Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Razzall (Liberal Democrat) in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 10 March 2009. It occurred during Debate on bill on Postal Services Bill [HL].


Postal Services Bill [HL]

My Lords, I suspect that in the current climate, with the question of subsidies into the financial sector, doing that for the Post Office would be the least of our problems, bearing in mind the subsidies that are going into the banks. The third test that we will be looking for, and I think the Minister agrees with this, is that the Bill must guarantee a full six-day-a-week universal service obligation. I disagree with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Clarke of Hampstead; if the Bill goes through in this form, it will be the first time that that has been enshrined in statute. I am not aware that the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, whatever his skill and influence, actually got such an obligation enshrined in statute for both letters and parcels. The fourth point, on which we have general agreement in this House but which is not yet enshrined properly in the Bill, is that the Bill must ensure a competitive future for the Royal Mail and not leave the company at a disadvantage to its rivals. The point that the noble Lord, Lord Clarke, has made was correct, and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, touched on that. The existing framework does not provide a level playing field for the Royal Mail, and we need a structure under which competition for the Royal Mail must either pay a proper price for final mail delivery or be made to pay a levy. That levy should be placed by the regulator on other mail operators that do not undertake the universal service obligation, to pay towards its cost. The other point under that heading is that we believe the Royal Mail should have the ability to borrow on capital markets, a point alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord Clarke, but not with the detail that he intended. The Minister touched on the next point, and I welcome the remarks made by him and by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. We feel that a major way to transform the poor industrial relations that have dogged the Royal Mail would be to provide a fair ownership structure properly reflecting the interests of all the shareholders. This is a one-off opportunity to give the employees of the Royal Mail a big stake in the management and ownership of the business, which will enable them to buy into the essential changes that the Royal Mail clearly requires. We will be seeking to ensure that amendments to that effect go into the Bill, because there is no doubt that the employee/management relations that have bedevilled the Royal Mail would be significantly improved if we could get a structure of which the John Lewis Group and the Co-operative Group are the best examples. As we see the bastions of capitalism crashing around us, surely this is a moment for the Government to give the lead in the creation of a new model of ownership of a business, and the Royal Mail is the best example of where that could happen. As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, and I have said, we wish to bring forward significant amendments in Committee to reflect the principles that we have both articulated. I fear that whatever sympathy we might have with the noble Lord, Lord Clarke of Hampstead, we cannot possibly support him; were his amendment to be put to a vote and carried, we would not have a Committee stage at which we could bring forward the amendments that we wish. It is not for me to make the intellectual argument against him; I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Mandelson—his noble friend—will do it better than I could. We cannot support the amendment for that reason. The noble Lord, Lord Clarke, spoke with worthy nostalgia of the past of the Post Office and Royal Mail. If there really is no problem with the Royal Mail, can he explain why the extensive lobbying which we have all received from the CWU and related organisations came in the form not of letters but of e-mails? I should have thought that that fact demonstrates a problem with the Royal Mail which the Government need to address. I look forward to Committee, where we will endeavour to enshrine in legislation the five principles that I have articulated. In that way, we will get a Bill which can preserve the future of the Post Office and Royal Mail.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
708 c1079-80 
Session
2008-09
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Competition Communication Digital technology Industrial relations Finance Private sector Privatisation Pensions Partnerships Pension funds Postal services Ofcom Public private partnerships Modernisation Standards Regulation Trade unions Royal Mail Reorganisation Universal service obligation TNT Automation Postal Services Sector Review
Legislation
Postal Services Bill (HL) 2008-09
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk