Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Baroness Wilcox (Conservative) in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 16 March 2011. It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL) and Debate on bill on Postal Services Bill.


Postal Services Bill

Yes. We know that businesses value the post office network. According to research by the Federation of Small Businesses, almost 20 per cent of small businesses visit the post office every day and nearly half visit twice a week. So I share the concern and I agree with the intention of the amendment. But, as was pointed out by my colleague the Minister for Postal Affairs in the other place, Clause 11 already encompasses what I think noble Lords want it to cover. First, we should be clear that there is no universally recognised definition of what constitutes a small or medium-sized business. In the United States, the term ““small businesses”” generally refers to businesses with fewer than 100 employees, while ““medium businesses”” refers to those with fewer than 500 employees. In the United Kingdom, SME statistics define a small business as one with 10 to 49 employees and a medium business as one with 50 to 250. If we are going to be very technical here, and one can often be very technical when it comes to legislation, it could even be argued that since the UK SME statistics define a ““small business”” as a business with between 10 and 49 employees and a ““micro business”” as one with between one and nine employees, both micro businesses and sole traders could be excluded from the definition in Clause 11(3), but that is not the Government’s intention. After all, 95 per cent of SMEs have fewer than 10 employees and we know that post offices play a particularly valuable role for this group. We therefore intend the term ““small business”” here to include all businesses with fewer than 250 employees in line with the broader UK statistical definition of an SME. I am quite happy to make that commitment to your Lordships, and of course if the Secretary of State was not satisfied that the Post Office was providing broad enough information to meet this requirement, he could direct the Post Office under the powers of Clause 11(4) to provide any additional information he felt necessary. I do hope that this clarification will reassure the noble Lords, and I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Young, to withdraw his amendment.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
726 c337-8 
Session
2010-12
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Access Disadvantaged Assets Bank services Closures Banks Credit unions Cooperatives Industrial democracy Privatisation Opening hours Post offices Profit sharing Postal services Post Office Small businesses Rural areas Royal Mail Universal service obligation
Legislation
Postal Services Bill 2010-12
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk