Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Clarke of Hampstead (Labour) 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]

I am left with a feeling that my noble friend has been helpful, although I shall not become too euphoric about that but take it as it comes. However, some of his comments add to the problem. The framework of the scheme is there but not the detail, and secondary legislation might have to be introduced. These matters are uncertain; anything could happen in the future. That is why I have made such a fuss about the need for transparency and to get as much detail of the Government’s intentions as possible in the Bill. I leave my noble friend with the following comment. If the RMPP trustee is to administer both schemes, as my noble friend said, why not treat them as a single scheme for tax purposes? However, for the moment I shall withdraw the amendment as I am pretty sure that we shall return to it at a later stage. Amendment 77 withdrawn. Clause 22 agreed.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
709 c1296 
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