My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. We debated this extensively in Committee. I suppose that the best argument against the amendment tabled in my name and that of my noble friend is that it will be the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, who is responsible for proving us wrong. However, I am afraid that I am not persuaded, for two reasons.
First, I would be better persuaded if the world of this integrated authority to which the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, refers was that which is actually going to be put in place. We already know that the Department of Trade and Industry lost the internal turf wars and failed in its attempt to have a number of other councils, in particular the transport one, merged into the empire of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty.
Secondly, the Government have already conceded that water will not come in until 2010. I am not sure why the arguments that apply to water do not apply in spades to the Post Office and the Royal Mail, for all the reasons that I set out. I do not want to repeat those arguments, as we know what they are, but on this occasion I should like to test the opinion of the House.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 40) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 74; Not-Contents, 138.
Consumers, Estate Agents and Redress Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Razzall
(Liberal Democrat)
in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 30 January 2007.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Consumers Estate Agents and Redress Bill [HL].
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
689 c164-5 Session
2006-07Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 11:50:34 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_374491
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_374491
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_374491