Skip to main content

1-20 of 97 results for subject:Parcels

Subject X
Assets

Type

House

Session

Year

Department

Member

Primary member

Answering member

Legislative stage

Legislation

Subject

More
Assets (97)

Publisher


Show detailed: On Off
Results: 10 20 50 100
Sort by: Newest first Oldest first

They are not talking shops.

Member
Lord O'Neill of Clackmannan (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
20 April 2009
Reference
709 c1351
House
House of Lords

Amendment 84A 84A: Clause 29, page 15, line 21, at end insert— "( ) A universal postal service must not include services exempted under the Postal Services Directive."

Member
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
20 April 2009
Reference
709 c1339
House
House of Lords

I support what my noble friend said. He is right to draw attention to what has happened in the past in relation to the chairman and the strange behaviour that took place. It is no wonder that there are some suspicions, which no doubt my noble friend can clear up...

Member
Lord Hoyle (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
20 April 2009
Reference
709 c1299-300
House
House of Lords

I have not been involved in the detail on this but I have certainly been in the presence of the Secretary of State—I think that it may have been said in this very Chamber—when he has made it clear that he published the letter and did not leak it. He...

Member
Lord McKenzie of Luton (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
20 April 2009
Reference
709 c1304
House
House of Lords

I support my noble friend. Once again, he has stated the facts. Certainly, Postcomm, once it was charged with the provision of a universal postal service, was always more concerned about competition rather than provision. The emphasis in Hooper, in putting forward Ofcom as the best regulator, was to say...

Member
Lord Hoyle (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
20 April 2009
Reference
709 c1307-8
House
House of Lords

I rise with pleasure to move the amendment and to speak to Amendment 83. I do not think that I will have to give a long explanation. Exactly what we are talking about is clear from the wording of the amendments. In the debates on Amendments 80 and 86 of...

Member
Lord Cotter (Liberal Democrat)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
20 April 2009
Reference
709 c1336
House
House of Lords

Amendment 70A relates to the treatment of assets that are transferred to the Government. I shall start by setting out the Government’s intended approach to the treatment of assets and how we expect the pay-as-you-go scheme to be governed. Clause 20 covers the transfer of assets from the RMPP to...

Member
Lord McKenzie of Luton (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
20 April 2009
Reference
709 c1283-5
House
House of Lords

My Lords, I have listened with interest to the debates on the amendments moved by the noble Lords, Lord Clarke, Lord Hoyle and Lord De Mauley, and I am puzzled. Perhaps the Minister can help me. There seems to be considerable concern in your Lordships' House that somehow the Government...

Member
Lord Razzall (Liberal Democrat)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
20 April 2009
Reference
709 c1286
House
House of Lords

Amendment 70 70: After Clause 19, insert the following new Clause— "Protection for certain members and prospective members of the RMPP The Secretary of State may make regulations for the purpose of securing that— (a) no qualifying member of the RMPP is placed in any worse position by reason of—...

Member
Lord Clarke of Hampstead (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
20 April 2009
Reference
709 c1276
House
House of Lords

This is a probing amendment and I desire to go over in detail what my noble friend has said. We may have to return to this as we are concerned about the protection of members, but in view of what has been said already I beg leave to withdraw the...

Member
Lord Hoyle (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
20 April 2009
Reference
709 c1285
House
House of Lords

Amendment 72 72: Clause 20, page 10, line 41, at end insert— "( ) The Secretary of State must inform Parliament of the classes of assets transferred under the order."

Member
Lord De Mauley (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
20 April 2009
Reference
709 c1285
House
House of Lords

The amendments in this group address two concerns. Amendment 72 deals with which of the RMPP’s assets the Government intend to take. The more substantive Amendment 74A concerns the assumptions on which the safeguard in subsection (1) will be based. Let me deal first with Amendment 72. Your Lordships will...

Member
Lord De Mauley (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
20 April 2009
Reference
709 c1285
House
House of Lords

This group includes Amendments 74 and 76. In Amendment 74, I am saying: ""The power of the Secretary of State to make an order under section 20 (a "transfer order") may only be exercised if the assets of the RMPP are sufficient, at the relevant time, to enable the RMPP...

Member
Lord Clarke of Hampstead (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
20 April 2009
Reference
709 c1288-90
House
House of Lords

Once again, the noble Lord, Lord Clarke, who spoke earlier about trust, like us appears to have similar concerns about the discrepancy between government promises and the drafting of the Bill. At Second Reading, the Secretary of State made a clear statement, echoing what had been published in his policy...

Member
Lord De Mauley (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
20 April 2009
Reference
709 c1288
House
House of Lords

Clause 21: Restriction on power to transfer assets Amendment 73 73: Clause 21, page 11, line 4, leave out subsection (1)

Member
Lord De Mauley (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
20 April 2009
Reference
709 c1288
House
House of Lords

I am most grateful to the Minister. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, who, as always, goes right to the heart of the matter, even if it was not the specific matter that I was raising in this amendment—but no less important for that. I shall...

Member
Lord De Mauley (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
20 April 2009
Reference
709 c1288
House
House of Lords

I am grateful for what I take to be a measure of support from the noble Lord. The reason for adopting this approach is set out in the impact assessment. Another option would be for the assets to be transferred, for there to be a funded scheme as the noble...

Member
Lord McKenzie of Luton (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
20 April 2009
Reference
709 c1286-8
House
House of Lords

When the Minister winds up on this point, will he explain why the Government are simply not agreeing to leave the assets there and meet any deficiency? Why does there have to be this transfer of some assets, leaving others behind, which of course is causing concern and suspicion to...

Member
Lord Razzall (Liberal Democrat)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
20 April 2009
Reference
709 c1286
House
House of Lords

I start by responding to the latter point made by the noble Lord, Lord Razzall. While I cannot, perhaps, articulate why there are concerns, I can tell you why there should not be concerns. The issue is that liabilities—currently estimated to be some £29 billion—are being taken on and underwritten...

Member
Lord McKenzie of Luton (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
20 April 2009
Reference
709 c1286
House
House of Lords

I rise to support my noble friend. What we are on about here is the members and trying to protect them, because, as he said, while the two Governments were taking a holiday, the members were making their contributions to the scheme in any case. There has been talk of...

Member
Lord Hoyle (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
20 April 2009
Reference
709 c1290
House
House of Lords