable and must be protected in the way suggested in the TUPE regulations. I therefore hope that the Government this time round feel that they have to support this amendment and that it eventually appears on the face of the Bill.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity of coming back on the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty. I am sorry if my prose failed to clarify the situation as well as it might, and I hope that my words and the speech prepared for me provide the clarification that the noble Lord seeks. He used the phrase, “words to that effect”. Let us hope that these words that I am about to deliver are to good effect.

The amendment gives me, as the Minister taking this Bill through the House, an opportunity to say that the Government recognise the valuable contribution made by their staff. We want to be, and feel that we are, a good employer, and staff in public bodies are important for good governance. We are keen to support all those affected by change and are committed to TUPE and COSoP as they currently apply. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, agreed that extending TUPE is not necessarily the best option for all staff, which is what makes this particular matter more complex than it might otherwise be.

The amendment would require that TUPE regulations apply to any transfer of functions or activities that take place as a result of an order made under the Public Bodies Bill. As I did in Committee, I would like to inform the House why the Government believe that existing protection for staff is sufficient and why it would be inappropriate to accept the suggested amendment.

The purpose of TUPE and the European law that underpins it is to protect staff in circumstances where the business that they work for or services to which they are assigned are to be carried out by a different organisation. TUPE ensures that the staff retain their jobs and conditions with new employers stepping into the shoes of the old. When a change falls within the TUPE definition of “relevant transfer”, TUPE will apply and the staff will be protected. The definition is broad and many changes brought about by the Bill will be covered. However, there may be circumstances where it is uncertain whether TUPE applies or is excluded.

Clause 23 gives the Government the power to provide protection to staff in circumstances where TUPE is not engaged. This is underpinned by the Cabinet Office statement of practice on staff transfers—referred to as COSoP—which provides that, even where TUPE does not apply to public sector transfers, organisations will be expected to apply TUPE’s principles as a matter of policy. I assure the noble Lord that the Government remain committed to COSoP. In practice, such transfers are effected through legislation which closely follows the provisions in TUPE, including the continuity provisions.

Legislative transfer schemes which are used to effect transfers in non-TUPE situations do not always apply TUPE to the letter. For example, some schemes permit greater flexibility in relation to post-transfer contractual variations. This can assist the process of harmonising disparate reward packages, thus reducing the risk of unlawful discrimination, particularly on equal pay claims, and avoiding unnecessary barriers to reform. Where the change does not fall within the definition of “relevant transfer” because the new organisation will be carrying out a function or activity which differs in nature from the old, it would not be appropriate to grant TUPE protection; the reality there is that there is no transfer of employees’ functions—the staff are redundant and should be dismissed and paid the compensation to which they are entitled. I assure your Lordships that, if there is legal uncertainty on whether a function is to be continued, Clause 23 gives scope for TUPE protection to be provided.

It would be inappropriate to accept the amendment because, in the Government's view, the blanket application of TUPE to all those transfers which are effected pursuant to the Bill is not appropriate and could lead to inefficiencies and unintended consequences. The Bill provides a framework for a wide variety of reforms to public bodies. Given this, it is crucial that those involved in transfers taking place under the Bill retain the flexibility to respond to each situation according to the facts. It is necessary to form a judgment in each case about whether the particular facts fall within the TUPE definition of “relevant transfer” and, if not, whether a transfer scheme which follows TUPE principles is appropriate. Staff could otherwise be compelled to move and, perhaps, relocate—even where their work is not going to be continued—and all those involved in the transfer could find themselves subject to restrictions which are not helpful nor apposite to the situation.

I appreciate the contribution made by the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, for again bringing this to the attention of the House. I assure them both that I am quite happy to write to them again and will keep them posted on developments under the legislation, if they wish. In respect of Cabinet Office advice in this area, I am perfectly happy to keep all noble Lords informed on this matter. However, in the light of the assurances that I have given, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Whitty]

My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend Lady Turner for her points underlining the issue of uncertainty that surrounds so many employees in these organisations and beyond at the moment. I am also grateful to the Minister for stating pretty clearly the Government’s commitment to the TUPE principles and to continuing to apply COSOP where that is the relevant coverage. I was slightly more dubious about the last two or three paragraphs. There is a slightly schizophrenic nature to the Minister's response. I do not know whether two people drafted his speech for him, as he carefully said at the beginning. On the one hand, there is that very clear commitment, which I appreciate. It is an important message for the Government to get out there. There were then references to flexibility in situations which hitherto may well have been regarded as transfers. I accept that some fine-tuning of TUPE is necessary and helpful, provided that that is done individually or collectively with the employees concerned.

The situation where neither TUPE nor COSOP applies probably requires one-off handling. However, if the principle is that the main principles of TUPE will be held to apply unless there is a good reason why they should not, I would rather have heard a speech from the Minister in those terms—that the default position is that TUPE should apply. However, clearly I am not going to get a lot more from the Government on this one; I think that I have done quite well over the previous stages of the Bill. I suspect that there will be some work for our learned friends in some of these areas, and I hope that the good will extended by the Minister at the beginning of his speech and the commitment to the TUPE principles that he reflected here will in practice be reflected in the proposals for the individual organisations and the approach that the individual departments take when we are drawing up the regulations to implement these parts of the Bill.

I thank the Minister. I am not entirely satisfied, and I suspect that some people outside will not be either, but I will not press this today. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

10: In the Title, line 2, at end insert “and other”

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

That the Bill do now pass.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass. In doing so, I crave the indulgence of the House to say a few words. Today is 9 May, and we had Second Reading of this Bill on 9 November. For six calendar months, this House has been considering the Bill. The Bill has been much changed by this House; I think we all share the view that the Bill has been improved by this House. This House can be proud of its role of scrutiny, which it has demonstrated in scrutinising the Bill and improving it. It can serve as a textbook example of how this House serves that great and fundamental purpose.

I say a word of thanks to Members of this House for that role. In particular, I thank those on the opposition Front Bench for the constructive way in which we have been able to talk about the Bill from the beginning. They had firm ideas of what they wanted to happen to the Bill; we had ours; but the discussions were always friendly and open. I am very grateful to them. I am very grateful to all Peers who have attended our meetings: those from the Cross Benches, in particular, for their construction of ideas and resolution of some of the impasses which looked difficult to overcome; and to coalition Peers for their support and input. Right to the end, we have been discussing these matters, and the House has been divided on them, but there has been a real sense of partnership on the Bill. That has been particularly true of my Front Bench colleagues who have shared the passage of the Bill with me and have taken particular amendments. I have been reluctant to comment on individual involvement, but I feel that I should thank my noble friend Lady Rawlings, who is my Whip on the Bill and who has been with me more or less throughout its passage.

I conclude by thanking the Bill team, because they have had to work particularly hard not just within the Cabinet Office, which originated the Bill, but across all government departments, because every government department has been engaged in the Bill. I thank them for the way in which we have enjoyed working on the Bill together. They now go to see it through another place, and their job continues. I also mention the Bill team manager, as was, Louise Parry, who during the Easter Recess had a baby daughter. Cecilia is perhaps the most visible token of the Bill's passage through this House, and we are delighted for both of them. They are both very well and I thank Louise for her support to me and to her colleagues during the passage of the Bill.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, I must say that when we completed the passage of the Marine and Coastal Access Bill, which also took about six months, I never thought that I would be facing the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, on another Bill which took so long. I echo his comments: I think that the Bill is much changed; it has benefited from scrutiny in your Lordships' House. I am sure that the whole House would wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, for his stewardship of the Bill. He has shown great skill and sensitivity to the issues that have been raised. All of us are grateful for the manner in which he has met us to discuss the issues, but his responses in your Lordships’ Chamber have also been in a flavour of seeking a way through. We are very grateful to him.

There has been a cast of thousands on either side of the opposition and government Front Benches. I, too, very much thank my colleagues for their help. I echo the noble Lord’s words of thanks to the Bill team. We are very grateful to them for the help that they have given us over the months. I, too, congratulate the Bill team manager on the birth of her daughter during Easter.

The Bill goes to the other place much enhanced. Because of the sunset clause, although the Bill will deal with a number of public bodies, when that is done, there will be a mechanism for looking at public bodies in future in a way that noble Lords find a very satisfactory outcome.

Public Bodies Bill [HL]

Lord Taylor of Holbeach Excerpts

Monday 28th March 2011 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

35: Clause 4, page 2, line 39, leave out “Subject to section 16,”

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

42: Clause 5, page 3, line 2, leave out “Subject to section 16,”

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

51: Schedule 5, page 18, line 17, at end insert—
“Keeper of Public Records.”

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

53: Schedule 5, page 18, line 18, leave out “National Park authorities in England.”

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

55: Schedule 5, page 18, line 20, at end insert—
“Public Records Office.”

