---

Postal Services Bill [HL]

My noble friend has said most of the things that should be said in relation to the very important amendments he has put forward. He is certainly right to say that the Royal Mail can provide a universal service. In fact, the Hooper report agonises about this and hopes that possibly in the future others may come forward who might provide that. As he rightly said, as regards TNT I think that liberalisation in the Netherlands occurred only in March. It is already squealing before the competition has taken effect. Already it is facing difficulties in its own country, so it is very far from being in a position to provide a universal service here, and of course, it prefers the part privatisation that has been put forward, and that we are bitterly opposed to, in this Bill. Deutsche Post, far from being in the black, is now in the red. It is in difficulties as well. Therefore, I think my noble friend is quite right to start off by saying that only Royal Mail could possibly, in the foreseeable future anyway, provide the universal service that is desired and is the core of the Bill, and what Ofcom should be doing. That is quite different from Postcomm, which seems to regard its mission as being about competition rather than provision of a universal service. My noble friend again is quite right when he talks about the sham called consultation that took place when post offices were closed in the past. He is right to say that it has been asserted—I notice that my noble friend is back with us again—that there will be no more post office closures. That is very welcome news. However, I think it is right that we spell out in these amendments what the provisions are likely to be and what should be taken into account when we are considering these things. It is quite right to say that the local authorities’ alarm at the development that was taking place, the lack of consultation that occurred in the past and the importance that they apply to the universal postal services is extremely desirable. That again is spelt out in the report. The amendment provides the conditions that Ofcom may consider appropriate and require information about. It is quite right to mention that environmental matters come into the equation when we are considering this. Looking at other points, of course consultation should be taken up with the employees of a universal service provider as well. At the end of the day, they deliver the universal service. We must never forget that and we should keep repeating it. It is important, and their views have certainly not been taken into account in the past. The next paragraph, "social and community issues", is, again, extremely sensible. Of course, if anything is going to affect the provision of the universal service, whether it is a post office closure or the service itself, it is important to the people in that area, to their social condition and to the community as a whole. It is important that we consider that. The noble Lord includes, in addition, ""information concerning the policies of the universal service provider and the effect"." Of course we are talking about the effects, and going through all of them to ensure that the people most affected, those who are absolutely dependent on that service, have all of these issues taken into account. What my noble friend has put in is important. In considering the United Kingdom, debates should not only occur here, but provision should be made for them to take place in the Greater London Authority—very important indeed—and especially the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Welsh Assembly and, of course, the Scottish Parliament. The issues affect their communities, and it would be wrong if it was not possible that they should—