Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Young of Norwood Green (Labour) in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 24 May 2011. It occurred during Debate on bill on Postal Services Bill.


Postal Services Bill

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply and for her clarification of the timescale; it was helpful to place that on the record. To respond briefly to a few points, I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, that I was not suggesting that this House should do the valuation. I agree with her assessment: valuation by committee—what a thought. My noble friend is right: this is a modest proposal. It is true that it was not in the Bill presented by the previous Government, but as I have said on a number of occasions, we were not going for the full monty, 100 per cent privatisation. Perhaps in hindsight we did not get every aspect right anyway. I freely confess that. Although I welcome some of the points that the Minister made, the reassurances in relation to the National Audit Office and so on are all post-sale. We were trying to get a bit more transparency into the process that precedes the sale. I recognise that she has gone about as far as she can go, as the song said, and in the circumstances I will study carefully what she said but I am prepared to withdraw the amendment. Amendment 2 withdrawn. Clause 24: Information Amendment 3 Clause 24: Information Amendment 3 Moved by


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
727 c1689-90 
Session
2010-12
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Administration Bank services Privatisation Workplace pensions Pensions Post offices Pension funds Postal services Ofcom Postal Services Commission Post Office Social security benefits Shares Reform Royal Mail
Legislation
Postal Services Bill 2010-12
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk