| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Mandelson: I fail to understand quite what the hon. Gentleman's point is. Of course we are setting the Post Office free--that is the point of my statement--but we are not simply giving it freedom to go on a spending spree, regardless of whether there is any commercial justification for the investment, strategic alliances and joint ventures that it wishes to undertake. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman should suggest, as he seems to, that we might act in that way.
As for what the hon. Gentleman said about "drip-feeding" £100 million into the Post Office coffers, I do not recall making any such comment.
Mr. John McWilliam (Blaydon):
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement. Does he agree that this is the most fundamental change--maintaining public
Will my right hon. Friend accept the relief of my rural constituents, who now know that universal service will still apply, and that they will still be able to receive their mail? Will he also accept the relief of employeesat Blaydon district sorting office who have been campaigning with me, and trying to secure a statement so that they can start planning for the future? May I thank my right hon. Friend on their behalf?
Mr. Mandelson:
I am grateful for my hon. Friend's comments. I think that people throughout the country, not just the Post Office work force--although they are important; there are many of them, whose commitment to the Post Office I acknowledge and commend--but consumers and customers, will be relieved that at long last we are providing some stability and confidence, on the basis of which the Post Office can expand properly and successfully in the future.
My hon. Friend is right to say that, at this stage of the Post Office's development, it would not have been appropriate or desirable either to go for new-fangled privatisation, or to continue with old-style nationalisation. I have every confidence that, were he alive and listening to the statement, my late grandfather, who was famous for being a great moderniser in his time, would recognise that nationalisation has to move on. It has to move on not to privatisation, but to commercialisation. That is what he would applaud, and I am pleased to have the opportunity and privilege of announcing that on behalf of the Government.
Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst):
Will the Secretary of State confirm that what he is really talking about is a publicly owned business with extended borrowing powers, powers to acquire other businesses and powers to engage in competitive, if not predatory, pricing? What does he have to say, therefore, to privately owned competitors of that business, which will thus be able to operate in a favourable environment, but can never go bust if it makes lousy decisions on investment and rotten decisions on predatory pricing? What does he have to say to the private sector?
Mr. Mandelson:
What I say to the private sector, which I am sure will welcome this development--[Hon. Members: "No."] Well, I have not heard any comments, but no doubt some in various corners of the universe will be eked out if Conservative central office is doing its job this afternoon.
What the private sector will say is that it strongly welcomes the establishment of a tough regulator, among whose duties will be the need and obligation to ensure fair competition. That is the regulator's job. The regulator will be accountable, through me, to Parliament for that job. The right hon. Gentleman should keep his powder dry and give the new arrangements and regulator a chance
to work in the interests of the Post Office and of the country as a whole, before trying to shoot them down in flames.
Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North):
Is it not true that the reason why privatisation was not carried out in the previous Parliament, when there was a Tory Government, is that some Tory MPs from rural areas made it clear that they would not vote for privatisation because of intense constituency pressure? Does my right hon. Friend accept that there is no public support whatever for the Post Office to be privatised, and that it is unfortunate that the Tories do not recognise that?
Mr. Mandelson:
I can barely add to my hon. Friend's eloquence. He is absolutely right. To be honest, as a result of hearing what Conservative Members have said, I am none the wiser about the official policy of the Conservative party on the Post Office, but no doubt that will emerge in time as the coming leadership contest hots up.
Mr. John Greenway (Ryedale):
In the Post Office Counters business plan, which underlies the Secretary of State's statement, how many rural sub-post offices are expected to close under the arrangement? Is it not a bit rich to keep on blaming privatisation for post office closures, when the existing arrangements are seeing more sub-post offices in rural areas closed week after week?
Mr. Mandelson:
What policies does the hon. Gentleman support? I have already made it clear that the Government and the Post Office board remain committed to maintaining the nationwide network in all parts of the country. Does he support the policies of the Government or does he support the views of some, or all--who knows?--of his right hon. and hon. Friends, who want to privatise the network, which would lead to its effective and speedy collapse?
Of course, there is no arbitrary figure that either I or the Post Office board wish to pluck out of the air. What concerns people is access to services, not the number of post offices, but let me make it absolutely clear that that network is going to be maintained. It is going to be maintained in all parts of the country. As technology changes, and as people gain access to postal services without coming face to face with their postmaster or mistress, that will extend the opportunities and services to which ordinary people have access.
Mr. Jim Cousins (Newcastle upon Tyne, Central):
May I give a very hearty welcome to Postman Pete? If my right hon. Friend's grandfather had heard his statement today, I am sure that he would have repeated his remark that socialism is what a Labour Government have done.
May I urge my right hon. Friend to make his priority not the introduction of private capital into Post Office services but the creation of a partnership between the Post Office and private sector interests, so that the Post Office Counters network--our wonderful, priceless national asset that reaches every community regardless of how remote or geographically or socially excluded it may be--can be used as a platform for provision of a whole new range of financial transactions and services? Will he make that his priority?
Mr. Mandelson:
I am very happy to give a ready "yes" to my hon. Friend's question. The Post Office itself wants
Mr. Michael Jack (Fylde):
Will the Secretary of State explain, first, why there was nothing in his statement--on a business that is very much a people business--about enabling individual postmen and women to develop a financial stake in their own businesses, to becomereal stakeholders? Secondly--having given another £135 million a year to the Post Office--will he explain what he believes is the real investment deficit? Thirdly, will he explain whether, under the new arrangements, the revised Post Office will be able to invest in enterprises providing communication services that it currently does not provide?
Mr. Mandelson:
No, I shall not give the right hon. Gentleman an estimate of the investment deficit. As a member of the previous Government, he would know more than many of his colleagues about the Post Office's investment deficit. It is not for Ministers to determine the Post Office's investment needs; that is for the Post Office board. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman understands the nature of the new relationship and new approach that the Government are taking to the Post Office. Perhaps, in the quiet of his room, he would like to re-read my statement, as he would then understand it even better.
I should be very sympathetic to any suggestions that the Post Office board would like to make on a financial stake for the Post Office work force in the Post Office's future. There are a number of very good possibilities and excellent options for ways in which we can continue Post Office restructuring and its progress, and that is certainly an option that I should like to consider very carefully indeed.
Ms Jackie Lawrence (Preseli Pembrokeshire):
May I congratulate the Minister on listening to both the British public and the Post Office before formulating today's statement? The British public clearly want the Post Office to remain in public ownership, and the Post Office itself wants commercial freedom to secure its future. Does he agree that evidence from a private poll conducted in July 1998 by BPRI--which shows that 60 per cent. of Conservative Members supported the idea of an independent, publicly owned corporation--demonstrates that Opposition Front Benchers are out of touch not only with the needs of the British public but with the majority of their own Back Benchers?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |