Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Hunt of Wirral (Conservative) in the House of Lords on Monday, 11 May 2009. It occurred during Debate on bill on Postal Services Bill [HL].


Postal Services Bill [HL]

My Lords, I make no apology for returning to this issue at this stage. We have strong feelings about the need for regulations under subsection (5) to be made only by affirmative resolution. The Secretary of State will be aware that I raised similar points in Committee and I hope that he and his colleagues will be more sympathetic. As I understand the position, we are in complete agreement that there is no intention, no desire, to introduce a levy. The Secretary of State’s colleague, the Minister, made much of the safeguards currently in the Bill to prevent the imposition of this condition and I am glad to see them there. I also understand that there is a precedent of a charge being in the Communications Act and that there is no requirement for parliamentary involvement there. I am aware of that background. However, I do not agree with the Government’s present position that the requirement for an affirmative resolution would be an "unwise and unnecessary check on Ofcom". The very stringency of the safeguards that are already in place essentially means that the levy would never be imposed at short notice. This rather undermines the Government’s argument that an affirmative resolution would add an unbearable delay on what needs to be a speedy process. I do not accept that argument given that I cannot believe for one moment that it would suddenly happen. I certainly hope it would not. I repeat the argument I made in Committee, that if it is discovered that the Royal Mail is unable to provide the UPS at a profit even after the steps we are taking in the Bill, that will indicate a tremendous failure of policy. It will be not only an indication of a declining sector or changing public opinion on what should constitute the UPS but a sign that what we are being asked to approve in the Bill—namely, taking on billions of pounds of pension liability and selling 30 per cent of a public body—is just not enough. There ought to be an opportunity to debate such a situation. We cannot stand idly by and allow such a move to be made without Parliament having an opportunity to discuss and approve it. I think that if there were to be a levy Parliament must be involved. I hope that this time the Secretary of State will feel able to accept my amendment. I know from previous debates on such issues that we in this House feel particularly strongly that Parliament should be involved in debating and discussing such a decision by affirmative resolution. I beg to move.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
710 c906 
Session
2008-09
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Consumers Companies Directors Annual reports Finance Government shareholding Protection Pensions Post offices Prices Postal services Ofcom Post Office Regulation Taxation Royal Mail Reorganisation Universal service obligation Shared ownership schemes TNT Employee ownership
Legislation
Postal Services Bill (HL) 2008-09
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk