Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Baroness Kramer (Liberal Democrat) in the House of Lords on Monday, 14 March 2011. It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL) and Debate on bill on Postal Services Bill.


Postal Services Bill

The noble Lord, Lord Young, and I seem to have discovered a knack of talking past each other. I have no criticism of anyone raising the issues—in fact, I think it is good to have the warning that past sales of assets have not really achieved the maximum price that could have been achieved under more effective disposal mechanisms. The Government tend to be quite poor at procurement of almost anything, including a price for the sale of assets. However, I argue that putting down a set of rules such as 30 per cent, 90 per cent or whatever else does not belong in the Bill. I am not saying that the issue should not be raised or that the matter should not be debated but that one cannot define it in the Bill when it depends so much on market conditions, particular financial circumstances, the specific issues of the time and the deals that can be negotiated. The Bill is the wrong place in which to set down hard and fast and black and white rules on this matter. That does not mean that debate and reporting back on the whole process is not necessary, but I regard those as two different issues. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Young, is aware of that.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
726 c103 
Session
2010-12
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Disability Conditions of employment Assets Industrial relations Investment Private sector Northern Ireland Privatisation Property transfer Older people Staff Post offices Postal services Ofcom Post Office Scotland Small businesses Shares Trade unions Wales Rural areas Royal Mail Universal service obligation Parcelforce
Legislation
Postal Services Bill 2010-12
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk