| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
The Minister for Welfare Reform (Mr. Frank Field): My hon. Friend may find it helpful if I draw attention to the fact that, although usually in an Adjournment debate only the hon. Member initiating it
and the Minister who will reply are present, there are 10 of us here with an interest in this matter. Royal Mail might like to take that into account.
Maria Eagle: I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention.
Mr. Field: I am told that I cannot count.
Maria Eagle: My hon. Friend certainly counts. I had not noticed how many of my hon. Friends were behind me, but I notice that not many Opposition Members are here.
I have some questions for the Minister. Is he happy that Royal Mail is assessing the Speke option fairly, fully, and against consistent and rigorous criteria? If necessary, will he intervene to ensure that the Royal Mail decision is soundly based? What does he make of the fact that Royal Mail has been unable properly to assess net present values, and, in view of PA's findings, is he sure that the rest of Royal Mail's analysis is robust enough to be implemented?
As Royal Mail is using public resources for major investment, is the Minister confident that its decisions are based on proper business planning and financial competence? I understand that Royal Mail originally ruled out the Speke site without even visiting it. When does he expect Royal Mail to make a decision in respect of the Speke-Garston option? Is he content that, on the day that the union presented the PA report to Royal Mail, it called for final bids from seven tenderers to build the mail centre at Warrington that it had originally planned? Does that show that Royal Mail has made up its mind, and has no intention of changing its plans?
Although I accept that Royal Mail will not enter into binding contractual arrangements in respect of Warrington before returning to the union, does the Minister think that it is sensible for Royal Mail to expect its tenderers to go to the expense of submitting final bids for a particular site before a decision has been made to build the mail centre there? On the basis of his knowledge and the PA report, does he think that option A, which is to build a mail centre at Speke-Garston, should be followed?
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Mr. Ian McCartney):
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle) on securing this debate on postal services in Liverpool. I should like to declare an interest. I am married to an Evertonian, and my wife's family all live and work in Liverpool. They are probably more interested in how I respond to the debate than are my hon. Friends. I shall pick carefully through the issues that have been raised, because I am keen to maintain a safe and enjoyable family weekend for the first time in many months.
When I have time to do so, I should be more than happy to visit the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Garston. I have already visited her constituency on at least two occasions since becoming a Minister, and I look
forward to visiting it again. As my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara) said, I was there on the day that the massive new investment at Halewood was announced. I hope that I have time in my reply to give the House details of other investments that have been made and to advise my hon. Friend the Member for Garston of other investments that will be made, with the Government's support, in Merseyside.
My hon. Friend the Member for Garston, the Minister for Welfare Reform, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), and my hon. Friends the Members for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman), for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) and for Liverpool, Wavertree (Jane Kennedy) have discussed those matters with me, and I acknowledge the close interest that they have had in the subject since last June. They have maintained--with the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth), the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) and my hon. Friends the Members for Knowsley, South and for St. Helens, North (Mr. Watts), and with Liverpool city council and the Communication Workers Union--their involvement in the matter, and have assiduously raised their concerns with me and my Department.
Before responding to the issues of postal services in Liverpool that have been raised in this debate, it is important that the House should understand the matter's broader context. Postal services at both national and local level--in the form of letters delivered to the door or services provided through the nationwide network of post offices--are an important element, on either a personal or a business level, in everyone's daily life.
It is therefore only natural that plans for change might cause concern. When those plans centre on proposals for major investment in automation and introduction of new technology, there is understandable concern, as in Liverpool, about the loss of local employment, local identity and the quality of service that is so closely tied to local postmen or postwomen.
My Department has had discussions with the Post Office on Royal Mail's proposals because of such concerns. Last summer, I met the CWU and Liverpool Members, to hear their views and to discuss their concerns.
At my insistence, Royal Mail subsequently opened discussions on its strategic investment programme with the CWU, and offered to provide the CWU with data on its preferred north Wales and north-west scheme, and with data on other options that it had considered but had rejected on operational and financial grounds. Royal Mail agreed also not to make irrevocable purchase commitments for new sites, and to consider any alternative proposal made by the union within three months. At the union's request, the Post Office subsequently extended the time limit to four months.
Royal Mail's primary duty is to develop and maintain an efficient and competitive postal system on both a national and a regional level. Its overall investment programme is designed further to improve its standards of service, which are already among the highest in the world. That programme accords also with a policy advocated, for example, by the Communication Workers Union in a
consultative document that it issued last autumn, which calls for a substantial increase in the Post Office's capital investment programme.
Royal Mail's planned £64 million investment in the north Wales and north-west region, which was announced last June, is part of its national programme of progressively developing a network of automated processing centres and distribution centres. Those are equipped with the new technology necessary to handle more speedily and accurately the increasing volumes of mail, to improve the quality of service for customers and to maintain its competitive position in the communications market.
An efficient and modern postal infrastructure is obviously very important in attracting new investment and jobs to the north-west and in maximising the potential of the major regeneration projects that are now under way in the region. Unfortunately, Royal Mail's proposals will lead to a net loss of 400 full-time equivalent jobs in the region--comprising 800 from Liverpool and 300 from the Bolton area--which is offset by about 700 jobs at new automated processing centre and regional distribution centre sites.
Royal Mail envisages that a substantial number of Liverpool staff would transfer jobs if a site were eventually agreed at Warrington.
Mrs. Ellman:
Does my hon. Friend accept that, given the economic and social circumstances in Liverpool, it will be very difficult for Liverpool workers to travel to Warrington? This is because there is a far lower than average level of car ownership in Liverpool, many jobs are part-time, and the shift times, particularly for women, mean that it would be extremely difficult for the distances involved to be overcome.
Mr. McCartney:
I recognise my hon. Friend's argument. Indeed, it has been put to me many times and was deployed as part of the socio-economic case for the site to be in Speke-Garston instead of Warrington. Over the next few days, many people will no doubt put it again to the Post Office to illustrate what impact the people of Liverpool believe a decision to locate the operation at Warrington will have. I have previously assured my hon. Friend the Member for Garston, and did so again today, that the points she has made in relation to the potential cost of relocation have been delivered with some force to the Post Office.
I said at the outset that there have been recent successes in attracting new jobs to Merseyside. In addition to the new Jaguar X400 line at Halewood, there will be 250 jobs at QVC at Knowsley, and a £40 million investment by Medeva is expected to create 100 new jobs in the important pharmaceutical and drugs industry, which has also received substantial additional investment from Glaxo and Eli Lilley.
The north-west as a whole is now the top UK region for attracting call centres, which is a rapidly growing sector. Of course, a few years ago, Merseyside won additional postal jobs, from my constituency and other parts of the north-west, in the restructuring of Parcelforce operations.
My hon. Friend the Member for Garston has highlighted the substantial level of Government funding being injected into Liverpool in recognition of its
objective 1 and employment zone status. This is part of my work at the Department, and we have made substantial efforts to ensure that our strategy in relation to objective 1 status and the attraction of inward investment has been successful since we came into office. I believe that we will continue to be successful in attracting new investment and job opportunities to Merseyside, including Liverpool.
While the proposals clearly have negative features in employment terms for Liverpool, and also for the Lostock and Westhoughton areas of Bolton, it is important to recognise the scale of Royal Mail's long-term commitment to the north-west and north Wales region, whatever the final decision may be. What is clear is that, without any major investment in automation to maintain Royal Mail's competitive position, regionally and nationally, there would over time be a progressively much greater loss of postal jobs in the region than is currently envisaged.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |