Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Young of Norwood Green (Labour) in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 8 March 2011. It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL) and Debate on bill on Postal Services Bill.


Postal Services Bill

My Lords, I have obviously reflected on the range of answers and it is no surprise that I do not agree with all the analyses. What is past is past but perhaps there will be a new dawn, to paraphrase the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. I agree with my noble friend Lord Hoyle that the amendment is justified. I was confused by the contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer. I was not sure whether or not she was supporting the amendment but, at the end, I gathered not because she tended to concur with the noble Lord, Lord Jones, that, apparently, no one is going to do anything at all and they are going to wait until 20 December, or whenever it is. I find that unlikely. As regards the contributions of the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, and my noble friend Lord Borrie, I quite like the idea of the Bill being drafted by committee. It would take a long time and I doubt whether it would be any more elegant or inelegant than it is currently. From my experience of dealing with parliamentary draftsmen, it is a painful and tortuous process to sort out what is required or what they tell you is required. I wish the Minister the best of luck in sorting out that particular problem. I agree with my noble friend Lord Christopher; I am sure the Government will be involved in the sale. The Minister pointed out the possibilities and I cannot conceive of a situation where the Government will hand this over lock, stock and barrel to Royal Mail. She did not answer the question posed by my noble friend Lord Christopher about whether it could be sold to a hedge fund or a sovereign wealth fund and the dangers of asset-strippers. I made clear at the outset that this is not intended to be a wrecking amendment; that is why it refers to 31 December 2012. As to whether the situation is much worse, it is challenging but, in one respect, it is better because we have an agreement on Royal Mail transformation with the union and modernisation is going ahead, which is a profound step forward. I will not say that mistakes were not made but there is now a good foundation and a good relationship between management and the union, which is fundamentally important to long-term success. As to the deadline giving buyers the advantage, that depends on whether you believe that everyone will wait until the end. I find that unlikely. We will obviously reflect on what has been said by the Minister. However, we would ask her to reflect on whether or not there should be any timescale at all in relation to the projected sale. Nevertheless, in the light of the debate, I will withdraw the amendment. Amendment 1 withdrawn. Clause 1 agreed. Amendment 2 Moved by


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
725 c1532-3 
Session
2010-12
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Industrial relations Finance Investment Privatisation Workplace pensions Parliamentary scrutiny Staff Pension funds Profit sharing Postal services Post Office Modernisation Shares Reform Shareholders Royal Mail Sunset clauses
Legislation
Postal Services Bill 2010-12
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk