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.
Postal Services Bill
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 bills on Postal Services Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
726 c103 Session
2010-12Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 15:22:27 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_724754
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_724754
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_724754