Public Bodies Bill committee stage continues in Lords
12 January 2011 (updated on 12 January 2011)
The sixth day of the committee stage – line by line examination – of the Public Bodies Bill took place in the House of Lords on Tuesday 11 January
- Watch the debate: Public Bodies Bill committee stage, day six
- Lords Hansard: read a transcript of the debate
Scrutiny of Schedule 1, which lists the bodies and offices that may face being abolished should the Bill become law, continued. Members of the Lords debated proposals to amend Schedule 1 to exclude the following from the list:
Amendment 31: Courts boards
Amendment 33: Disability Living Allowance Advisory Board
Amendment 36A: Food Standards Agency
Amendment 37: Football Licensing Authority
Amendment 39: Inland Waterways Advisory Council
Amendment 41: Library Advisory Council for England
Amendment 43: National Consumer Council ("Consumer Focus")
The Members supporting these amendments sought explanation from the Government frontbench in the House of Lords on its plans for these bodies and proposals for what might replace these bodies.
None of the amendments were agreed. The bodies remain on Schedule 1 of the Bill.
Proposals for amendments to a Bill are published in a marshalled list of amendments one day before the Bill stage takes place.
- Sixth Marshalled List of Amendments to be moved in Committee as at 7 January 2011
- Supplementary to the Sixth Marshalled List of Amendments to be moved in Committee as at 10 January 2011
Further information
The Public Bodies Bill grants new powers to allow Ministers to abolish, merge or transfer functions of public bodies.
- Bills before Parliament: Public Bodies Bill
- Passage of a Bill: committee stage (Lords)
- Lords news: Public Bodies Bill committee stage: day five
- Lords news: Public Bodies Bill committee stage day two
- Lords news: Public Bodies Bill committee stage day one
- Lords news: Public Bodies Bill: second reading
- Lords news: Public Bodies Bill raises serious concerns
- Lords news: Public Bodies Bill grants Ministers ‘inappropriate powers’