Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Hoyle (Labour) in the House of Lords on Monday, 14 March 2011. It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL) and Debate on bill on Postal Services Bill.


Postal Services Bill

I pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Clarke of Hampstead. No one else has more knowledge of the Royal Mail and the postal service than him, as he displayed. He may have gone wide of the amendment—he was right to do so—in exposing the history that has led us to this sorry state of affairs. Indeed, he will recall that I was one who supported him and warned of the dangers of going down the road of selling up to 49 per cent—I asked why it would remain there. Turning to the amendment, I agree that we need to know more about what will happen to the universal postal service. Will it be maintained and in what form will it be maintained? It would be quite easy to destroy the universal service by pricing it out of the market, which is one thing I am afraid could happen as a result of the Bill. Perhaps the Minister could reassure us both on whether the universal service will continue and on whether it will still remain attractive to users of the service, which is equally important. We have had two points of view: one from the person who has been in the service and the other from the person using the service. Perhaps the Minister could provide some clarity. What provision is being made, will the universal serviced be maintained and will it be prohibitive to use? If it is prohibitive, it will be destroyed. My noble friend was also right to ask how far the modernisation programme will have gone and how much will have been spent on it. It is a pity that we are where we are because there is agreement between the Royal Mail and all the unions on the need to achieve modernisation; they want it carried forward and the money is available to do it. We need these kinds of assurances. We also need to know what progress has been made towards modernisation and what has developed in the relationship between the present Royal Mail and the unions in achieving that. It is usual to ask such questions and I know that the Minister has tried to provide us with the answers. I hope she will be forthcoming in this regard. It is not only those who have been involved in the Royal Mail as currently constituted but those who use the service who are asking questions, and they need reassurance. I look forward to the Minister's reply.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
726 c51-2 
Session
2010-12
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Disability Conditions of employment Assets Industrial relations Investment Private sector Northern Ireland Privatisation Property transfer Older people Staff Post offices Postal services Ofcom Post Office Scotland Small businesses Shares Trade unions Wales Rural areas Royal Mail Universal service obligation Parcelforce
Legislation
Postal Services Bill 2010-12
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk