Proceeding contribution from Lord Skelmersdale (Conservative) in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 31 March 2009. It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL) and Debate on bill on Postal Services Bill [HL].
Postal Services Bill [HL]
We have had an occasion where "may" meant "shall", and now "may" means "could". The noble Lord suggested in relation to the first of these amendments that subsection (2)(a) could be advantageous in certain circumstances, but he neglected to give me an example of circumstances where it could be used and could be beneficial. I grouped these amendments because you cannot have subsection (3)(c) without subsection (2)(a). They are inextricably entwined. I think that I now understand what subsection (2)(a) is getting at, although at some point, either now or later, I should be interested in an example, if the Minister can give it, of when such a thing could be advantageous.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 709 c1051
- Session
- 2008-09
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords chamber
- Subjects
- Conditions of employment Contracts Industrial relations Finance Liability EU law Insolvency Government assistance Government shareholding Private sector Pensions Partnerships Post offices Pension funds Pension Protection Fund Postal services Ofcom Postal Services Commission Post Office Modernisation Regulation Voting rights Technology Royal Mail TNT
- Legislation
- Postal Services Bill (HL) 2008-09
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-04-21 10:43:26 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_545078
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_545078
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_545078