Skip to main content

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]

Our final amendment on Part 2 from these Benches is very simple and I hope can be dealt with quickly. Our concerns here are about the drafting of the Bill, not the Government’s intentions; at least, I hope that they are not, because, having said that, it occurs to me that there has as yet been no indication of what the Government’s intentions are with this clause. Have the Government had any difficulty extracting the necessary information from the relevant people? Indeed, the only people whom I can imagine holding relevant information are the trustees of the RMPP, and the Minister has said many times that the Government are working closely with them. Therefore, I cannot see why this clause is necessary. The amendment suggests the barest possible safeguard as regards how this provision might be used, which would be to protect legally privileged information. It is a common safeguard that has been drafted into many precedent pieces of legislation. Will the Minister explain why it has not been included here? I beg to move.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
709 c1296-7 
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