Proceeding contribution from Lord Borrie (Labour) in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 8 March 2011. It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL) and Debate on bill on Postal Services Bill.
Postal Services Bill
Like the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, I have been interested to read Clause 1(2). It seems to be inelegantly worded, confusing and surplus to requirements. Why is it inelegant? Does one normally have the words ““But see”” another clause? It seems more like a text message or an e-mail rather than a provision in a Bill. Why is it confusing? Its position is confusing because essentially the first three clauses deal with Royal Mail. Clause 4 deals with the Post Office network. The Government properly have a different attitude from one to the other and so, I am sure, does my own Front Bench. Subsequent clauses deal with the network and there is no need for this cross-reference inelegantly expressed in Clause 1(2). I share the noble Lord’s view about that.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 725 c1528
- Session
- 2010-12
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords chamber
- Subjects
- Industrial relations Finance Investment Privatisation Workplace pensions Parliamentary scrutiny Staff Pension funds Profit sharing Postal services Post Office Modernisation Shares Reform Shareholders Royal Mail Sunset clauses
- Legislation
- Postal Services Bill 2010-12
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-15 15:05:33 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_722633
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_722633
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_722633