Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Razzall (Liberal Democrat) 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

My Lords, I do not want to intrude in the debate on this amendment, but unfortunately the noble Lords, Lord Touhig and Lord Low of Dalston, were not in their places when I made this point earlier. If we are to preserve the reputation of this House for knowing the facts and having expertise, we really must not say things that are not true. As I said earlier, the issue of the Royal Mail is not about whether it can deliver to rural Wales or rural Scotland. As I said earlier, it is more expensive for the Royal Mail to deliver to Norwood Green or Hampstead than to maintain the service to the Orkneys and Shetland. If we are to debate this issue, the concern should not be about whether or not the universal service can be maintained to outer Wales or northern Scotland. It is about whether we can maintain it to Hampstead or Norwood Green. If we are to debate this issue, we should not fall into the trap of thinking that this is about how we preserve the service to the outer islands or parts of the UK. All the other issues that noble Lords have raised are worthy of debate, but if we are to be the serious House that knows the facts, we should take that on board.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
726 c113-4 
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