Proceeding contribution from Lord De Mauley (Conservative) in the House of Lords on Monday, 20 April 2009. It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL) and Debate on bill on Postal Services Bill [HL].
Postal Services Bill [HL]
When the Minister responds, will he clarify whether the circumstances contemplated by proposed new paragraphs (a) and (b) of the amendment—respectively, a winding-up, which incidentally I would like to think we have no reason to expect, and a new partner changing the pension rules—would not more appropriately be a matter for the trustees rather than the Secretary of State? On proposed new paragraph (c), is there any circumstance in which an employee could, without his consent, be prevented from participating?
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 709 c1278
- Session
- 2008-09
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords chamber
- Subjects
- Disability Devolved matters Consumers Bus services Assets Bank services Closures Fees and charges EU law Investment Low incomes Northern Ireland Workplace pensions Public sector Public consultation Older people Staff Post offices Pension funds Postal services Parcels Ofcom Postal Services Commission Post Office Scotland Small businesses Regulation Shares Working hours Wales Tax allowances Taxation Trusts Rural areas Royal Mail Universal service obligation Girobank
- Legislation
- Postal Services Bill (HL) 2008-09
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-04-21 10:54:37 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_547617
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_547617
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_547617