Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord O'Neill of Clackmannan (Labour) in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 24 March 2009. It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL) and Debate on bill on Postal Services Bill [HL].


Postal Services Bill [HL]

At Second Reading I made some points that address some of these issues. This group of amendments recognises the need for investment, but it begs the question of who would lend money to the Royal Mail as it is presently being run. Would it be enough money to secure the investment and working capital that this organisation requires to keep its pension fund in good nick, and buy the equipment that it requires to take the drudgery out of much of the work required by the delivery part of the job? Would anybody be sufficiently confident that the existing multilayered system of management could introduce the kind of capital investment that we all recognise is required? None of the supporters of the amendment has addressed those questions. I understand this business of the Crown in its entirety. It is quite simply a wrecking amendment. Its objective is to do away with the Government’s part privatisation of the Post Office. It is a legitimate weapon of those who do not agree with the principle. But I wonder whether it is doing more than that. Maybe one of the supporters of the amendment could answer that along with the other questions that I put. Does it preclude the possibility of the Royal Mail entering into joint ventures with the mail services of other countries? Does it mean that the ability of the Royal Mail to think outside of the British box, as it were, would be a problem here? Would that be precluded as a possibility? At present, the money is not available for Royal Mail to enter into joint ventures. I doubt whether the borrowing capability would have to be exercised, because there would not be many people prepared to lend the money. Certainly, if they were prepared to lend it, I am not sure on what time basis it would be made or what interest rates would be charged. If it were to be some kind of bond, these things would have to take place fairly quickly. I do not envisage the Government putting up the £1 billion. They would have to go to the private sector, which would not give the money. At the end of the day, apart from the fact that the entirety amendment is a wrecking amendment, the other ones are just a waste of time because there will not be anybody there to lend the money. Therefore, there is no need to have that borrowing capability. There is not sufficient confidence in the existing or proposed management of Royal Mail to carry through the necessary changes that would facilitate the implementation of the investment programme that the Royal Mail so desperately requires.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
709 c596-7 
Session
2008-09
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Conditions of employment Directors Bank services Industrial relations Finance Governing bodies Income Government assistance Government shareholding Private sector Public appointments Property transfer Public consultation Staff Post offices Postal services Ofcom Post Office Stocks and shares Royal Mail Reorganisation Postal Services Sector Review Employee ownership
Legislation
Postal Services Bill (HL) 2008-09
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk