My Lords, having described myself towards the end of the previous set of proceedings on this as deferential, docile and indeed passive because I had moved only one amendment—and that was really a motherhood amendment—I thought that I might be a bit more proactively docile in this set of proceedings and so have tabled a few amendments.
This one is singularly docile, because all I wish to know is a bit more about the definition in Clause 1 of ““eligible person””, which is a bit obscure to me as a mere reader of English. The question of whether or not a public body is or is not listed in this Bill—and there is a reference to that sort of thing somewhere in all this—has become a matter of growing importance. There has been a certain amount of shrinkage in the number of bodies covered by this policy in the past six months. Starting off at nearly 1,000 in October’s Statement, the figure came down to less than 500—probably rather a lot less—when we saw the Bill. It has now come down by at least another half to something that is not much more than 150. I could make some unfriendly remarks but I will just note that this is a remarkable change over a relatively short period. What effect does it have on ““eligible person”” and, in particular, does ““eligible person”” cover public bodies whether or not they are listed in the Bill?
Public Bodies Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Newton of Braintree
(Conservative)
in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 23 March 2011.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Public Bodies Bill [HL].
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
726 c740 
Session
2010-12
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-09-05 11:36:10 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_730572
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_730572
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_730572