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

57: Clause 6, leave out Clause 6

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

58: Schedule 6, leave out Schedule 6

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

59: Clause 7, page 3, line 43, leave out subsection (4)

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

60: Clause 7, page 4, line 4, at end insert—
“( ) An order under sections 1 to 5 may include provision repealing the entry in the Schedule by virtue of which the order was made.”

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, even at this late hour, it gives me great pleasure to introduce this group of amendments, each of which introduces important changes to the schedules. I hope that they will be welcomed on all sides of the House.

Amendment 60 would create a power for a Minister, when making an order under Clauses 1 to 5, to include a provision to remove the body or office subject to the order from the schedule or schedules in which the body was listed. The amendment ensures that, where a Minister has been able to implement the proposed reforms by virtue of an order under the Bill, that body can be removed from the relevant schedule and therefore be assured of its ongoing status.

Amendment 69C represents a solution—which, I am happy to state, has the support of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath—to the question of so-called omnibus orders relating to more than one body and whether they should be permissible under the Bill. I made a commitment in Committee to consider the matter further and have done so. During our debates in Committee, I expressed my concern that any restriction on omnibus orders should not prevent Ministers from the sensible and reasonable combination of related changes in a single order. For example, I am sure that the House will understand that there is little to be gained from a separate consideration of 160 orders making identical changes to internal drainage boards.

On that basis, the Government propose instead to amend Clause 11 to require that, should Ministers consider it appropriate to bring forward an omnibus order under Clauses 1 to 5, they must explain in the Explanatory Memorandum their justification for the decision. It will therefore be for Parliament to judge whether the Minister’s decision was appropriate. I consider that to be a sensible and proper solution.

I am delighted to have added my name to Amendment 72, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, the noble Baroness, Lady Royall of Blaisdon, and my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth. That amendment, much like the amendment in Committee which now forms Clause 16, represents the outcome of genuine engagement and compromise on all sides of the House. I pay tribute to noble Lords who have assisted in presenting it to the House this evening. Amendment 72 effectively sunsets the entries in the schedules by ensuring that an entry in the schedule automatically lapses five years after its commencement. The amendment therefore clarifies that the listing of a body in one of the schedules will not involve endless changes to that body's status but will be a vehicle for specific reforms which the Government expect to be carried out in a timely fashion. As I described the Government's thinking in Committee, the amendment will ensure that the powers in the Bill will remain on the statute book. That ensures that, following future reviews of public bodies, the Government will have the option of using primary legislation to repopulate the schedules as a means of making further reforms, subject to Parliament's consent.

For that reason, I am unable to support Amendment 72A in the name of my noble friend Lord Goodhart. That amendment would sunset the entire Bill, as well as the entries in the corresponding schedules, following the dissolution of this Parliament. To do so would be a mistake. It would leave the Government without a mechanism to take forward the outcomes of what I believe all sides of the House hope will be regular, systematic reviews of public bodies. Particularly given the work that this House has undertaken to craft a mechanism in the Bill which can command the confidence of Parliament and the public, it would be a retrograde step to ask future Parliaments to begin that process from scratch.

The Government's amendments in this group and Amendment 72 each significantly improve the mechanisms of the Bill and are the product of a process of engagement and deliberation that characterises this House at its best. It is a pity that we have had to introduce them at this late a stage, in front of a small House, but none the less their significance to the Bill is considerable. I commend them to the House and beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Eccles]

My Lords, the first three amendments in this group are very welcome. Going right the way back to Second Reading, I remember the suggestion that Schedule 7 be dropped from the Bill being made right at that time. The dropping of Schedule 7 makes the arrangements for sunsetting a great deal easier to agree than they would have been if that schedule had stayed in. These two amendments are rather a subtle way of agreeing to a sunseting procedure, but they are none the less very welcome. I also remember that at Second Reading there was a suggestion that if this was the way that we were going and Schedule 7 were dropped, perhaps we would need Public Bodies Bill (No. 2). I am sure that my noble friends on the Front Bench and, particularly, my noble friend Lord Taylor are very pleased that he has found a way of avoiding Public Bodies Bill (No. 2), and I think we should all be very grateful for that. Finally, we have made a long journey and a lot of progress, which is extremely welcome.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I thank noble Lords for the general welcome given to these amendments. I thank those on the opposition Benches for their positive engagement on finding these solutions. For that, I am extremely grateful. I thank my noble friend Lord Goodhart for the gracious way in which he bowed to the consensus building on Amendment 72 and my noble friend Lord Eccles for the recognition he gave to the difficulties this Bill faced and for his part in overcoming those difficulties.

Amendment 60 agreed.