House of Commons Hansard Debates for 3 Jul 1997 (pt 5)

Post Office

20. Dr. Tony Wright: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will review the legal immunities of the Post Office. [5224]

3 Jul 1997 : Column 414

Mr. Ian McCartney: The Post Office's immunity from contractual liability was granted by Parliament in the Post Office Act 1969. We have no plans to review the position.

Dr. Wright: I am grateful for that answer, but what would the Minister say to a constituent of mine who believes that his small business was eased out of existence by an error of delivery by the Post Office? He managed to get from the Post Office an acknowledgement of its error, but the Post Office refused to go to arbitration and shelters behind its immunities. Surely, in an age when we pay attention to consumers and users of services, we have to re-examine the immunities enjoyed by the Post Office. Will the Minister agree to do that?

Mr. McCartney: No. I made it absolutely clear that there is to be no review of that point. Seventy-two million items are handled per day, there is unrestricted access to 100,000 pillar boxes and there are 19,000 post offices, but only a tiny fraction of the mail posted is claimed not to be delivered. I believe that my hon. Friend wrote to me about the case that he has just cited, and I sent him a detailed report. If this is not the same case, I ask him to send me further details, and I shall consider any new points.

Mr. Leigh: Given that the sale of the Post Office would raise at least as much as the Chancellor gave to schools and hospitals yesterday, and given that the sale would relieve the public of some of the traditional immunities that militate against their interests, what is the point of principle that decrees that the ultimate monopoly, water, should be privatised under a Labour Government and should be operating successfully and taxed, but that the Post Office should not be privatised and the Government will not even consider the concept?

Mr. McCartney: First, the hon. Gentleman was a Minister, but he could not even persuade other Conservative Members about this particular privatisation. Secondly, we have just had a general election in which the Conservative party stood on a platform of privatisation and had its worst defeat in history, and rightly so. We are proud of the fact that the Post Office will remain a publicly owned body providing public services. The review that is taking place is about enhancing the public role of the Post Office, not about privatisation.

Post Office

22. Mr. Pickthall: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement on her Department's policy towards improving the competitiveness of the Post Office. [5226]

Mr. Ian McCartney: Do you think I might have a little rest, Madam Speaker? I have been up and down, up and down. [Interruption.] Bring back Ken--at least he is funny.

Our policy is to ensure that the Post Office continues to provide a comprehensive and efficient range of postal services that meet customers' needs, represent good value for money and achieve a high quality of service standards.

3 Jul 1997 : Column 415

Mr. Pickthall: When my hon. Friend discusses modernisation and competitiveness with the Post Office, will he impress on it the need to do something about some of its appalling employment practices, which, among other problems, are holding back its modernisation and increased competitiveness?

Mr. McCartney: The Government want to ensure good employment relationships in the Post Office--such relationships have not existed in the recent past. That needs to be changed. The Post Office needs co-operation and partnership. Trade unions must realise that management has to manage, but on a co-operative basis. The necessary changes to ensure that the Post Office remains at the cutting edge of international competition will require employers and employees at the Post Office to come together with a common approach and a common objective. When that is achieved, there will be security of employment for postal workers and the decisions on the future of the Post Office will be made on the basis of co-operation, not division.

Mr. Lansley: Will the Minister give an undertaking that there will be no cross-subsidisation between the protected services of the Post Office and those areas in which it has greater commercial freedom? Is it the Government's intention not to increase the Post Office's negative external financing limit beyond 50 per cent. of its profits?

Mr. McCartney: The purpose of the review is to examine those issues. When we have done so, we shall make a statement to the House.

Dr. Iddon: Is my hon. Friend aware that a modern and expandable postal sorting office at Wingates in Bolton is due for closure, affecting 400 jobs--many belonging to my constituents? Is he aware that that decision came out of the blue for the work force? Is he able to put pressure on the Post Office Royal Mail management to set up better lines of communication with the work force?

Mr. McCartney: I think that my hon. Friend knows that I am aware of that, because I was at the meeting when we discussed the issue. I gave a commitment to Members of Parliament from the north-west and wrote to all hon. Members from the area, from all parties, a detailed note about the proposed changes to the north-west's postal arrangements and investment plans. I have made it clear to them that I am available to consider and discuss with them matters pertaining to or impacting on their constituencies. I cannot be more fair and open than that.

Imported Toys (Safety)

24. Mr. Paice: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what actions she is taking to improve the safety of imported toys. [5228]

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: The safety of all toys is controlled by the Toys (Safety) Regulations 1995, which set comprehensive safety standards. Trading standards officers have the necessary powers to take appropriate action if they consider a toy to be unsafe.

3 Jul 1997 : Column 416

Mr. Paice: I thank the Minister for that response, which confirms the written answer that he gave me earlier this week.

Mr. Griffiths: That is helpful.

Mr. Paice: It is indeed helpful, and somewhat surprising. Does the Minister recall that, earlier this year, when he was on the Opposition Benches, he issued a press release condemning the standards of imported toys and calling for radical changes? Why does he say something different in government from what he said in opposition?

Mr. Griffiths: Because the first people I had into the Department of Trade and Industry after I became a Minister were representatives of trading standards officers. We sat down with the Local Authorities Co-ordinating Body on Trading Standards, which has agreed on the powers that it needs to take action. We have backed up what we wanted in opposition by what we are doing in government. Conservative Members will be interested to hear that I have also had dialogue at the Department with representatives of the leading retailers--the four major supermarkets--who told me that they had never been in the Department before because they were never invited by that lot over there.

Mr. Pike: Is it not a fact that, this Christmas, parents will welcome the steps that have been taken to reduce the risk of dangerous toys being imported? Year after year, hon. Members have had complaints from parents about the danger posed by those toys.

Mr. Griffiths: Absolutely. As my hon. Friend knows, I have worked closely with British toy and hobby manufacturers and other British manufacturers and importers. I intend to issue advice to consumers on buying appropriate and safe toys in time for the Christmas toy-buying season this year.

Car Industry

25. Mr. Prior: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement on the United Kingdom car industry. [5229]

Mr. Battle: From 1995 to 1996, UK car manufacturers' output increased by 10 per cent to 1.7 million, although overcapacity throughout the European industry remains a matter of concern. There has been some increase in exports which is welcome.

Mr. Prior: Why have we in the United Kingdom attracted so much foreign inward investment over the past 19 years?

Mr. Battle: On 12 June this year, Ford met the Prime Minister and announced investment here which was welcomed by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. There will be investment of £40 million. Investment is coming into this country, Britain is a highly competitive location and the skills, hard work and dedication of the work force have attracted the investment they deserve.

3 Jul 1997 : Column 417