Proceeding contribution from Lord Lea of Crondall (Labour) in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 24 March 2009. It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL) and Debate on bill on Postal Services Bill [HL].
Postal Services Bill [HL]
I am very disappointed that two-thirds of the Minister’s reply was to something which is not part of Amendment 9, which stands on its own and has been degrouped. Confusingly, a lot of other material is being replied to. I am talking about a partnership with the workforce. I invite my noble friend to correct herself in writing if she denies that "partnership" is used in the Hooper report in relation to partnership with the workforce. I shall not divide the Chamber on this occasion, but if no progress is made on Report, I probably shall. Amendment 9 withdrawn. Amendment 10 not moved. Clause 4 : Meaning of "Royal Mail company" Amendments 11 and 12 not moved. Clause 4 agreed. Amendment 13 not moved.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 709 c614-5
- Session
- 2008-09
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords chamber
- Subjects
- Conditions of employment Directors Bank services Industrial relations Finance Governing bodies Income Government assistance Government shareholding Private sector Public appointments Property transfer Public consultation Staff Post offices Postal services Ofcom Post Office Stocks and shares Royal Mail Reorganisation Postal Services Sector Review Employee ownership
- Legislation
- Postal Services Bill (HL) 2008-09
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-04-21 10:37:44 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_542195
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_542195
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_542195